SCOTUS rules strip search is unconstitutional, but school officials immune from accountability.
SCOTUS rules strip search is unconstitutional, but school officials immune from accountability.
In an 8-1 decision today, the Supreme Court held that school officials violated the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable searches and seizures when they strip searched a 13 year-old honor student because they falsely suspected her of bringing ibuprofen to school. Ibuprofen is the same drug used in the painkiller Advil. The Court reasoned that, because there was no evidence that a commonly used painkiller presented a danger to the student body and there was no evidence that the honor student was concealing drugs in her underwear, the school overreacted by strip searching the student. Although this decision puts school officials on notice that they cannot behave in such a manner in the future, the Court also held that the school officials in this case could not be held accountable for their actions because of a doctrine known as “qualified immunity” (which says that government officials are immune from liability when they violate the Constitution in novel ways that previously haven’t been addressed by the courts). Of the Court’s nine justices, only Clarence Thomas believed that the strip search in this case did not violate the Constitution.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I say we strip search Clarence Thomas to see if we can find a Coke can with pubic hairs on it.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:01 amOf the Court’s nine Justices, only Clarence Thomas believed that the strip search in this case did not violate the Constitution.
Not surprising for the the justice who is an authoritarian bootlicker.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:05 amAlthough this decision puts school officials on notice that they cannot behave in such a manner in the future, the Court also held that the school officials in this case could not be held accountable for their actions because of a doctrine known as “qualified immunity” (which says that government officials are immune from liability when they violate the Constitution in novel ways that previously haven’t been addressed by the courts).
Apparently, accountability is being legalistically excised from the Constitution and the law. Strip searching someone’s underaged daughter should never be in the category of “immunity.” I hope the parents pursue in civil court.
Guido the Benevolent Torturer, Take a hike.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:07 am“Qualified Immunity” What a crock of crap. This is a holdover from Bush’s reign of terror.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:07 amClarence Thomas — the SCOTUS speed bump.
*eyes rolling*
June 25th, 2009 at 11:08 amAlthough this decision puts school officials on notice that they cannot behave in such a manner in the future, the Court also held that the school officials in this case could not be held accountable for their actions because of a doctrine known as “qualified immunity” (which says that government officials are immune from liability when they violate the Constitution in novel ways that previously haven’t been addressed by the courts).
Guess that’s why Bush and Co are still roaming free …..
What a joke.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:09 amOTOH, strip searching a child because they think she’s “holding” ibuprofen is beyond the pale, and issuing “qualified immunity” is just staggering.
I hope this honors student grows up to become a kick-ass attorney.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:09 amIn this case, I don’t think it was his ideology so much as the fact that he really gets off on the idea of stripping 13 year old girls.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:09 amAmerica. The home of the free. Free to break the law and get away with it.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:10 amThe strip searched her over prescription strength Ibuprofen. Because it’s really difficult for kids to grab 4 regular Advil out of the medicine cabinet. And the the school officials are immune from liability? Oh yeah we can’t take money from the powerful to give it to the weak.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:11 amAlthough jokes abound with “strip search” and Clarence Thomas, I do have a problem with this.
Ibuprofen is a perfectly legal, OTC drug which ANYONE can buy.
If she was bringing them to school, she probably had a reason.
You know, dysmenorrhea or maybe even just cramping due to menses.
What is truly bothersome, is that they strip searched (STRIP SEARCHED!!!) a 13 year old female over a harmless anti-inflammatory.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:12 amI really would like the names of the administrators that approved this.
Because there is something seriously wrong with their decision.
This wasn’t exactly an 8 – 1 decision. That was the score on whether the search violated the 4th Amendment. Only Thomas thought strip searching a 13 year old girl to look for an over the counter pain med was reasonable. Ginsburg and Stevens dissented from the section on qualified immunity reasoning that the school officials already had guidance from prior opinions. Looks like a lot of horse trading is going on to try to minimize the number of 5 – 4 decisions.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:12 amAccountability seems to be as elusive as the rule of law in America.
Rule of thumb to remember: If you are going to commit a crime or violate someone’s rights, be sure that you work for the government so that you won’t have to face any consequences for your actions.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:12 amZooey Says:
OTOH, strip searching a child because they think she’s “holding” ibuprofen is beyond the pale, and issuing “qualified immunity” is just staggering.
Ibuprofen is a known gatekeeper drug . . . to aspirin.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:12 amFootnote to the story: The offending school officials are now happy at new jobs at the NSA.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:13 amAnother prime example of the lawlessness of a proto typical fascist failed state.
you are witnessing the warning signs of end of empire and America
June 25th, 2009 at 11:13 amHow much you want to bet that they are right-wing republicans?
