Supreme Court on Strip Searches in Schools

In a victory for common sense, the Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 that the strip search of a 13 year old girl was unconstitutional. Among the factors that the court considered were that the girl’s parents were never called, the fact that she was effectively held hostage in the Assistant Principal’s office for 2 hours, the lack of corrroborating evidence, and the nature of the contraband they were seeking. in Justice Souter’s words:

“In sum, 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,” the court said. “We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable.”

However, Justice Thomas disagreed, saying that this ruling lets kids know they can hide drugs in their, ahem, vajayjay without fear of being caught.

This is a victory not only for common sense, but also for the 4th Amendment and the dignity of students across our nation.

Author: BRIDGET MAGNUS

Share This Post On

5 Comments

  1. Of course Justice Thomas disagreed. Pervert.

  2. It's interesting that Justice Thomas didn't recognize that the school failing to call the parents was an attack on “parental rights”.

  3. GreenDreams, LOL! Yes. And since you said that I really can't add anything else to the conversation. Perfect and sums it up very nicely.

  4. Good, strong reporting there, Bridget: completely ignore the in loco parentis arguments put forth by Thomas in favor of slipping in a snickering Oprahism. You didn't happen to READ his dissent, did you? Nah, why do that, when you can quote a blogger??

    And, no, I didn't find his argument compelling, but I at least read it and thought about it (I have two middle-school daughters, myself, and I'm pleased with the ruling).

    BTW, if you can steer yourself away from genital slang, give a quick cheer to Thomas' concurrence with the 5-4 majority in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which may save many more lives than Safford U.S.D. #1 v. Redding. A friendly suggestion, in the interest of, you know, being moderate.

  5. “ignore the in loco parentis arguments put forth by Thomas in favor of slipping in a snickering Oprahism. You didn't happen to READ his dissent, did you? Nah, why do that, when you can quote a blogger??”

    It was a middle-school-level tactic, from appearances (content _and_ style). Duly noted.

Submit a Comment