Court rules school strip search unconstitutionalThe Supreme Court ruled today that school officials' strip search of a then-13-year-old Arizona teen suspected of possessing a painkiller violated the girl's constitutional rights, despite the school district's zero-tolerance policy for drugs.
All drugs? Who gets high on Advil?
The court said, however, that school officials are protected from personal liability in the case, ABC News reported.
They were the ones who searched her, then who's liable? The walls?
The ruling is a partial victory for Savana Redding, who had been summoned from her middle school classroom and was asked to strip down to her underwear as school officials searched for prescription strength ibuprofen.
Left: Savana Redding (Evan Vucci/AP Photo)
"They asked me to take off my clothes, and I did while they stood there," Savana said. "When I was finally in my underwear, I thought, 'OK, they are going to let me put my clothes back on.'"
"They just looked at me and said, 'well, now you have to pull out your bra and shake it and your underwear as well," she said, her eyes filling with tears. "I really wanted to cry."
I'm sorry, my friends, but I was outraged when this story first came out months ago. I think it's absurd that kids can't carry Tylenol or Claritin in their book bags these days but have to give it to a nurse who then gives is to them when they need it. WTF?
I understand there are pill abusers out there, and that school officials are trying to curtail drug use in their jurisdictions because of potential legal liability and because parents have a tendency to blame the schools for what their children choose to do and for the parents' own shortcomings. But I'm tired of seeing the innocent paying for the guilty.
The decision could redefine student privacy rights and outline important guidelines for school officials as they seek out dangerous contraband such as drugs, weapons or alcohol.
An 8-1 majority of the Court found that the search was unconstitutional. Justice David Souter, writing for the majority said, "Savana's subjective expectation of privacy against such a search is inherent in her account of it as embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating....Here, the content of the suspicion failed to match the degree of intrusion."
"The strip search of Savana Redding was unreasonable and a violation of the Fourth Amendment," the court ruled.
The Court emphasized that the intrusiveness of the search was not justified because Savana was not suspected of carrying dangerous drugs, ABC reported. "The Fourth Amendment places limits on the official, even with the high degree of deference that courts must pay to the educator's professional judgment."
Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissent, arguing the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Thomas wrote, "By deciding that it is better equipped to decide what behavior should be permitted in schools, the Court has undercut student safety and undermined the authority of school administrators and local officials."
Even as he was accused of sexually harassing women, which is muuuch worse than carrying ibuprofen in school, he wasn't humiliated with a strip search. Maybe someone should give him a demonstration...
The Court ruled 7-2 that the school officials were protected from having to pay Savana monetary damages, saying that though the search was unconstitutional, school officials "are nevertheless protected from liability through qualified immunity."(How is that immunity qualified?)
Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in partial dissent, would have found the officials personally liable for monetary damages.
Justice Ginsburg, the sole female on the court, caused a stir in a recent interview when she questioned whether her male colleagues could fully embrace a young girl's reaction to such a search and wrote that the school officials treatment of Redding was "abusive."
I'm with ya, sista.
A group of key Senate negotiators found a way to reduce the price tag on the health care reform bill, bringing it in line with a $1 trillion target and moving the Senate Finance Committee closer to a deal.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., announced Thursday the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office confirmed the $1 trillion cost over 10 years.Right: Max Baucus (Reuters)
The cost has become the top concern of Finance Committee senators after they received an estimate last week from the Congressional Budget Office claiming that an early version of the bill would top $1.6 trillion, or $600 billion more than expected, Politico reported.
The senators said they found $400 billion in savings earlier this week, largely by reducing the amount of subsidies for low-income individuals to buy insurance, Politico reported.
It is unclear where the $200 billion in additional cuts were drawn, although Baucus said the discussed ways of empowering a federal board known as to wring savings out of the system. Despite the progress, Baucus said he is not yet ready to schedule a markup of the bill.
Trillions, billions...who can keep up?
The U.S. economy shrank at an annual pace of 5.5% in the first quarter, the government said Thursday, a slower pace of decline than the 5.7% previously reported but still the second largest quarterly drop in 27 years.
The Commerce Department reported in April that gross domestic product--the broadest measure of the nation's economic activity--fell at an annual rate of 6.1% in the first quarter. In its first revision, the agency said that GDP declined at an annual pace of 5.7%, according to news reports.
The government revises the GDP twice each quarter, and Thursday's report marked the final revision.
The first quarter of 2009 marked the third quarter in a row that the economy contracted. It was the second worst drop in the measure since the early 1980s, behind only the fourth quarter of 2008, when GDP plunged at an annual pace of 6.3%, CNNMoney reported.
The news comes as the number of workers filing new claims for unemployment benefit rose unexpectedly this week by 15,000 to 627,000, reflecting continuing strain on the US economy. The overall U.S. unemployment rate has also now risen from 8.9% to 9.4%, the highest level since August 1983. (Photo by EPA)The new estimate reflected a slightly better reading on consumer spending and lower imports, partly offset by declines in inventories and construction.
Reflecting the weak pace of global economic activity, exports plunged at a 30.6% rate in the first quarter instead of the 28.7% estimated a month ago. That was the steepest drop in foreign sales in 40 years. Imports dropped at a 36.4% rate, the steepest since the summer of 1947.
Sooner or later, it will get better...if you ask me.
Copyright © 2009
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment