Originally Posted by GCTMT 
I looked at Thomas' dissent. His concern is that this would lead to schools being more reluctant to do what is necessary to maintain order and that would ultimately have a chilling effect on maintaining that order.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf
Thomas:
"In the end, the task of implementing and amending public school policies is beyond this Court’s function. Parents, teachers, school administrators, local politicians, and state officials are all better suited than judges to determine the appropriate limits on searches conducted by school officials. Preservation of order, discipline, and safety in public schools is simply not the domain of the Constitution. And, common sense is not a judicial monopoly or a Constitutional imperative."
He also argues that this particular child's previous and immediately previous behavior justified the search. She was involved with smoking in the girls' room in the past, in distributing pills at lunch in the past, in having "alcohol on her breath" at a school dance, and in reports of hosting a "vodka party" earlier in the year. School officials were aware of these things. In addition, they were having a serious problem with both legal and illegal drugs being passed around and the students had been made particularly aware that they were "cracking down" on this behavior. In addition, another child had become seriously ill taking a prescription drug from another student, so the school was justifiably worried about liability and protecting its student body. In addition, the case began when a student produced a "white pill" to the office and stated that several kids had gotten the pill from the girl in question and were going to "pop them at lunch". Also, this was not an OTC drug but a prescription strength 400mg pill. The fact that it was motrin is relevant but in context, the girl was attempting to make her peers believe it was something else. Finally, when the officials intervened, they found a knife, lighter and cigarette in the girls' binder, and this totality of events made them feel justified in taking the measures that they took.
Thomas:
"The reasonable suspicion that Redding possessed the pills for distribution purposes did not dissipate simply because the search of her back-pack turned up nothing. It was eminently reasonable to conclude that the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look." "If a student with a previously unknown intolerance to Ibuprofen or Naproxen were to take either drug and become ill, the public outrage would likely be directed toward the school for failing to take steps to prevent the unmonitored use of the drug. In light of the risks involved, a school’s decision to establish and enforce a school prohibition on the possession of any unauthorized drug is thus a reasonable judgment."
This was not an "innocent bystander" being abused by authority. She had a distinct record of challenging that authority, particularly related to the charges that were made against her.
That said, the school went much too far. At the moment they felt a "strip search" in order, they should have simply resulted to a far easier remedy at their disposal and they should have expelled her. Alternatively, they could have brought in the police to deal with the situation. Both the presence of a knife and the fact that redistributing prescription drugs is a crime would have justified police intervention. The continued search by law enforcement would have relieved the school of the liability imposed by taking on this search by themselves.
Local schools should be local and the local community should have seriously dealt with this abuse of power. The principle and staff involved, including the nurse, should have been fired immediately and any resisting members of the school board to that remedy should have been replaced at next election. It should be none of the federal government's business - but then, I think the same about education, generally.
The fact that the case went all the way to the Supreme Court clearly indicates that the child and her family were unable to retain relief at a lower level. The real shame in this decision is that this wasn't dealt with at the local level.
I understand Thomas' reasoning here. I respect it. I would not have arrived at the same conclusions. Those involved should have been fired.
Where I seriously disagree with Thomas is in his desire to restore the policy of
"in loco parentis" to school districts. In effect, it was common practice to transfer parental authority to school officials to control behavior. This means that schools could do anything a parent could do to maintain order. That is a throwback to a quaint time when school officials actually were simply members of the community and not agents of the State. It is self-serving in the extreme for any government agency or official to use the power of government to demand attendance and then to simultaneously support the notion that attendance is consent for the transfer of rights from parents to school. That consent is coerced and therefore, not consent.
~faith,
Timothy.
U.S. Supreme Court Declares Strip Search of 13-Year-Old Student Unconstitutional
Search Tags
World News & Politics