Org Mobile Site
Thread: Safford Unified v Redding
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-479.ZS.html
Finally - a rather unanimous judgment with dissent only in parts. Now potential offspring don't don't have to worry about being strip searched by Principal Klink based on the vague suspicion that you have aspirin.
Just when I had lost all faith in the Supreme Court. Who was it here who claimed that it wasn't pretty much cut and dry and that it would be a hard case? How do those words taste?
Finally - a rather unanimous judgment with dissent only in parts. Now potential offspring don't don't have to worry about being strip searched by Principal Klink based on the vague suspicion that you have aspirin.
Just when I had lost all faith in the Supreme Court. Who was it here who claimed that it wasn't pretty much cut and dry and that it would be a hard case? How do those words taste?
You don't think it was a hard case? I do. Anytime the law has to get that specific, to try to define "reasonable cause", it runs the risk of people working to 'play' the law: do things that go right up to the borderline, but not over, into violation territory.
Oh, do learn to spell you silly yanks.
I can't even work out what you mean. Sheffield United v Reading? Salford United maybe? Salford Red Sox v Reading?
I can't even work out what you mean. Sheffield United v Reading? Salford United maybe? Salford Red Sox v Reading?
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
You don't think it was a hard case? I do. Anytime the law has to get that specific, to try to define "reasonable cause", it runs the risk of people working to 'play' the law: do things that go right up to the borderline, but not over, into violation territory.
You don't think it was a hard case? I do. Anytime the law has to get that specific, to try to define "reasonable cause", it runs the risk of people working to 'play' the law: do things that go right up to the borderline, but not over, into violation territory.
I think the case is difficult for people who confuse justice with semantics. Clearly it is unjust to strip search a girl over ibuprofen, especially if you are a teacher, especially if you have way less than probable cause, especially if you don't find the ibuprofen. Luckily, the law, logic and justice were aligned in all minds except for those of the school district.
It says something when you get a unanimous panel of justices who rarely agree on the color of the sky.
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff:
I think the case is difficult for people who confuse justice with semantics. Clearly it is unjust to strip search a girl over ibuprofen, especially if you are a teacher, especially if you have way less than probable cause, especially if you don't find the ibuprofen. Luckily, the law, logic and justice were aligned in all minds except for those of the school district.
It says something when you get a unanimous panel of justices who rarely agree on the color of the sky.
Yeah. It's a kinda tourquois - mauve blend this particular morning. :)I think the case is difficult for people who confuse justice with semantics. Clearly it is unjust to strip search a girl over ibuprofen, especially if you are a teacher, especially if you have way less than probable cause, especially if you don't find the ibuprofen. Luckily, the law, logic and justice were aligned in all minds except for those of the school district.
It says something when you get a unanimous panel of justices who rarely agree on the color of the sky.
Court decided that the potential danger posed by the type of contraband sought, didn't meet the test to violate the student's right of freedom from 'unreasonable' search. So, they've outlawed strip-searching female students for prescription drugs by school admins.
They left the door open for other searches, though. A door through which other school admins will march in the name of health, security or good school order.
Damnit, I was expecting a good debate on some various obscure english conference teams...
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
Yeah. It's a kinda tourquois - mauve blend this particular morning. :)
Court decided that the potential danger posed by the type of contraband sought, didn't meet the test to violate the student's right of freedom from 'unreasonable' search. So, they've outlawed strip-searching female students for prescription drugs by school admins.
They left the door open for other searches, though. A door through which other school admins will march in the name of health, security or good school order.
Right. I think we all do. If a student is believed to have a weapon or something I think the school is within its right to defend the safety of the student body by doing a search and seizure. The key word here is reasonable. I don't think anyone, anywhere honestly believed that the search was reasonable (except maybe TribesmanYeah. It's a kinda tourquois - mauve blend this particular morning. :)
Court decided that the potential danger posed by the type of contraband sought, didn't meet the test to violate the student's right of freedom from 'unreasonable' search. So, they've outlawed strip-searching female students for prescription drugs by school admins.
They left the door open for other searches, though. A door through which other school admins will march in the name of health, security or good school order.
), thus the decision that it was an "unreasonable" search.Blow the door down and start hammering kids if they're selling crizzak
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Damnit, I was expecting a good debate on some various obscure english conference teams...
Damnit, I was expecting a good debate on some various obscure english conference teams...
Hehe. I did that on purpose.
Originally Posted by :
I don't think anyone, anywhere honestly believed that the search was reasonable (except maybe Tribesman), thus the decision that it was an "unreasonable" search.
I don't think anyone, anywhere honestly believed that the search was reasonable (except maybe Tribesman), thus the decision that it was an "unreasonable" search.
Originally Posted by :
“clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment ,”
So it was an unreasonable search but the people doing it didn't do an unreasonable search because of established law.“clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment ,”
Originally Posted by Tribesman:
So it was an unreasonable search but the people doing it didn't do an unreasonable search because of established law.
No more the search was illegal but not stupid enough for the officals to be sued for everything they're worth.So it was an unreasonable search but the people doing it didn't do an unreasonable search because of established law.
Originally Posted by :
No more the search was illegal but not stupid enough for the officals to be sued for everything they're worth.
Yesterday 08:43
No more the search was illegal but not stupid enough for the officals to be sued for everything they're worth.
Yesterday 08:43
Originally Posted by Lord Winter:
No more the search was illegal but not stupid enough for the officals to be sued for everything they're worth.
The officials were granted Qualified Immunity, shielding them personally from liability. However, the School District is still open to civil damages, which could be substantial.No more the search was illegal but not stupid enough for the officals to be sued for everything they're worth.
Originally Posted by KukriKhan:
You don't think it was a hard case? I do. Anytime the law has to get that specific, to try to define "reasonable cause", it runs the risk of people working to 'play' the law: do things that go right up to the borderline, but not over, into violation territory.
From what I've read, I think Thomas' dissent was much more intellectually consistent than the majority's. You don't think it was a hard case? I do. Anytime the law has to get that specific, to try to define "reasonable cause", it runs the risk of people working to 'play' the law: do things that go right up to the borderline, but not over, into violation territory.
I thought the search should never have happened- but I also think this decision is a mess.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
From what I've read, I think Thomas' dissent was much more intellectually consistent than the majority's.
I thought the search should never have happened- but I also think this decision is a mess.
From what I've read, I think Thomas' dissent was much more intellectually consistent than the majority's.
I thought the search should never have happened- but I also think this decision is a mess.
I think it was only a dissent in part. Ginsburg also dissented in part. Both concurred.
Originally Posted by :
I think it was only a dissent in part
Yeah but what a partI think it was only a dissent in part
Then again Thomas is a strict constitutionalist and considers the part about the search being unreasonable in scope as contrary to the bedrock of the fourth amendement in relation to schools.
So the part Thomas agrees with is the part that says the teacher and nurse can't be prosecuted
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I thought the search should never have happened- but I also think this decision is a mess.
I agree.I thought the search should never have happened- but I also think this decision is a mess.
It should have gone:
Contraband reported.
Students questioned.
Parents consulted.
Admin overstepped his bounds as "para-parent". He's empowered to direct the instruction of kids put in his charge, and the protect them from recognizable threats during his time of parent-authorized "possession" of the student. This assumes that constitutional rights for the underage child are held in trust by the parent, and "leased" to the school.
This decision, however, asserts constitutional rights to the underage student, herself, in her own person. In effect subsuming parental right. If a 13-year old girl can be protected from unreasonable searches, IN HER OWN RIGHT, then why is she denied her other constitutional rights? Like the right to vote?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO