The Supremes smack the Arizona school officials who asked a 13 year old girl to shake it down so they could check her for prescription ibuprofen (Advil, to you non-druggies...). The decision was 8-1 with a dissent from Clarence Thomas:
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.
However, good news for taxpayers:
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.
Our previous thoughts anticipated the "8", so take that, LA Times!. That said, Thomas is heading off in an interesting direction here.
MORE: Ann Althouse has lots.
IMO strip searching for Ibuprofen is yet another example of what's wrong with government shool. That said ... WTF is Ginsberg thinking ??? ...
"Wilson's treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it," Ginsburg said.
Criminy ... different courts and appeal judges came to diverse conclusions on the case B U T WILSON SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER!
Why do liberals alwyas seem to think their POV is the obviously correct one?
Posted by: boris | June 25, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Shool ? Sheesh
Posted by: boris | June 25, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Hmm, does this presage a ruling about Yoo?
Posted by: clarice | June 25, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Thomas is absolutely correct that the result of this ruling will be that kids with contraband are now much more likely to hide it in their underwear.
Posted by: PaulL | June 25, 2009 at 12:09 PM
Hurray for that. That case made me boil. And Paul if kids are more likley to hide Advils in their underwear now, then so be it. I'd rather 10 guillty Advil hiders go free than one innocent Advil user get stripped. And if worse came to worse, they can call the parents or the cops to strip search them. And I think they should be able to sue.
Maybe Thomas was thinking about another findings in a Coke can case in his decision?
Posted by: sylvia | June 25, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Tom MacGuire gets the Spot Placement Audacity Award for the Tylenol ads in the side bar next to the comments section about a SCOTUS ruling involving its competitor Ibuprofen or Advil to those who give headaches instead of getting them.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 25, 2009 at 12:34 PM
Sylvia,
You really should read Thomas' book.
Posted by: Jane | June 25, 2009 at 12:39 PM
--Maybe Thomas was thinking about another findings in a Coke can case in his decision?--
This retard will repeat (or create) any calumny.
Could we please not respond it he/she/it?
Posted by: Ignatz | June 25, 2009 at 12:59 PM
Sorry
Posted by: Jane | June 25, 2009 at 01:09 PM
;-)
Posted by: cathyf | June 25, 2009 at 01:23 PM
If this is accurate:
"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."
Why shouldn't public officials offering legal advise in an area where there is substantial disagreement be offered the same pass on liability.
Posted by: clarice | June 25, 2009 at 01:28 PM
Ahem
**Why shouldn't public officials offering legal adviCe in an area where there is substantial disagreement be offered the same pass on liability?***
Posted by: clarice | June 25, 2009 at 01:29 PM
Very good Clarice.
Posted by: Jane | June 25, 2009 at 01:30 PM
Do you know how bankrupt we would be (I mean even worse than now) if every lawyer who gave advice was held to the same standard as say an OB/GYN? Theirs is art not science. Its almost like suing PIcasso for getting Guernica so wrong.
Posted by: Jack is Back! | June 25, 2009 at 01:54 PM
Thank you, Jane.
Posted by: clarice | June 25, 2009 at 03:46 PM
I don't understand. I thought Clarence Thomas was an unthinking automaton who blindly voted exactly as Scalia told him to. Did he not get the word?
And Alleve is better than Advil for deep muscle pain.
Posted by: daddy | June 25, 2009 at 04:21 PM
Michael Jackson suffers major heart attack in Los Angeles
Posted by: Neo | June 25, 2009 at 04:51 PM
And Alleve is better than Advil for deep muscle pain.
And for fluid-buildup-inflamation of the elbow. Darvocet does help one sleep at night, but only a dumass would turn away something stronger.
::looks in mirror::
Posted by: hit and run | June 25, 2009 at 04:55 PM
OT, but it looks as if The One's stock just took a plunge in Germany. Der Spiegel dumps all over his economic policies. "Obama's weapon of choice is the money printing machine" in his war on the financial crisis. It gos on like that.
They estimate that Obama's policies will be 3 times more expensive than World War II, and Der Speigel, by the way is a socialist rag.They are all over his fiscal irresponsibility. tick, tick, tick.....the farcade is starting to crack.....
Posted by: matt | June 25, 2009 at 05:07 PM
"Michael Jackson suffers major heart attack in Los Angeles."
Wonder if he'll opt for the new Government Health Care option? Obama and ABC say its to die for!
Posted by: daddy | June 25, 2009 at 05:35 PM
Just so you don't start treating the elbow with a chainsaw,Hit.
Posted by: clarice | June 25, 2009 at 05:40 PM
TMZ is saying Michael Jackson has died.Poor strange man.
Posted by: jean | June 25, 2009 at 05:46 PM
"Wonder if he'll opt for the new Government Health Care option?"
Looks like he did.
Posted by: Rick Ballard | June 25, 2009 at 06:03 PM
Ask Your Congressman If He’ll Join the Obama Public Health Care Plan.
Posted by: Neo | June 25, 2009 at 06:18 PM
Since the topic of a deceased MJ will soon have us OT moonwalking all over these threads, let me start out with this.
A Union I am very familiar with and which has many members paying very high amounts of dues, has just come out with a special request to have all members immediately send in a specified extra amount of money in order to have an extra $100,000 grand on hand for emergencies.
I do not know the situation of their coffers' but have always been suspicious of previous requests asking for contributions for extra funds, as those have always been identified as contributing to a general political fund. The argument has been that they need the cash on hand for immediate response to/for political allies, whereas the objection to that tactic has been that with today's modern technology, why not instead immediately identify the particular candidates who need that financial support and allow individuals to then examine that candidates position via internet/news media etc, to determine if the Union Member wishes his or her extra funds to go to that particular politician. If yes, the money can be wired immediately via modern technology. That argument, it seems to me, should apply in this new emergency case.
Anybody out there in any other unions getting solicitations of a similar nature for extra contingency funds?
Posted by: daddy | June 25, 2009 at 06:48 PM
Returning to the topic: This case is the natural result of the zero tolerance policies adopted by schools. Students were not allowed to have ANY drugs. Any drug was just as bad as any other drug. Which is why, when the school was told a 13 year old student had ibuprofen, none of the school employees said, "Wait a minute! It's just ibuprofen; it's not cocaine or some other drug that might do serious harm." They didn't ask whether a strip search was a step or two too far because they'd already bought into the notion that any drug was just as bad as the worst possible drug; therefore, any step that was reasonable to pursue in the case of the most dangerous drug was also reasonable to pursue in the case of ibuprofen, aspirin, or Vicks cough drops.
Posted by: David Walser | June 25, 2009 at 06:58 PM
I think the Sanford thread is dead (although it went out with a very loud bang!), so here are purported pics of María Belén Chapur, Sanford's main squeeze.
Posted by: Extraneus | June 25, 2009 at 07:05 PM
Michael Jackson was taking a lot of Vicodin.
Posted by: PeterUK | June 25, 2009 at 07:11 PM
That case made me boil. And Paul if kids are more likley to hide Advils in their underwear now, then so be it. And you'll find the best selection of hot babes,
charming singles at the exclusive interracial dating community,
__ Black WhiteConnect.com ___. Come in and stay a while.
Post a message, a pic of yourself and check out the hot photo galleries.
You are guaranteed to find someone you like there.(^_^)(^_^)(^_^)
Posted by: joycekane | June 26, 2009 at 11:32 AM