Albany,n.y. Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_...rt_strip_search Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 Can't agree with Thomas there. While it certainly makes sense to give schools some leeway, these idiots went way over the line. And over fuggin' Advil??? I'm sure the "zero tolerance" zealots didn't see this coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 25, 2009 Share Posted June 25, 2009 I can see searching lockers, backpacks, desks and cars. I can see having to empty your pockets or taking off jackets and stuff. However, if a strip search is necessary, I would think the police should be called and the parents as well. In the case of weapons, I can see an exception, but they better be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I can see searching lockers, backpacks, desks and cars. I can see having to empty your pockets or taking off jackets and stuff. However, if a strip search is necessary, I would think the police should be called and the parents as well. In the case of weapons, I can see an exception, but they better be right. I can't think of a single case when a strip search should be performed by a school official. ONLY police officers. And "Zero Tolerance" is absolutely pathetic. [/irony] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I can't think of a single case when a strip search should be performed by a school official. ONLY police officers. And "Zero Tolerance" is absolutely pathetic. [/irony] Zero Tolerance is pathetic. I can see how it comes about though. One idiot drug dealer I knew of ate like twenty hits of acid to prevent a search. He was never quite the same afterwards (at least in the few years I know of him). Granted this was a year or so into college, but it merely makes it more likely to happen to high school dealers if caught. I agree any searches should be performed by the police. I threw the weapon bit in there for when some ass asked, "What if Bobby has a gun? Or worse, a pocket nuke shoved in his underwear." This being PPP and all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_...rt_strip_search Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school." The very idea that the decision could "backfire" implies that the Supreme Court carries a responsibility to keep "contraband" out of the schools, which is patently ridiculous. Thomas is apparently a !@#$ing moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 The very idea that the decision could "backfire" implies that the Supreme Court carries a responsibility to keep "contraband" out of the schools, which is patently ridiculous. Thomas is apparently a !@#$ing moron. Pretty quick condemnation of a 18 year Supreme court justice on a single case that for a change actually belongs in the USSC. Yet you endorsed Sonia Sotomayor after "a morning researching decisions",so I should not be surprised Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 IMO the issue is muddled by the difference between constitutionality and bad policy. I thought the school was rediculous, but am swayed by Thomas' objection. Can a school board have such a policy? I think yes. Should they? No. The remedy is for the voters to tell them to throw out the policy. If it is constitutionally permissable to have a building policy bypassing what would be a protection outside of the school - searching students, such as a pat-down or metal detectors - then I fail to see why the line of constitutionality falls short of a strip search. Alaska Darin has a point worth considering about who does these searches. But the logical consequence is a loss of 'local' policing in favor of the police. Like a strip-search, a monitored drug test is pretty intrusive. Should the Buffalo Bills - and indeed any employer who makes random drug testing a condition of employment for certain individuals - be only allowed to allow the local police to conduct the tests? And only on police terms with respect to probable cause? Good luck. What about employers who maintain the right to monitor your phone calls and/or computer at work? It seems to suggest that any employment clause that would otherwise be an enfringement of your normal rights could only be exercised at the convenience and willingness of government legal authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I can see searching lockers, backpacks, desks and cars. I can see having to empty your pockets or taking off jackets and stuff. However, if a strip search is necessary, I would think the police should be called and the parents as well. In the case of weapons, I can see an exception, but they better be right. They should make strip searches according to the way they dispute an illegal stick/blade curve in hockey. That being, if they want to do the strip search and find nothing, the person or group of persons have to succumb to the same kind of search. That would make it interesting to say the least! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Like a strip-search, a monitored drug test is pretty intrusive. Should the Buffalo Bills - and indeed any employer who makes random drug testing a condition of employment for certain individuals - be only allowed to allow the local police to conduct the tests? And only on police terms with respect to probable cause? Good luck. What about employers who maintain the right to monitor your phone calls and/or computer at work? It seems to suggest that any employment clause that would otherwise be an enfringement of your normal rights could only be exercised at the convenience and willingness of government legal authorities. Apples and oranges. Employers are private enterprises, a public school is a public enterprise. Don't like the Bills' drug testing policy? You are under no obligation to work there. Go get a different job. Ditto for monitoring your phone calls and computer. You are using their equipment at their location during time they are paying you to work. Completely within their rights. A public school by definition exists for the benefit of the children in the community and is paid for by that kid's parents. They have a right to be in school and that right presumes being free from harassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 The very idea that the decision could "backfire" implies that the Supreme Court carries a responsibility to keep "contraband" out of the schools, which is patently ridiculous. Thomas is apparently a !