June 25th, 2009 at 11:14 amAlthough this decision puts school officials on notice that they cannot behave in such a manner in the future, the Court also held that the school officials in this case could not be held accountable for their actions because of a doctrine known as “qualified immunity” (which says that government officials are immune from liability when they violate the Constitution in novel ways that previously haven’t been addressed by the courts).
The court has never ruled on pedophilia?
June 25th, 2009 at 11:15 am“Qualified immunity” (which says that government officials are immune from liability when they violate the Constitution in novel ways that previously haven’t been addressed by the courts).
Does this mean that since no administration has ever authorized torture they will get a by as well?
I bet if the parents of this minor went down to the school and drowned whoever did the strip search in caterpillars, they wouldn’t be charged with murder?
Oh wait, they aren’t the government…never mind.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:16 amHere’s the story out of McCain’s backyard…
Never send kids to school in Arizona….
June 25th, 2009 at 11:18 amAh Arizona. I told you they were Republicans.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:19 amCan’t we just impeach Thomas and get it over with? The man’s insane.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:19 amAt the very least they need to keep Thomas away from 13 year old girls.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:20 amWhy are Republicans so obsesed with stripping under age people?
June 25th, 2009 at 11:24 amOf the Court’s nine justices, only Clarence Thomas believed that the strip search in this case did not violate the Constitution.
Is Thomas a secret Mormon searching for his next wife?
June 25th, 2009 at 11:26 amI’m disturbed by the qualifier “honor student” to describe the student who was strip-searched.
Would the situation have been any less outrageous had the strip-searched 13-year old been a student with a “C” average? Or is it that students not in the Honor Society are more likely to be drug runners and probably deserve whatever indignities they get?
Kind of reminds me of the journalistic phrase “innocent victim of AIDS”, used in the 80’s to describe anybody with AIDS who wasn’t a homosexual or an intravenous drug user — to suggest they were more deserving of our sympathy.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:26 amThis clown has a life time appointment to the bench? It must be nice to be unencumbered by any intellectual capacity.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:28 amAny takers that the administrators were white?
White personnel strip search an adolescent found unconstitutional, but with no punishment.
A Georgia black 17 year old male gets 10 years in prison for having consensual oral sex with his 15 year old girlfriend.
Not exactly parallel, but you get my drift of justice NOT being color blind.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:28 amAdvil? Advil?
Oh, let me guess, “zero tolerance” drug policy? That “zero tolerance” crap always leads to pure insanity. It’s basically another way of saying “we’re going to completely throw our ability to make sound judgements out the window and follow extremely broad rules to the letter.”
June 25th, 2009 at 11:29 amThis is a result of the drug war. End the war on drugs.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:30 amWhile I am a lawyer I dont pretend to be some amazing constitutional scholar, I’m a little defuddled by the “we think its unconstitutional but we’re pretty sure some lower courts dont think it is so they cant be held accountable” logic..the goods news though, is that they basically kept the door open for the school district itself to be sued, which basically makes the ruling signifigant because belive me, school districts are litigation adverse, whether they are the defendants or their employees are..fortunately I think this will have a chilling effect on overzealous adminsitrators and isnt as bad as it seems at first glance..
June 25th, 2009 at 11:30 amNot trying to be ‘Judgmental’, but Thomas IS ‘Judge Mental’.
Q: What’s the difference between Clarence Thomas & Michael Steele?
A: Nothing, but Steele’s less dangerous.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:34 am>Would the situation have been any less
> outrageous had the strip-searched
> 13-year old been a student with a “C” average?
No but its good to have a plaintiff that is as “golden” and “meritorious” or “sympathetic” as possible…Its a legal/PR strategy moreso than a insinuation that some students are less deserving of strip searches than others..
June 25th, 2009 at 11:35 amWow. Just …wow. A strip search – over Advil?? With no consequences for the people who did it?
Honestly, I find that a little frightening.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:43 amNot the NSA. They’re electronic panty-sniffers.
They’ve subsequently been hired by the Transportation Safety Admin to sniff the panties of travelers at airports and bus stations…
June 25th, 2009 at 11:43 amNobody’d have raised an eye-brow if the girl had been some kind of “goth” or ‘gangsta’ with bad grades.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:45 amThe other side of this is the impression that is left on the students.
They see that the school officials are basically ham-handed authoritarian imbeciles who throw their weight around and are not held responsible for violating basic rights and privacy. This will hardly peak any student’s interest in education, but more likely feel they are in a prison where accusations and pronouncements from on-high cannot be questioned.
