In the first ruling of its kind, the California 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento held Wednesday that medical marijuana patients and growers can sue police for illegally raiding their prop

Following the Supreme Court's recent decision that school officials violated the 4th Amendment when they strip-searched a 13-year-old girl, another similar lawsuit has been filed and the story is equally sickening:

According to the complaint, the incident began when the bus arrived at the school and two employees boarded it in order to resolve a dispute in which the girls were not involved. The employees "smelled what they thought was marijuana," the complaint states, and five girls seated at the back of the bus, including Gaither and S.C., were detained and searched.
…
During an interrogation that lasted the entire school day, and after being denied repeated requests to call their parents, the girls were required to "remove their shoes and socks, unbuckle their belts, unbutton their pants, and unzip their pants," the complaint says. They also had their "waistlines physically touched and searched" by a male employee while their pants were undone, and were made to "lift up their bras while their shirts remained on and jump up and down."

The searches were all performed behind closed doors and without the presence of police offices or female staff, the suit says. No marijuana was found. [Courthouse News]

The whole thing is so perverse and disturbing, it really ought to be examined in criminal court as well as civil. By the time a group of teenage girls was ordered lift their bras and hop up and down, it wasn't just a drug search anymore. This was something much sicker than that. But you can thank decades of propaganda-fueled marijuana hysteria for creating the environment in which school officials think they can get away with stuff like this.

The US Supreme Court ruled Thursday that school officials who strip searched a 13-year-old Arizona school girl based on an uncorroborated accusation by a classmate that she had previously possessed

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in Safford Unified School District #1 et al v. Redding that school officials violated the 4th Amendment when they strip-searched a 13-year-old girl.  Savana Redding was subjected to a strip-search that included looking inside her underwear, after school officials received a tip that she might be in possession of prescription Ibuprofen. None was found.

By a strong majority, the Court declared the search unreasonable under the 4th Amendment, finding that a full strip search was unjustified based on the nature of the drugs and in question and the absence of specific evidence that contraband would be found in her underwear.

Unfortunately, despite upholding the 4th Amendment in this case, the Court left the door wide open for future violations of student rights. The justices agreed by a 7-2 vote that the school officials who carried out the illegal search should not be held liable because the caselaw was unclear at the time. Now that the central legal issues are settled, similar incidents could invoke liability in the future, but the ruling itself will fail to prohibit such searches in many instances. By placing heavy emphasis on the negligible threat posed by prescription Ibuprofen, the Court implies that a different outcome may have been reached depending on the type of contraband in question. It's possible, for example, that the search would have been upheld if it involved marijuana.

Thus, today's ruling fails to fully clarify the legality of drug searches in schools under many circumstances. It also fails to punish those responsible for degrading an innocent young woman based on flimsy and ultimately false evidence. Hopefully, however, it will at least serve as a reminder to educators that schools are not a 4th Amendment-free zone.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: 6/25/09
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search Of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional

Ruling In ACLU Case Is Vindication of Students' Constitutional Rights

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old Arizona girl when they strip searched her based on a classmate's uncorroborated accusation that she previously possessed ibuprofen. The American Civil Liberties Union represents April Redding, the plaintiff in the lawsuit, whose daughter, Savana Redding, was strip searched by Safford Middle School officials six years ago.

"We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that school officials had no reason to strip search Savana Redding and that the decision to do so was unconstitutional," said Adam Wolf, an attorney with the ACLU who argued the case before the Court. "Today's ruling affirms that schools are not constitutional dead zones. While we are disappointed with the Court's conclusion that the law was not clear before today and therefore school officials were not found liable, at least other students will not have to go through what Savana experienced."

Savana Redding, an eighth grade honor roll student at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, was pulled from class on October 8, 2003 by the school's vice principal, Kerry Wilson. Earlier that day, Wilson had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen - 400 milligram pills equivalent to two over-the-counter ibuprofen pills, such as Advil - in the possession of Redding's classmate. Under questioning and faced with punishment, the classmate claimed that Redding, who had no history of disciplinary problems, had given her the pills.

After escorting Redding to his office, Wilson demanded that she consent to a search of her possessions. Redding agreed, wanting to prove she had nothing to hide. Wilson did not inform Redding of the reason for the search. Joined by a female school administrative assistant, Wilson searched Redding's backpack and found nothing. Instructed by Wilson, the administrative assistant then took Redding to the school nurse's office in order to perform a strip search.

In the school nurse's office, Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear. She was then commanded to pull her bra out and to the side, exposing her breasts, and to pull her underwear out at the crotch, exposing her pelvic area. The strip search failed to uncover any ibuprofen pills.

