A 7th grade girl is stripped to her underwear and searched by school administrators. School officials suspected her of giving presicription strength ibuprofin to another student. I realize prescription drugs can be dangerous if mis-used. I also believe it is common sense that middle school children should not be sharing prescription drugs, even ibuprofin without parental permission. That said, 7th grade is around the age girls enter puberty and I believe Ibuprofin is a common remedy for severe cramps. It's not as if it is a drug with side effects sought by those wishing to achieve some kind of "high". This seems like a huge lapse of judgement by school officials. It also seems like simple respect for parental authority could have delegated this to the parents handle, especially as this was predicated by suspicion. Couldn't this have been handled more sensitively? This sounds like more abuse of power related to our failed War on Drugs where zero tolerance has been adopted along with zero intelligence and common sense. The young lady sued that her constitutional rights were violated and Initially federal courts ruled the "school officials' actions violated common sense and basic human decency". That seems about right to me, but the supreme court has granted a review of the case. It makes me nervous when we begin to question or even fear those who are supposedly trusted guardians of society. I would be furious if they treated my daughter this way and would be pressing for sexual assault.
Students don't have full constitutional rights in school (or in their own homes), due to parental rights and en loco parentis. That said, the stripsearching for the pill was over the top. However, she broke federal law by dispensing the prescription strength ibuprofen. If you have a daughter who needs ibuprofen for menstrual cramps, make arrangements with school nurse to have a bottle of ibuprofen (with necessary permissions) to be kept at the nurse's office.
Students specifically or Minors in general? She was suspected of breaking the law by dispensing prescription strength ibuprofin, which has never been proven. (And I believe minors are protected by the 14th Amendment). As an accused she would be protected by due process and the 5th amendment. Did school officials have the authority to perform a strip search based upon an accusation? I'm not familiar with en loco parentis - will look it up.
Case law has affirmed that students can be searched under reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause. Due process in the case of schools is that if there is reasonable suspicion, a student can be searched. I don't believe it's all minors, but minors in a school situation. En loco parentis means in place of the parent. Basically it's a legal principle that the school (and it's officials) are acting in the place of the parent in the parents' absence.
Of course, there is searched and then there is searched. I do not believe a search that involves stripping a student to her underwear, no matter how much fun it is, will withstand judicial scrutiny.
The Federal Court of Appeals ruled in the students favor but the case is under review by the Supreme Court.
Our Constitutional rights protect us from an overbearing government. For example, the free speech guarantee does not mean you can say what you want and be free from repercusions. It simply says that no law can be passed making what you say a criminal offense. I have a real problem with saying that schools are a subdivision of the government and therefore are bound by the Constitutional protections. I think it is quite permissible to search lockers and seize firearms and illicit drugs.
It is, with reasonable suspicion as the criteria. The school are a subdivision of the government, but they are also en loco parentis, since most students are minors. The school can do many things parents can do.
And obviously some things parents can't do. I would not advise any parent to strip search their tween or teen daughter down to her underwear, then search her underwear while she is still wearing them. They would very likely wind up getting a visit from the Sherriffs department with a warrant to investigate their home for child abuse. It is also likely someone at the school their daughter attends would have been the one to report them as teachers are mandatory reporters. Schools are absolutely under the Department of Education as a Government Institution and act as a reporting agency. I just went to my daughter's parent teacher conference where I spoke to her IEP/ILP coordinator. This lady complemented me as a good father and commended me for some things which left me wondering how she would know - so I asked her. She told me she had my daughter write a report about her mother and my divorce and how she felt coming to live with me as the custodial parent. Okay, nice, all well and good and I do like this lady, my daughters teachers and the school she attends, however this was a direct solicitation for personal information concerning our family and household. Also - should this ladies counterpart at the previous school she attended done the same thing it may not have gone as well as they had reason for bias due to some conflicts with the school and myself regarding how her IEP/ILP was being handled - hence the change of venues. Just interesting stuff . . .
Doubtful. Then again, I don't think it's a good idea for the school to do that either. Depends on the state.
Well, maybe you think it's doubtful, but I don't. A friend of mine who did foster care and eventually adopted her charges (2 of them) had a Sherriff with a warrant show up at her house. Mormon family, upper middle class we knew very well. He and a social worker went through their house from basment to bedrooms and never said a word as to why other than there was a report they had to check out - weirdness. No, every state, not only teachers but in most states school officials too. Also Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Guam and the Virgin Islands.
