When should schools conduct strip searches?
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a middle school’s decision to strip search a 13-year-old girl because of suspicion she brought prescription strength ibuprofen to school violated the Constitution.
(Go here for the decision in Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding.)
The case attracted national attention and much debate. Some thought the search was too intrusive. Others said schools must have the freedom to do whatever is needed to keep the majority of students safe.
According to the suit, school officials searched the girl’s backpack and her outer garments. That part of the search was constitutional, the court majority wrote.
The search became illegal, they wrote, when school officials ordered the girl to strip to her bra and panties and made her pull them away from her body so they see if she had any drugs. No drugs were found.
Several national organizations have said the ruling didn’t provide clarity on when schools can use strip searches.
The justices wrote school officials must balance the danger of the drug in question with whether there is good reason to think the contraband is hidden in a place making a strip search necessary.
Some school districts, including New York City, have banned strip searches outright. Should other systems do the same?
What standards do you think school districts should follow when deciding whether to conduct a strip search?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
56 comments Add your comment
tired of sorry a$$ teachers!
June 30th, 2009
9:45 am
ScienceTeacher671 you still haven’t answered Lee’s question.
ScienceTeacher671
June 30th, 2009
10:16 am
My point is, we probably don’t want to make absolute statements in regards to things such as this. Just as “zero tolerance” policies for drugs and weapons have led to problems and ridiculous cases, it is possible we don’t want to say we will “never” search a student – although searching students ought to be very very rare, and searching the particular student involved in the court case was extremely stupid.
Lee
June 30th, 2009
10:28 am
Good grief Scienceteacher, this entire blog is about Savannah Redding, who, at age thirteen, was subjected to a strip search by school officials.
Tony, who is an alleged principal (I say alleged because these blogs are anonymous and we really don’t know) is holding out for the “extreme circumstances” concept. You seem to support that position.
I keep asking for someone to give me an example of what would constitute an “extreme circumstance” that would justify subjecting this 13 year old girl to a strip search.
….and I’m still waiting for an answer.
I maintain that any example you can come up with would be a criminal act and as such, is best handled by law enforcement officials – not school officials.
As a result, I still maintain, as I did in my very first post, that there are ZERO circumstances that would justify a strip search by SCHOOL officials.
ScienceTeacher671
June 30th, 2009
10:56 am
Lee, the court decided that Savanna Redding should not have been searched.
The question asked on this blog is not whether or not SHE should have been searched, but whether there are EVER circumstances that would justify a searching a student.
Real schools have all sorts of students, including students who are known to be involved in gang activity and selling illicit drugs. Real schools have students up to age 21.
Here are the rules for school safety lockdowns, as explained to me by students: drugs go in your waistband or socks or shoes, because the dogs aren’t allowed to sniff students, and while you may have to empty your pockets, you won’t have to take off your socks or pants. Weapons stay in the classroom, because the classroom search only involves the dogs sniffing for drugs, whereas students will be scanned with metal detectors.
Dr. John Trotter
July 2nd, 2009
10:10 pm
I was in attendance when Ron Ramsey (state senator and DeKalb County administrator in charge of grievances) illegally shut down a grievance when a teacher from Clarkston High School was prepared to testify about illegal cheating, and he was also prepared to call in witnesses. I believe that I have an opportunity to meet with TV media personnel to air a story about this matter. One particular station expressed great interest in the story. I will be contacting this TV station shortly. I have been out of the country and quite busy lately. I hope that we can find an opportune time whereby we can fit this story in our respective schedulesso to shed some more light on just how corrupt the Crawford Lewis administration is in DeKalb County. If the DeKalb County Board of Education doesn’t get rid of Crawford Lewis who is a joke of a superintendent, then the entire school board needs to be thrown out of office. I was very disappointed that Senator Ronald Ramsey apparently felt the need to engage in a cover-up for the Crawford Lewis administration. I have otherwise found Mr. Ramsey to be a quite congenial and honorable chap. I see, however, that he has chosen to be a “company man.” Having a secure salary as an “employee” must seem more appetizing now to him than slaying the dragon each week as an independent lawyer. The economically hard times sometimes makes easy “cowards.” Coach Vince Lombardi often stated that “fatigue makes cowards of us all.” I hope that Senator Ramsey will be able to re-capture his manhood in the near future.
Of course, MACE did not just allow this illegal shutting down of the grievance. We immediately staged several pickets (which were covered by the Channel 11 with Keith Whitney) among other things. When the administrative weasels do bad things, you have to spank them in public and embarrass them. Yes, MACE has been heralding the bad news of possible widespread systematic cheating in the DeKalb County School System for some time now. The egregious cheating at DeKalb’s
Atherton Elementary School is, I am afraid, just the tip of the iceberg in DeKalb. MACE was the lone wolf in the wilderness talking openly about cheating in DeKalb. GAE and PAGE have been mute on this issue to this very day. Perhaps the cheating administrators were members of these organizations. We know that they are not members of MACE because MACE does not allow administrators or supervisors to join MACE.
Stay tuned for more revelations in DeKalb. This year ought to be a very revealing and unraveling year for the Crawford Lewis administration. As Dr. King stated: A lie cannot live forever. (c) MACE, 2009.
Dennis Reasinger
July 6th, 2009
11:59 am
This one is very simple to answer: ABOSLUTLY NEVER !