@#$ing moron. "Supposedly" Clarence Thomas has a large porno collection. I wonder if that entered into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 A public school by definition exists for the benefit of the children in the community and is paid for by that kid's parents. They have a right to be in school and that right presumes being free from harassment. I agree. Yet, how does one define "harassment?" I bet, 10 out of 10 people can't really agree on what defines harassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I agree. Yet, how does one define "harassment?" I bet, 10 out of 10 people can't really agree on what defines harassment. But apparently 8 out of 9 can agree that forcing a 13 yo girl to strip because you think she's hiding Advil does constitute harassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I agree. Yet, how does one define "harassment?" I bet, 10 out of 10 people can't really agree on what defines harassment. But apparently 8 out of 9 can agree that forcing a 13 yo girl to strip because you think she's hiding Advil does constitute harassment. That is the question here, but EII has a point. While the vast majority agree with this issue where is the line drawn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Apples and oranges. Employers are private enterprises, a public school is a public enterprise. Don't like the Bills' drug testing policy? You are under no obligation to work there. Go get a different job. Ditto for monitoring your phone calls and computer. You are using their equipment at their location during time they are paying you to work. Completely within their rights. A public school by definition exists for the benefit of the children in the community and is paid for by that kid's parents. They have a right to be in school and that right presumes being free from harassment. Not so. They have a right to control its running through an elected school board, but the board is not obligated in their policies beyond uniformly applying them. - Suppose a public school offers a bunch of sports you don't care about, but cancels your rythmic gymnastics team. Are you getting equal treatment? - Suppose a public school requires you to pass through a metal detector and daily suffer the indignity of a pat-down because of your nipple rings. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school forbids you to wear your Death Junkie concert T-shirts. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school institutes a school uniform policy. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school teaches its classes in English instead of your native Tagalog, and insists that you take English as a foreign language. Is that fair? Don't like the public schools policy? Maybe you're not a fan of evolution or cheerleaders - so, as with a private enterprise, you are not obligated to attend. You can go to private school or home school. Or you can vote the board out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 But apparently 8 out of 9 can agree that forcing a 13 yo girl to strip because you think she's hiding Advil does constitute harassment. Two Advil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 That is the question here, but EII has a point. While the vast majority agree with this issue where is the line drawn? This presupposes that 'harrassment,' even if uniformly applied, is unconstitutional rather than merely unacceptable. That makes it a subjective determination by the courts. I would argue that fairly applied 'harrassment' should be constitutional, and that the extent allowed should be determined by community standards through the school board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Not so. They have a right to control its running through an elected school board, but the board is not obligated in their policies beyond uniformly applying them. - Suppose a public school offers a bunch of sports you don't care about, but cancels your rythmic gymnastics team. Are you getting equal treatment? - Suppose a public school requires you to pass through a metal detector and daily suffer the indignity of a pat-down because of your nipple rings. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school forbids you to wear your Death Junkie concert T-shirts. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school institutes a school uniform policy. Is that not harrassment? - Suppose a public school teaches its classes in English instead of your native Tagalog, and insists that you take English as a foreign language. Is that fair? Don't like the public schools policy? Maybe you're not a fan of evolution or cheerleaders - so, as with a private enterprise, you are not obligated to attend. You can go to private school or home school. Or you can vote the board out. This presupposes that 'harrassment,' even if uniformly applied, is unconstitutional rather than merely unacceptable. That makes it a subjective determination by the courts. I would argue that fairly applied 'harrassment' should be constitutional, and that the extent allowed should be determined by community standards through the school board. Dude, a parent must be present, IMO, for a strip search. How far do you think it can go? Should they be able to look in her vagina as long as it's uniformly applied? Strip searches, ESPECIALLY, of Jr. High or lower grades should be done only when a child's parents are present. Would you want your kid subjected to a strip search without your presence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 I can see searching lockers, backpacks, desks and cars. I can see having to empty your pockets or taking off jackets and stuff. However, if a strip search is necessary, I would think the police should be called and the parents as well. In the case of weapons, I can see an exception, but they better be right. The opinion is pretty case-specific. The judges were quick to note that the search was out-of-line because the school had no suspicion of anything other than prescription-strength ibuprofen. In order to justify a strip search, the Court concluded that school officials must have some evidence that the drug or other item they suspect is being hidden by the student is dangerous in terms of its “power or quantity." Seems reasonable. If you think the kid hid cigarettes in her bra, no strip search. IF you think she hid scrack in her panties, strip. The egregious nature of this case amplifies Thomas's stupidity. She sat for hours and the school never called her parents or the cops. Then they did the search. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 26, 2009 Share Posted June 26, 2009 Dude, a parent must be present, IMO, for a strip search. How far do you think it can go? Should they be able to look in her vagina as long as it's uniformly applied? Strip searches, ESPECIALLY, of Jr. High or lower grades should be done only when a child's parents are present. Would you want your kid subjected to a strip search without your presence? When you say 'how far do you think it should go?', are you asking what I as a citizen would want my school board's policy to be, or are you asking what the limit is based on the Constitution? Likewise, are you suggesting that a parent must be present because the Constitution says so, or because that's the policy we would want to adopt? Pick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts