Strip-search ruling: Supreme Court sa...

Strip-search ruling: Supreme Court says strip search of girl il...

There are 26 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jun 25, 2009, titled Strip-search ruling: Supreme Court says strip search of girl il.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The Supreme Court ruled today that a school's strip search of an Arizona teenage girl accused of having prescription-strength ibuprofen was illegal.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
x-wizard

San Marcos, CA

#1 Jun 25, 2009
Clarence Thomas is so outside the mainstream, that even Alito, Scalia, and Roberts disagree with him on this. I cannot believe that even Thomas would think that strip searching a 13 year old girl for two ibuprofen tablets on the accusation of a classmate is reasonable. Just goes to show how out of touch with reality he is.
Mrs Ben Linus

Wheaton, IL

#2 Jun 25, 2009
I wonder how much we don't know. Was this girl known to be in trouble before? I somehow doubt that they would take a model student with no previous disciplinary record to be strip searched.

Sounds like the girl and her mom were looking for a quick buck. I guarantee that if the girl did have the pills, took them and had a bad reaction, mom would sue the district for not doing enough to stop pills from being inside school hallways.

Schools just can't win for losin
Ann

Chicago, IL

#3 Jun 25, 2009
x-wizard wrote:
Clarence Thomas is so outside the mainstream, that even Alito, Scalia, and Roberts disagree with him on this. I cannot believe that even Thomas would think that strip searching a 13 year old girl for two ibuprofen tablets on the accusation of a classmate is reasonable. Just goes to show how out of touch with reality he is.
You're so right...but it really should come as no surprise that Thomas would condone a strip-search of a young girl. The guy's proven himself a first-rate PERVERT. Remember that sexual harassment scandal he was involved in years ago? No doubt he was getting off, listening to the details on this strip-search case. Thank God the other judges had the sense to disagree with his sick opinion.
Google is your friend

Dekalb, IL

#4 Jun 25, 2009
Actually, we know plenty about it from a New York Times article on the subject. No, the girl had not been in trouble before. If your 13-year-old daughter were strip searched for ADVIL, yes, ADVIL you wouldn't upset enough to sue?
Long View

West Columbia, SC

#5 Jun 25, 2009
You know, during his confirmation hearings, I remember thinking, "This guy really can't be as bad as all the strange stories these witnesses are telling about him..."

Well, I was wrong. Clarence Thomas really is that off-the-wall. Pubic hair on a can of Coke, indeed!
Southside Hitmen

Chicago, IL

#6 Jun 25, 2009
Who in their right mind would assume that a teacher performing a strip search of a 13 girl was acceptable? Who in their right mind would WANT to strip search a 13 year old? I hope they fire this guy, because clearly he has crossed a line.
RegularGuy

United States

#7 Jun 25, 2009
Mrs Ben Linus wrote:
I wonder how much we don't know. Was this girl known to be in trouble before? I somehow doubt that they would take a model student with no previous disciplinary record to be strip searched.
Sounds like the girl and her mom were looking for a quick buck. I guarantee that if the girl did have the pills, took them and had a bad reaction, mom would sue the district for not doing enough to stop pills from being inside school hallways.
Schools just can't win for losin
Maybe. Schools have gotten more than a little nuts about what kids can do. Our school district outlaws vitamin tablets, but allows vitamin chewables and lozenges.

A kid can't come to school dressed like an American cowboy for Halloween any more if he has a holster with a toy gun.

Some over-zealous high school faculty walked into our high school auditorium, saw a scene from the school play being rehearsed, and dialed 9-1-1. Why? Because the scene onstage had one student brandishing a toy gun as a prop. The school went on lockdown for the remainder of the afternoon and evening.

Part of the problem, which the Supremes failed to fix here, is that school officials can't be held personally liable for those kinds of overreactions. So we let stupid rules replace common sense judgment.
Mich

Chicago, IL

#8 Jun 25, 2009
RegularGuy wrote:
Part of the problem, which the Supremes failed to fix here, is that school officials can't be held personally liable for those kinds of overreactions. So we let stupid rules replace common sense judgment.
School officials go overboard because they get sued if they miss something. They can't win either because as a society we are too litigious. People used to accept that sometimes awful things happen. But that was before every ambulance chaser was out there to convince you that you could blame ANYTHING on someone else.

My favorite is the law office that promises to get you money EVEN IF YOU WERE AT FAULT! WTF?!?!??!
kent

United States

#9 Jun 25, 2009
Is Clarence Thomas mentally ill? Just last week he was the only dissenter in a voting rights case (against the rights of course). Too bad the pervert is relatively young and will be a justice for quite a while.
stop the madness

Urbana, OH

#10 Jun 25, 2009
Justice Thomas is an angry man. To think it is ok to have your child strip searched without parental consent is not good. They could have called her parents and had one of them come to the school. Thomas hates women and this clearly shows he should think about retiring.
Taxpayer

Aurora, IL

#11 Jun 25, 2009
If it violates a school policy to carry Ibuprofen, and they have proof that a student is (not hearsay), the school should have the right to call in the parents and get them involved with the any disciplinary decision.

If what the student is accused of hiding is illegal, they should call the police and let them deal with it (as is the case here).

Schools are not law enforcement agencies. They do not have the power to arrest, detain, interrogate, or physically touch the students in any way (barring extraordinary circumstances).

