kurtster wrote: 
There is some noise being made about temporarily appointing retired Justices to serve in such instances. Makes sense to me.

At least she had the decency to recuse herself. In Texas, judges have no compunction ruling on cases in which they have vested financial interest. Course, we elect them too, so we get what we deserve, huh?

Oh goody, the SCOTUS has started its fall session today.

BHO's wisdom shines through once again as his latest appointment, Justice Kagan has already agreed to recuse herself on 25 of the so far 53 cases on the dockett.  The potential for 4 - 4 ties now exists, with no ruling letting the lower court's opinion stand.

Why appoint someone who cannot fully participate ?  This was bought up during her confirmation, yet it went through anyway.  Is this a new way to stack the court ?

Perhaps it was in anticipation of an unusually heavy case load of States challenging the Federal Government such as Arizona HB 1070 and Obamacare.  HB 1070 goes through the most decidedly liberal 9th Circuit and a ruling against Arizona in the 9th could end up standing due to a tie.  Perhaps the same outcome on the challenges to Obamacare.

This country has been robbed once again of due process by default and poor judgement.  But that's only my opinion.

 mzpro5 wrote: 
Mayor Daley prolly popped a blood vessel with this one.

 Zep wrote: 

US Supreme Court limits gun control by states

Supreme Court rejects Vatican appeal in sex abuse case

US Supreme Court Won't Consider Long-Running Tobacco Case

Court rules against inventors in patent case

Lots happening with the Supreme Court today...

Justice Stevens' last appearance on the bench.

Current term ends with four major rulings.

The Second Amendment is incorporated to the states. (McDonald v. Chicago) Likely to stand as a landmark ruling.

Elena Kagan hearings begin.

Husband of Justice Ginsberg, Marty Ginsberg, passes.

Supreme Court's Majority Sides With U.S. Chamber Of Commerce In Over 2/3 Of Cases

 hippiechick wrote: 
From the article text:
 
The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.
 
"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said. 
 
I would think this could hold true for the school district as well, being that we're talking about the law, over-and-above things at school district level.

I hope she sues the school district. This is improper behavior, almost like rape, and they should compensate her.

 Zep wrote: 
WTF?

 Zep wrote: 

Adults aged 18 to 20 do not have the right to drink; minors aged 16 and 17 can be fully licensed to drive in many states.

More... The ruling, by the way, was 8-1, with only Justice Clarence Thomas holding that it was permissible for school authorities to strip-search students.

Court says strip search of Ariz. teenager illegal

By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:58 AM

 

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

In an 8-1 ruling, the justices said school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding in the rural eastern Arizona town of Safford.

Redding, who now attends college, was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills - the equivalent of two Advils. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

"What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear," Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion. "We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable."

In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place should thought no one would look," Thomas said.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.

"We think these differences of opinion from our own are substantial enough to require immunity for the school officials in this case," Souter said.

The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the Safford United School District No. 1 could be held liable.

A schoolmate had accused Redding, then an eighth-grade student, of giving her pills.

The school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson, took Redding to his office to search her backpack. When nothing was found, Redding was taken to a nurse's office where she says she was ordered to take off her shirt and pants. Redding said they then told her to move her bra to the side and to stretch her underwear waistband, exposing her breasts and pelvic area. No pills were found.

A federal magistrate dismissed a suit by Redding and her mother, April. An appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights. But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights" and that Wilson could be found personally liable.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the portion of the ruling saying that Wilson could not be held financially liable.

"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.

The case is Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, 08-479.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

The court ruled that school officials violated the law with their search of Savana Redding, who lives in Safford in rural eastern Arizona.

 

Redding was 13 when officials at Safford Middle School in 2003 ordered her to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear because they were looking for pills. The district bans prescription and over-the-counter drugs and the school was acting on a tip from another student.

The high court, however, said the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. The justices also said the lower courts would have to determine whether the school district could be held liable.

During court arguments last April, Redding's lawyer argued to the Supreme Court that such a "intrusive and traumatic" search would be unconstitutional in every circumstance if school administrators were not directly told the contraband was in her underwear.