"The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,"
said Redding in a sworn affidavit following the incident. "I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry."

The strip search was undertaken based solely on the uncorroborated claims of the classmate facing punishment. No attempt was made to corroborate the classmate's accusations among other students or teachers. No physical evidence suggested that Redding might be in possession of ibuprofen pills or that she was concealing them in her undergarments.

Furthermore, the classmate had not claimed that Redding currently possessed any pills, nor had the classmate given any indication as to where they might be concealed. No attempt was made to contact Redding's parents prior to conducting the strip search.

In response to today's ruling, Redding said, "I wanted to make sure that no other person would have to go through this, so I am pleased by the Court's decision. I'm glad to have helped make students feel safer in school."

The case, Safford Unified School District v. Redding, was appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which found the strip search to be unconstitutional. A six-judge majority of the appeals court further held that, since the strip search was clearly unreasonable, the school official who ordered the search is not entitled to immunity. In today's Supreme Court decision, despite deeming the strip search of Redding unconstitutional, the Court found that the school officials involved are immune from liability. The decision leaves open the possibility, however, that the Safford Unified School district could be held liable.

"Neither the Constitution nor common sense permits school officials to treat a strip search the same as a locker or backpack search," said Steven R. Shapiro, the ACLU's national Legal Director. "Today's ruling eliminates any confusion that school officials may have had about this seemingly obvious point."

The ACLU and ACLU of Arizona were joined in the case by Bruce Macdonald, with the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith, Jackson & Macdonald, and Andrew Petersen, with the firm Humphrey & Petersen.

In addition, a broad constellation of adolescent health experts and privacy rights advocates filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of Redding, including the National Education Association, National Association of Social Workers (NASW), CATO Institute, Rutherford Institute, Goldwater Institute and Urban Justice Center, among others.

Today's decision is available online at: www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/search/40031lgl20090625.html

The ACLU's brief in the case is available online at: www.aclu.org/scotus/2008term/saffordunifiedschooldistrictv.redding/39160...

CONTACT: Jennifer Carnig, 212.607.3363 / jcarnig@nyclu.org

NYCLU to School District: Mass Student Search Illegal, Humiliating & Invasive

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 28, 2009 – The New York Civil Liberties Union has called on the Red Creek Central School District in upstate New York to publicly apologize to high school students subjected to illegal, humiliating and invasive searches by state police and school officials.

In a letter to Superintendent David Sholes, the NYCLU also urged the district to take steps to prevent invasive searches and protect students’ rights. Students subjected to the April 9 searches were passengers on a school bus parked outside of Red Creek High School. Every student was pulled off the bus and searched.

“This was one of the most humiliating moments of my life,” said 18-year-old graduating senior Stephanie Schultz, who is attending college in the fall. “My school taught me about the Constitution and about my rights, and then pushed them both aside and made me feel like my rights didn’t matter.”

Schultz and at least 17 other students on a Williamson BOCES school bus were removed from the bus in mixed gender pairs and ordered to the Red Creek High School principal’s office by a uniformed state trooper.  In the principal’s office, the students, male and female, were subjected to invasive searches in full view of each other.

Schultz was searched by a female librarian in front of three males – her principal, a police officer and a classmate. Though she asked that she be searched in a room without men, her request was denied. She cried as she was forced to roll down her waistband and expose part of her underwear and buttocks.

“The principal walked out because I was crying so much,” Schultz said. “I knew it wasn’t right what was happening, but there was nothing I could to. I felt helpless and humiliated.”

Nothing was found on the culinary arts student. In fact, the school district did not have suspicion that any of the students searched were engaged in any illegal activity at that time.

“Students must not be stripped of their rights and their dignity at the schoolhouse door,” NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman said. “While drug abuse is a serious matter, it can be addressed without public humiliation. These students are now afraid of their teachers, they are afraid of the police, and they are afraid of what their classmates think of them. They deserve a public apology to ease these fears and restore their reputations.”

The male students were searched by Principal Noel Patterson as a state trooper watched. Female students were searched just a few feet away by a female school employee. Each student was ordered to remove their jacket, shoes and socks, and empty their pockets. Some students were “patted down,” others were asked to lift shirts and undershirts, and one student was asked to remove an outer pair of pants.

“This was humiliating, embarrassing, frustrating and a waste of my time,” said 18-year-old graduating senior and honor roll student Stephanie Forsythe. “Everyone saw me escorted by the police and thought I was arrested. I shouldn’t have had to go through that and I don’t want this to happen to my little siblings.”

According to the district, each student was subjected to a “waistband search,” which in some cases entailed turning down the waistband to reveal parts of their underwear, buttocks and pelvic area, in view of male and female school staff and the male state trooper. Backpacks, purses and other containers were also searched. At least one student was charged criminally and suspended for a year.