Substance control's primary stated objective is protection of users; that doesn't change, even if the drug doesn't cause people to get high. The administration is legally required to act as it did. If they had acted otherwise, and higher ups had found out, the administrators would be facing a potential lawsuit and possible dismissal. [quote[The young lady sued that her constitutional rights were violated and Initially federal courts ruled the "school officials' actions violated common sense and basic human decency". That seems about right to me, but the supreme court has granted a review of the case.[/quote] Minors have never had a full and complete set of constitutional rights. They have a restricted set of rights. They do not lose these rights at the schoolhouse gates, but neither do they gain them when they leave. Even the home schooled children still have diminished rights, but parents are less likely to offend against them.
Two things. 1. If substance control's primary objective is protection of users then why do we criminalize subtance abusers instead of treat them? 2. If this is the manner in which we're "protected" as well as the thousands of other indignities, assaults and violations of civil rights committed in the name of protecting us - who out there other than those who profit from it and arguably get their rocks off on the power trip support this? I'm also not sure that's true, would like to see the reference to support your asserstion. Either way, this is one hell of an endorsement to END, THE WAR ON DRUGS - in which the first casualty is common sense. Which is another argument for changing current laws. When brain-dead thugs are not just empowered but compelled to engage in criminal behavior (and whether legally sanctioned or not - abusing a tween/teen girl in this manner is criminal) we are living on the other side of the looking glass. These people rightfully faced a lawsuit with possible dismissal because of these actions. . . . and this is the question I'm curious about. Minors legally do have rights guaranteed by the constitution , however at you state it appears there are limitations and restrictions on these rights. Peri asserts that teachers have en loco parentis however I want to verify this as Peri also asserts he was a teacher and acts as if this makes him some kind of authority then makes blatantly false statements.
When an officer detains you, he is exercising legal authority to determine if there is probable cause to search your property and/or charge you with a crime. When LEO(s) invade the privacy of your home I believe they are assuming probable cause and yes I don't think anonymous accusations based upon 'suspicion' reach the level of probable cause. So while no, I don't believe claims should be completely ignored I absolutely believe we need to re-visit the level of authority given the state to investigate. Especially when strip searching a tween/teen girl seems to not seem to qualify as suspicion of child abuse, but a parent swatting their child on the butt has been determined sufficient to qualify as suspicion of child abuse.
I have had classes on school law. What "blatantly false" statements have I made? This isn't rocket science or anything controversial. Here are a few explanations: http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_stud.html http://www.quaqua.org/inlocoparentis.htm The most relevant in terms of student search and seizure is this one: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0325_ZS.html I'm not defending what was actually done. I think the stripsearch was above and beyond that. I am defending the idea that students have limited constitutional rights, and while, I agree stripsearching is extreme, I don't see anything illegal or unethical about say, searching the particular girl's bookbag and purse, or even asking her to empty out her pockets. Again, please point out what I've said that was "blatantly false." Also, the duhaime.org link is to Canadian law, not U.S. (also, that link confirms what I've said
Perdi, let me apologize. I worded that in an inflamitory way and would like to take it back and state we had a misunderstanding. I felt you were stating teachers were not mandatory reporters in all states and was skeptical so looked it up myself. Yes teachers are mandatory reporters in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam and Puerto Rico, however you are technically correct, as this is dictated by individual state statutes. I get annoyed sometimes when people claim specific authority or expertise and them make incorrect statements or assertions with the expectation they don't need to verify their comments.
As I said, it depends on the state. Most educational policies do depend on the state. I know the states I've worked in had teachers as mandatory reporters (or more specifically, they've mandated that teachers report to principals or counselors, who report to social services.) I thought I had heard of a state that didn't have teachers as mandatory reporters.
If bringing prescription strength ibuprofen is such a big deal that the administration feels the need to strip search the young teenager on the spot, then wouldn't it have been cause to call her parents and the police? This doesn't make any sense. If it's a big threat to have those pills, then detain the girl in the principal's office and make a few phone calls. These administrator's need a course in CYA. I am so glad our family homeschools our kids.
"Do students (minors) forfeit constitutional rights to attend public schools?" Interesting question. Since younger students are forced to attend school, they should still have the freedom of speech, as protected by the second ammendment.
This my thing. I made it quite clear to the teachers and principle at my boys school that any infractions of behavior automatically result in a call to me or his mother immediately and i would not accept no for an answer under any circumstances. I read too many of these horror stories of schools just doing whatever the hell they want to kids.
Freedom of speech isn't protected by the second amendment. Minors do not have full freedom of speech in schools or anywhere a parent figure is present (the school is legally a substitute parent). A school couldn't operate if they did.
Pretty much most school level administrators call the parents as soon as major incidents like the OP's occur.
She was sexually assaulted. The perverts running the school sexually assaulted a twelve-year-old girl over ibuprofin. It truly is that simple. Those responsible should spend a very long time in prison. Actually, they should be tortured to death.