In other words, no justice. Quite the example these “educators” are setting. Wonder what they teach in civics class…doubtless limited to the theory of personal rights…
(Lest anyone question my sneer at Guido at #3, he posted a racist comment that was quickly removed…referring to Thomas with the “N” word. No excuse.)
June 25th, 2009 at 11:45 amHis WHITE girl-friend…
June 25th, 2009 at 11:47 amHe’s untouchable, unfortunately. They’d have to catch him in bed with a dead girl or a live boy…
June 25th, 2009 at 11:50 am‘A week earlier, a student, Jordan, had told the principal and Wilson that students were bringing drugs and weapons to school and that he had gotten sick from some pills’
So this Jordan guy takes some pills, gets sick and snitches.
I must admit that I wonder what Jordan is up to these days.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:53 amI find it hard to believe there isn’t legal precedent regarding strip searches.
for the average citizen, ignorance of the law is no excuse. Violating the constitution in “novel ways” sounds like the ignorance excuse. Why the Supreme Court allowed it is beyond me.
We live in times of horrific leadership, with no accountability.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:53 amAnd Thomas once again proves he has no business being a Supreme…
I would assume the girl could still file a civil suit.
June 25th, 2009 at 11:56 amI’m wondering if the search for “illegal” drugs was a result of school policy and not state or federal law. Last I checked, ibuprofen wasn’t an illegal drug.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:00 pm“Qualified Immunity” isn’t complete crap; it’s been legal precedant since the Supreme Court was created.
This doesn’t exempt the previous administration from war crimes, though. The Constitution doesn’t codify torture and it doesn’t shield any American from prosecution for war crimes.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:04 pmI wonder about the motives for the strip search. Whose stupid enough to feel Ibuprofen is a threat?
June 25th, 2009 at 12:12 pmWhy didn’t the Supreme Court question the plain old common sense aspect? Since when is being monumentally stupid (or worse) a novel way of violating the constitution?
Freedom isn’t cheap, but Democracy CAN be bought…
June 25th, 2009 at 12:16 pmFolks – qualified immunity is one of those necessary things that only gets attention when it has a “controversial” application.
Sort of like the cases the ACLU often takes – nobody tries to take away the civil liberties of grandma and the ladies at the bridge club.
Without this sort of immunity, public servants would be repeatedly harrassed — imagine, if you will, how the right wing noise machine would try to use such a power.
There are shocking cases, but without the doctrine, public service would be impossible.
BTW – thomas is pretty embarrassing – I’ve been working on suspicionless student drug testing law, and his opinion in Earls is amazingly bad. But, of course, 4 others agreed with him!
I’ve begun to suspect “they” use Thomas to write opinions when they won by votes alone and don’t really have much of a an argument to support the holding: “Give it to Thomas – we can hide behind his twaddle and he’ll get all the derision!”
Feel free to stop by to share my musings….
June 25th, 2009 at 12:16 pmGuess we should be glad bull shit bush is out of office, all these nut bag’s in the school system and thomas whould of gotten a freedom medal….Jeebos, more crazy crap daily…P. B. & J
June 25th, 2009 at 12:18 pmtokin librul Says:
They’d have to catch him in bed with a dead girl or a live boy…
So what’s the problem? Just drop by his house on a Thursday. This is Thomas we’re talking about after all.
.
tigger Says:
I would assume the girl could still file a civil suit.
I would assume this was a civil suit.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:19 pmOnce again Clarence Thomas proves that he is not qualified for sitting on the bench.
June 25th, 2009 at 12:23 pmI don’t have links, but I am fairly certain that this occured some time ago (I vaguely recall reading, with great disgust, news articles on this incident) — and, I do believe, this occurred while Der Bush was still running the roost. Coincidence?
Atmosphere of encouragement?
June 25th, 2009 at 12:40 pm“…only Clarence Thomas believed that the strip search in this case did not violate the Constitution.”
surprise!
June 25th, 2009 at 12:45 pmsurprise!
i’m sure Clarence the Carnal Clown was extremely disappointed there were no pictures of the 13 year old undergoing the strip search as evidence.
fcuking preevert!
Isn’t pedophilia a criminal offense?
June 25th, 2009 at 1:10 pmOf the Court’s nine justices, only Clarence Thomas believed that the strip search in this case did not violate the Constitution.