The NYCLU maintains that the searches violated the students’ rights under both the U.S. and New York State constitutions. The April 9 searches of the BOCES students were not based on individualized suspicion that any particular student was engaged in illegal behavior at the time of the search. Moreover, even if the school district had adequate ground for a search, the search that was conducted was far more intrusive and humiliating than is constitutionally permissible.

“Educators should know better than to do this to kids,” said Tim Cosser, whose 17-year-old son was searched. “I know they have to keep schools safe, but I don’t understand this. It’s not right. The district needs new guidelines that protect students’ rights.”

In light of the constitutional violations that occurred on April 9, the NYCLU urges the district to take the following steps:

·         Issue a public apology making clear to the community that the vast majority of the students on the bus were guilty of no wrongdoing and acknowledging the illegality of the searches.

·         Revise its policy on student searches to state that no reasonable search may be conducted without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing.  Individualized suspicion must be based on facts known to the official about the particular student that support a belief that a search will uncover evidence of a crime or violation.

·         Clarify and enhance its memorandum of understanding with the New York State Police with the goal of with the goal of creating clear guidelines for police and school officials that protects student rights.

·         Provide all school district employees who may be involved in student searches and interrogations annual training on students’ rights.

The district covers the towns of Butler and Wolcott in Wayne County and the village of Fair Haven and parts of Victory, Sterling and Conquest in Cayuga County.

To read the NYCLU’s full letter, visit http://www.nyclu.org/node/2411.

-xxx-

Under an amendment to South Australia's Controlled Substances Act of 1984 approved last year, police are allowed to use drug-sniffing dogs as part of their

• read full post
• 2 comments

The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in Safford Unified School District #1 v.

A narrowly divided US Supreme Court Tuesday refused to expand police search powers at the expense of privacy rights, ruling that police cannot search a suspect's vehicle after the suspect has been

At age 13, Savana Redding was strip-searched by school officials who suspected her of possessing prescription Ibuprofen. It turned out their information was bad, but they are so proud of what they did that they've defended their actions all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Soon, the right to drug-search young girls' underpants may be firmly enshrined in our jurisprudence, so that the whims of drug hysteria will decide when it's appropriate to do that, rather than some old list of high-minded legal principles.

That this incident even happened is disturbing enough before one tries to come to terms with the fact that the Supreme Court appears likely to uphold the search. Perverts.

Dear Friends:

Today, the Supreme Court handed down a great ruling in Arizona v. Gant, which increases 4th Amendment protection against warrantless vehicle searches. We've been following the case for a while, and this outcome is exciting.

Please visit our blog for FYR Associate Director Scott Morgan's analysis on the decision's likely impact.

Sincerely,                                                                                                                     

Steve Silverman

P.S. Flex Your Rights is the only organization focused solely on defending the 4th Amendment and teaching citizens to understand their rights during police encounters. If you support our efforts, please consider making a one-time tax-deductible donation today. As you know, we can't do this important work without your support.

© 2009 Flex Your Rights Privacy Policy

If you choose to unsubscribe from the mailing list, click here.

The Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. Gant today was a pleasant surprise. The Court struck a blow against the deeply flawed search-incident-to-arrest doctrine that has permitted police to perform a vehicle search anytime someone in the car is arrested. For the last 28 years, concerns over officer safety have been held to permit ridiculous numbers of automatic vehicle searches that had more to do with the drug war than officer safety.

My thoughts on the case are over at Flex Your Rights.

I've posted a couple new items in the Flex Your Rights blog recently that are worth checking out. We've got an awesome site upgrade coming out soon, so I'm trying to get back into the habit of doing at least a couple posts a week.

The focus is on 4th Amendment and police misconduct issues rather than drug policy specifically, but I'd love to see some of you commenting over there if you're interested.

Law enforcement officials justify the frequent use of heavily-armed SWAT teams and no-knock warrants -- police do about 50,000 SWAT raids per year -- as protecting officer safety.

Two leading civil liberties groups, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Libe

A Virginia jury on Wednesday convicted Ryan Frederick (see his MySpace page here)

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have the right to frisk passengers in cars stopped for traffic offenses even if they have no evidence the passenger has committed a crime or i

The US Supreme Court agreed last Friday to review the case of a 13-year-old honor student who was subjected to a strip search by school officials looking for prescription-strength Ibuprofen.

The Supreme Court handed down yet another bad 4th Amendment ruling today. I've got a post over at Flex Your Rights explaining, as I often do, that the 4th Amendment isn't dead yet.