Supreme Court Rules on School Strip Searches PDF Print E-mail
Blog - Kids > School
Written by Nathan Greenberg   
Thursday, 25 June 2009 08:25

The Supreme Court has said that kids may not be stripped searched at school, even for illicit or banned drugs. The ruling also concluded that school officials could not be sued for the act. But it did not address whether or not school districts would be liable in such instances.

I like the idea that schools can't go to such lengths because if the item being searched for is so dangerous that a strip search is justified, the child should probably be arrested. At the very least, I'm sure there are other, more legal, measures to deal with instances such as this.

At the same time, school officials still have freedoms to search kids and do their best to keep the school a safe environment. I'd hate to think how much farther down a school could go if officials had their hands tied to such an extent.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/25/scotus.strip.search/index.html

 
Comments (3)
1 Thursday, 25 June 2009 09:36
Doria
This is a double edged sword. I don't think a child should be strip searched, but what constitutes a child? a 7 or 8 year old, or a 17 or 18 year old? In my opinion, there should never be a strip search on school grounds, but that shouldn't preclude the alternative of having them taken to a hospital for a medical examination by a doctor if there is reasonable justification.

Bottom line, children in schools should expect to be safe at all times and removal of a potentially danger student from school is reasonable.
2 Thursday, 25 June 2009 11:52
Noah's Mama
As a teacher that's had students with guns, drugs and alcohol in their possession in her class here's my stance: school personnel = no strip search - police = strip away
3 Thursday, 25 June 2009 15:18
David Greenberg
I would hope the Court revisits its 1980 ruling which held a student's locker can be searched without a warrant but where the school can demonstrate reasonable grounds to do so.

If they uphold the "reasonable grounds" theory, I would expect the Court to hold that it was unreasonable to go so far as to subject a teenage girl to being stripped for the possibility of finding an over the counter drug, whether or not the school held a no-tolerance policy.

The Court previously held in 1969 that minor students do not shed their constitutionl rights at the schoolhouse gates and I personally believe that to be true. In this particular case, I doubt the school could demonstrate the girl was in imminent danger or that the school could not contact the parents to determine if she held Ibuprofen at the parents' direction and knowledge.

Our Constitution is predicated on a theory of granting rights. No Article or Ammendment contains any substance or text to remove rights from a class of citizens. In fact, to do so would represent a bill of attainder and that is specifically barred by the Consitution.

Add your comment

Your name:
Your email:
Your website:
Subject:
Comment (you may use HTML tags here):
 

Your destination for the latest media perceptions of fatherhood and parenting.


"OurBlogIsYourBlog"
ProActiveDads is about good fathering and positive media portrayal. There are many great Dad blogs in the world and we want to help wherever we can. If you would like us to post your blogs or link to them, please contact us at feedback@ProActiveDads.com and we'll let you know how to submit your entries. Its a simple, easy, and free means of promotion for your work!