“(Thomas) spoke about acts that he had seen in pornographic films involving such matters as women having sex with animals and films showing group sex or rape scenes….On several occasions, Thomas told me graphically of his own sexual prowess….Thomas was drinking a Coke in his office, he got up from the table at which we were working, went over to his desk to get the Coke, looked at the can and asked, ‘Who has put pubic hair on my Coke?’”
June 25th, 2009 at 1:29 pmThis is unfreaking believable. Acting on a tip from another student, these holier than thou school administrators decided that violating a student’s civil rights AND her dignity was in the best interest of the student body because of their ridiculous no tolerance policy on drugs that includes OVER THE COUNTER MEDICATIONS? How can they not be held liable if the GD Supreme Court rules they broke the law?
The US is rapidly becoming a nation of imbecilic interpretations of asinine laws designed to punish ‘offenders’ who dare to defy the morality Gestapo.
Why shouldn’t that girl and her family be able to sue the fertilizer out of that school, the individuals responsible, and the school board that instituted this ridiculous policy and who are all guilty of breach of trust at the very least?
Thanks again Justice Thomas for your enlightened views on what constitutes abuse of power; I wonder if you would hold the same opinion if that had been your daughter humiliated in this obscene fashion?
June 25th, 2009 at 2:08 pmHas it ever been disclosed whether those involved with the “strip search” of this female child were all women? Because if there was a man in the room or at the door, and I were this girl’s parents, no bullshit SCOTUS decision would prevent me from filing charges against the school district!
PEACE
June 25th, 2009 at 2:20 pmThus the big question, What rock does Clarence Thomas live under? His “legal opinions” are about as far from mainstream America as the Vatican is. But this was another GOP nomination.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pmGreat, so we won’t have to look at Ann Coulter in the buff.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:31 pmIn reading the decision– two points
1: The qualified immunity arises from the fact/conclusion that the unconstitutionality of the search wasn’t clear under existing law.
2: Thomas’ basic argument: “It also grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. This deep intrusion into the administration of public schools exemplifies why the Court should return to the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis under which “the judiciary was reluctant to interfere in the routine business of school administration, allowing schools and teachers to set and enforce rules and to maintain order.” [Emphasis added]
IOW, Thomas thinks strip searches are routine!
BTW: search and seizure cases (as well as other constitutional issues) require judges to exercise their empathy in determining whether a search is reasonably within a person’s “expectation of privacy.”
In light of their Sotomayor hysteria, many Republicans, it seems, don’t want judges who can actually do the job we give them…..
June 25th, 2009 at 2:32 pmWhenwillthisnightmareend Says:”Thus the big question, What rock does Clarence Thomas live under? His “legal opinions” are about as far from mainstream America as the Vatican is.”
Which makes perfect sense since he’s a convert to Catholicism. Worse yet, he’s a member of Opus Dei, a seriously crazy right wing sect of Catholicism.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:35 pmSCOTUS ruling or not, these so called administrators should be put on trial for sex crimes against a minor and when convicted required to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
June 25th, 2009 at 2:44 pmREading Thomas further: he wants a return to the days of yore – e.g., late 1700 and early 1800’s:
“The perils of judicial policymaking inherent in applying Fourth Amendment protections to public schools counsel in favor of a return to the understanding that existed in this Nation’s first public schools, which gave teachers discretion to craft the rules needed to carry out the disciplinary responsibilities delegated to them by parents.” [Emphasis added]
Can’t wait until a school caning case goes his way.
Wonder if he feels the same way about slavery?
June 25th, 2009 at 2:53 pmNot hard to imagine UNCLE TOMass abusing himself whilest dreaming of strip searching young white girls!
June 25th, 2009 at 2:55 pmWait a minute: turns out we all have an easy solution when the school assumes too much in loco parentis authority:
“Restoring the common-law doctrine of in loco parentis would not, however, leave public schools entirely free to impose any rule they choose. “If parents do not like the rules imposed by those schools, they can seek redress in school boards or legislatures; they can send their children to private schools or home school them; or they can simply move.” See Morse, 551 U. S., at 419 (THOMAS, J., concurring).” [Emphasis added]
BTW, Thomas cites himself several times as authority for the positions hes asserting!
June 25th, 2009 at 3:01 pmOMG…
They agreed it was illegal but then went on to say the school has NO LIBILITY due to the search…
THEREFORE…I CAN STRIP SEARCH YOUR KID ANY DAMN TIME I WANT IN SCHOOL ON ANYBODY’S ACCUSATION WITH NO LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME…
This is a crap decision.
June 25th, 2009 at 3:11 pmThe entire SC needs to be removed and replaced….
They agreed it was illegal but then went on to say the school has NO LIBILITY due to the search…
They didn’t say the school has no liability, just the individuals who actually did the search.