They can give study hall, detention, suspension, or expulsion. But they had better be ready to deal with the subsequent law suit. They had better have a better case than "she said so".
DontGoInAlone

Chicago, IL

#12 Jun 25, 2009
Long View wrote:
You know, during his confirmation hearings, I remember thinking, "This guy really can't be as bad as all the strange stories these witnesses are telling about him..."
Well, I was wrong. Clarence Thomas really is that off-the-wall. Pubic hair on a can of Coke, indeed!
Technically a pubic hair is any body hair not on your head. Underarms, chest, legs, arms and yes those unmentionable places. Grow up.
Britches

Buffalo Grove, IL

#13 Jun 25, 2009
The people who conducted the strip search should be on a sex offender registry. These teachers are not law enforcement and they are not trained in conducting searches. I can only assume that they did this because they did not WANT the police involved in the search.

Also, given how many educators are arrested and charged with sex offenses against minors, there is no de facto presumption that these people are not perverts simply because they are "school officials."

The court erred in saying that these perverts should not be held liable. If a child made another child strip, they would be charged. So, what's the rationale for holding supposedly educated adults in an authority position to a lower standard?

Not only should these people be held civilly liable for their perverted acts, they should be held criminally liable and required to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Honestly, I think telling a young girl to strip is a FAR WORSE act than possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen. In terms of seriousness, these adults acts are far worse than what the girl was accused of.

If I had a kid in that school district, I'd be watching their teachers and administrators VERY closely.
Britches

Buffalo Grove, IL

#14 Jun 25, 2009
kent wrote:
Is Clarence Thomas mentally ill? Just last week he was the only dissenter in a voting rights case (against the rights of course). Too bad the pervert is relatively young and will be a justice for quite a while.
I guess the answer to your question hinges on whether one considers sexual perversion a mental illness, rather than a very serious character flaw.

Either way you cut it, Clarence Thomas is a demented person.
Critic

Buffalo Grove, IL

#15 Jun 25, 2009
Mrs Ben Linus wrote:
I wonder how much we don't know. Was this girl known to be in trouble before? I somehow doubt that they would take a model student with no previous disciplinary record to be strip searched.
You give these pervs a lot more credit than they deserve. What we don't know is what these teachers were thinking when they were making an underage girl take off all her clothes.
Darien

Bossier City, LA

#16 Jun 25, 2009
Hooray for common sense!
Strip search for Advil? What was the hazard in that OTC drug?
The punishment must fit the crime and the extent that the school took to find aspirin was way out of line.
Wilson should be fired and prosecuted!
Imperator

Chicago, IL

#17 Jun 25, 2009
Have our schools become jails? Prisons? School officials should not be strip searching our children. Ever.
harrietwest

Chicago, IL

#18 Jun 25, 2009
when i first read this story months ago i was so saddened that there are adults who would do this sort of thing to a child all because someone told them that she might have some medication that can be purhased over the counter.

i remember being a teen girl. around that time you have so many hangups about your body, you have just started having your periods and you have even more hang ups about that and how it effects your clothing and what you must wear in your panties, if you wear a size a-cup you feel inadequate and if you are unlucky enough to be a DD-cup all of the other kids, even the girls, are gawking at you.

then some stupid adult calls you into a room and says you have to strip down to your undies because someone says you have an asprin on you. you don't see it that way. this is some strange sort of wrong kind of sexual situation that some adult is trying to force you into. few teens would have the courage, intellegence and backbone to tell the adult 'No!"

this could surely tramatize a teen for many, many years.

any adult who thinks this is right doesn't remember what it was like being a teen, or is probably a male whose only source of embarrassment might be holes in his socks and dirty boxers.

i'm glad the surpreme court got it right on this one, despite Thomas, who seems to want to be contrary to every common sense ruling that seems to support so-called liberal people or causes.

it's sad to say, but when Thomas retires or goes on 'way from here, few people will mourn or count his redeaming contributions.

telling himself that he is "the only black" on the surpreme court won't be enough. his passing won't be much of a loss, unlike Thurgood Marshall, whose life really made a difference long before he became a Surpreme Court Justice.

hey Thomas, Reagan is dead and both Bushes are out of office. So why are you still adamant about carrying their water?
Anne-Marie Hislop

Chesterfield, MO

#19 Jun 25, 2009
Why did I know as soon as I saw 8-1 that it was Clarance Thomas who descented. He fears we will have an epidemic of teenaged girls hiding ibuprophen (oh heavens) or tylenol (the scandal) in their undies? Good grief!
twodogg

Chicago, IL

#20 Jun 25, 2009
Will someone please explain Clarence Thomas reasoning. Clearly he has some hidden agenda going on.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Safford Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Willcox community conversation -Willcox School ... Aug 1 joan 1
the music thread (Mar '12) Feb '17 Musikologist 23
Fema Do the survey to get your input (Jan '17) Jan '17 joanNYadoptees 1
New Jersey Adoptee's can get their original bir... (Jan '17) Jan '17 joanNYadoptees 2
Are you living in Willcox az. ? (Jun '16) Jan '17 joanNYadoptees 2
Az Birth Parents who relinquished a child (Jun '12) Jan '17 joanNYadoptees 8
Churches in willcox (Dec '16) Dec '16 Tngirl 1

Safford Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Safford Mortgages