"A school needs to have location-specific information" to put a child through such an embarrassing search, lawyer Adam Wolf said.

Wolf said school officials violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. School officials didn't bother to search her desk or locker, or even question additional students to find out if anyone thought Redding could be hiding drugs in her underwear, he said.

"There needs to be suspicion that the object is under the clothes," Wolf said.

A 1985 Supreme Court decision that dealt with searching a student's purse has found that school officials need only reasonable suspicions, not probable cause. But the court also warned against a search that is "excessively intrusive."

Justices raised concerns at hearing
Would it be constitutional if officials were looking for weapons, or drugs like crack, meth or heroin? "Does that make a difference?" Justice Anthony Kennedy asked in April.

No, Wolf replied.

That leaves school administrators with the choice of embarrassing a child through a search or possibly having other children die while in their care, Justice David Souter said at the time. "With those stakes in mind, why isn't that reasonable?" Souter said.

A federal magistrate had earlier dismissed the lawsuit Redding and her mother April brought, and a federal appeals panel agreed that the search didn't violate her rights.

But last July, a full panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the search was "an invasion of constitutional rights."

The school's lawyer argued that the courts should not limit school officials' ability to search out what they think are dangerous items on school grounds. "We've got to be able to make decisions," lawyer Matthew Wright said.

But justices worried that allowing a strip search of school age children might lead to more intrusive searches, like body cavity searches. "There would be no legal basis in saying that was out of bounds," Souter said.

Student might become counselor
Redding, now a 19-year-old college freshman living in Safford, took her first airplane ride to watch the arguments. "It was pretty overwhelming," she said, standing before a bank of cameras and a few dozen reporters outside the building.

She said at the time that she was considering becoming a counselor, which might mean she could end up working in a school.

Asked how she would handle the situation as a counselor, she said she would call a student's parents first. "I didn't have that option," she said, outside the court. "I'm a little kid. I didn't have any idea how it would be handled. But my mom would."

 Zep wrote: 
Hence the problem, at least the way I see it.

Any time you are required to defend your actions to other people (legally, administratively, or otherwise), you are leaving things open to subjective criteria/reasoning. 

 newwavegurly wrote: 
Yes that would be one test - imminent threat to life of another.

There are no hard and fast rules - there is only what you can defend yourself to if and when you are called to account. 

 Zep wrote: 
I can understand these "protections" due to the lack of maturity, which has been clinically proven. But students who are stripped searched are being abused. Same with drug testing, since students do not have the choice of quitting school rather than participate, unlike adults.

 Zep wrote:

This is what I'm talking about... school faculty and administration are not "trained" in what those points of "probable" and "cause" are, so what would give them the right to search a student? Would they have to feel threatened? Would they have to think their life was in danger? 

I guess I'm saying that determining any hard and fast rules regarding some of this would be difficult, and making sure that the entire school district (staff, administration, and faculty) was up-to-speed on what those "precise points" are would be next to impossible. 

 hippiechick wrote: 
They aren't - they're minors, and minors do not enjoy a lot of rights.

voting, drinking, driving, contracts, sex, to name a few....

Who decided that students aren't entitled to the same rights as adults?

 newwavegurly wrote:
They've handled cases like that before.  It goes to some very fine and precise points in what can be considered "probable" and "cause." But those were in Fourth Amendment search and seizure cases, where the parties are likely to be police and suspects - ie, criminal law.  They are more likely to have training in procedure, whereas school officials do not. 

The suburban school district here, Fairfax County (and probably a lot others too) have a zero tolerance policy on prescription and over-the-counter drugs.  They contend that they cannot tell which is which, who has them legitimately and who does not, and therefore as a safety measure for all students, medications must be administered under the supervision of the school nurse.  Kids have been suspended for taking some drugs without this notification.

Is that right?  I'm not sure that it is, but it leads to policies where officials overstep their authority and begin strip searching because they are zero-tolerant.