When a classmate wrongfully accused 13-year-old Savanna Redding of hiding prescription ibuprofen, Arizona educators at her school first searched her backpack and outer clothes. When they found nothing, they forced her to move her bra aside, and then pull her underwear to expose her pubic area and confirm that she was not hiding ibuprofen. (See full story here.)
The 4th Amendment in vague terms prohibits "unreasonable" search and seizures, which has posed problems in various areas of law. However, this case seems to be one in which the search was unquestionably unreasonable.
It is difficult to imagine that a reasonable person would find it acceptable to force a 13-year-old girl to expose her private parts in order to search for ibuprofen because of unsupported tattle-taling by another student.
In his lone dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas argued the search was legal because legal precedent of the Court had given school officials "considerable leeway" in similar circumstances. Some school officials are concerned because the case seems to significantly curb their power in such situations.
Aside from legal considerations of offensive precedent and the policy concerns of power-hungry school officials, it is easiest to point to the language of the Constitution - the word "unreasonable" has been more than exceeded here. In a police situation, the tattle-taler's arbitrary and unsupported account would not have amounted to probable cause; it probably would not have even been reasonable suspicion.
If police could not have forced Savanna Redding to stand naked and subject her to humiliation, there is no reason why a school official should be able to do the same in the absence of some kind of dire emergency. There was no emergency situation here, there was no probable cause, and after searching her backpack and outer clothes to no avail, there were absolutely no grounds for further subjecting Redding to such extreme and intrusive measures.
Of course, the Supreme Court ruling is only a victory in theory. The school officials have qualified immunity and cannot be sued for their actions. As far as civil liberties go, this case does nothing because it upholds qualified immunity for officials who commit gross abuses of power. What the case does do, is shed light on the unstoppable and unaccountable power that is the government.
Various immunities have been established in order to prevent government officials from being fearful of being sued for merely doing their duties, and to protect them from excessive litigation. It may sound good in theory to protect those who serve the public. On the other hand, there is no reason why by virtue of working for the government, a person should not be held to the same accountability or responsibility for their actions and misdeeds.
Indeed, it seems that someone who holds themselves out as serving the public should not only get no special protection, they should be held to a higher standard because they are allegedly serving the common good.
For example, police generally have absolute civil immunity for perjury committed at trial, meaning they can lie through their teeth and not be sued for it. The immunity was established to prevent police officers from getting sued left and right. However, the effect is that such an immunity takes away one major disincentive to lie, and those who are harmed by such lies have no recourse. At any rate, it is unclear why police should have a different standard than the average person when it comes to lying on the stand.
In this instance, the school officials cannot be sued for what they did to Redding. Ginsburg and Stevens argued against qualified immunity, but the majority held that immunity applied to the school official.
In sum, the government taxes the masses to set up institutions that people are required send their children to (unless they have enough money for a private institution), and when those institutions violate children's rights, the government then evades punishment by cloaking themselves in an unjustified immunity.
Sounds like a great system.
Comments
Standard
Yes this situation is pretty outrageous. Some might even go so far as to consider it violent. A 13 year old girl? In a school? What is wrong with people . . .
It is just beyond belief to me that they would ask a 13 year old child to show her breasts and pubic area in search of some IBUPROFEN. Why stop there? How about a cavity search! It wasn't a gun, a bomb, or a knife. It is incredibly vile and disturbing!
This is the kind of despicable stuff one would expect to find in fascist countries with no conception of civil or human rights.
If that was my daughter I'd be suing officials left and right - oh wait I can't. They are immune. Fabulous.
Can't they be accused of child molestation? There's got to be a justifiable loophole here. I am so angry about this! It's scary beyond belief.
Immune from what? I'd try to sue the sh out of them anyway. People have been sued for less.
Qualified immunity is just that - a general immunity that prevents government officials from being sued just because they are government officials.
With qualified immunity, a government official cannot be sued unless they knew or should have known the action would violate Constitutional rights, or if they acted with malicious intent to deprive someone of their rights.
Here, I'd argue that the school official either knew or should have known he/she was violating Redding's rights (it seems like common sense, doesn't it?) But the fact that the case went to the Supreme Court, I guess is some evidence that the law wasn't clear, so the reasoning goes that if the law was not clear, the official should not have been expected to know that he/she could not do that to Redding.
Jennifer, keep up the good work. It's a shame that only in San Francisco can you read such articles. Too bad most US medias today are too conservative to publish such articles.
Simon - thank you for your thoughtful comment. I really appreciate it!
It's hard to sue when the ones making the decision are the same organization as the ones you are suing. It makes no sense to sue the govt in a govt court.
Simon, it's not a conservative or liberal issue. Both parties violate your rights most every day, just in different ways. They're both for freedom as long as it's their freedom the way they want it. Love the articles Jenn
This goes to show that children need to carry mace and know their rights and how to defend themselves against so-called school administrators. My daughter was ten when I enrolled her in a self-defense class (for kids). She knows her rights and when and what to refuse. She also knows how to protect herself if force is attempted. She was also taught how to escape handcuffs and how to kick for maximum results, even when barefoot. She is now eleven and I have no doubt if school officials ordered her to strip, not only would she refuse, but if they tried to use force, she would kick, scratch and bite them to protect herself. Teach your child before he/she becomes a victim.
"Jennifer, keep up the good work. It's a shame that only in San Francisco can you read such articles. Too bad most US medias today are too conservative to publish such articles."
Actually, if conservatives know about it, they would be outraged, too.
They already have a lot of beef with many school officials who cross the line too often in dealing with their kids, on different matters.
Neither conservative nor liberal papers are talking much about the latest Duke rape case either where the school official at Duke adopted a boy only to molest him and subject him to further molestation from strangers.
Sad stuff.
Oh my god, I just read the story about the Duke guy... very, very scary! I might write something about it, but am not sure what angle to take.
"Oh my god, I just read the story about the Duke guy... very, very scary! I might write something about it, but am not sure what angle to take."
Take it from the child abuse angle. It is an angle where both conservatives and liberals can agree on- both sides hate people who abuse women and children.
I put that guy at Duke in the dustheap with those who pimps and johns who raped gals (I don't consider them prostitutes, since many of them are "tricked" into that "profession" or forced into it and forced to stay in it on pains of death) here and abroad (unprofessional massage places are notorious here for that).
"If that was my daughter I'd be suing officials left and right - oh wait I can't. They are immune. Fabulous."
Jenn, personally, I think they should be prosecuted. This just borders on them being sex offenders.
I love how they don't mention this girl had a history with drugs and was very likely to have the drug when this was considered.
She deserves to be naked, in fact I would have let the students grope her as punishment. She's a girl, it's not like she has anything to hide anyway.
Very funny, Anymo.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!