However, notice is now given from here on that school administrators who conduct strip searches are going to be held personally liable unless they can show a bona fide safety issue to justify the search.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:20 pmshoeless Says:
Isn’t pedophilia a criminal offense?
Well, let’s go look at the title of the case: SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ET AL. v. REDDING.
Nope, that’s a civil suit. Interesting thing there, they were suing the kid! Talk about some persecution.
.
rjw.progressive Says:
IOW, Thomas thinks strip searches are routine!
Well, duh. He’s Clarence Thomas.
.
The Angry Republican Says:
THEREFORE…I CAN STRIP SEARCH YOUR KID ANY DAMN TIME I WANT IN SCHOOL ON ANYBODY’S ACCUSATION WITH NO LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME…
No, now that they’ve ruled on it, that’s illegal. That’s the point of ruling on it.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:54 pm>>Well, let’s go look at the title of the case: SAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ET AL. v. REDDING.
>>…. Interesting thing there, they were suing the kid! Talk about some persecution.
In this case, the title reflects who is bringing the latest appeal – the school district was appealing from the court of appeals ruling
It does not reflect who originally sued whom: which here was the parents on behalf of the student suing the school district and the 3 main school officials who “participated.”
BTW, the opinion can be read/DL’d here And don’t mistake the syllabus/summary at the beginning of the case report with the actual pinion, which begins on p 5 pf te .pdf.
June 25th, 2009 at 6:45 pmShoeless says:
>>The Angry Republican Says:
>>>>THEREFORE…I CAN STRIP SEARCH YOUR KID ANY DAMN TIME I WANT IN SCHOOL ON ANYBODY’S ACCUSATION WITH NO LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME…
>>No, now that they’ve ruled on it, that’s illegal. That’s the point of ruling on it.
There were a range of facts which were very important – the court did not rule that all strip searches are illegal in schools, but that on these facts, the search in this case was unconstitutional.
It might well have gone the other way if there had been more concrete accusations or if the alleged drugs had been “street drugs.”
BTW, this was one area where Thomas made some (although not complete, IMHO) sense – he argued that there shouldn’t be different standards depending on the nature of the illegal drugs (and yes, the accusation was about alleged illegally possessed prescription drugs.)
That is, if the facts had been all the same except the allegations said she had had oxycontin, or PCP, say, would the strip search have been constitutional under the majority’s opinion?
If the answer is yes, are administrators given adequate guidance as to which drugs are “dangerous” enough to warrant a strip search?
June 25th, 2009 at 6:53 pmI can see letting the people off this time, things have gotten out of hand in the school system. Pressure to be “tough” comes from all sides. Make sure, however, that administrators know such an act is a violation of the constitutional rights of the children and their parents. If parents want to have these administrators fired, they should look into that. I suspect that there is a pattern of overstepping their boundaries, and this is not an isolated incident. People should be asking what else they might be doing that could be considered outside of their actual authority or a violation of constitutional rights.
It would be real nice, if someone with authority explained the difference between violating a policy and committing a crime and sent that information to all school administrators. There appears to be an assumption that they can criminalize violations of policy and take police action. They aren’t cops. A child bringing an ibuprofen to school is not a criminal. School administrators aren’t doctors either. I see no reason for them to remove a child’s clothing—not even the school nurse has a reason to remove a child’s clothing.
June 25th, 2009 at 9:06 pmI used to be on a school board in Texas. I cannot imagine any school personnel doing such a stupid thing. First, our schools had guidelines as to what was allowable and teachers and administrators followed them explicitly. No school board should get away with it if they approved such a despicable thing that allowed this treatment of any child. I am thrilled that the Court made this decision and I trust that this young woman is feeling much more hopeful after this decision by the Supreme Court.
June 26th, 2009 at 3:46 amThe supreme court is supposed to be composed of the finest minds in our country. But, hey Clarence Thomas whatever you do STAY CLASSY.
June 26th, 2009 at 11:55 amThank you..
Sesli Chat
June 27th, 2009 at 2:44 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli kent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet
This Clarence Thomas guy has a history:
“Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her,[17] told staff of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee during an interview that Thomas had repeatedly made comments to her, much like those he allegedly made to Hill, including pressuring her for dates and commenting on her body.[18][19] Wright said that Thomas made comments about her and other women’s anatomy “quite often.”[19] Wright told several senators’ staff that Clarence Thomas asked her the size of her breasts.[18]” – Wikipedia
After she refused a date he fired her for supposedly lackluster work.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:01 am