This was for ibuprofen. What would they have done if it was something horrible like Vick's Formula 44? Just shoot her on the spot?

But the solution is for the school administrators to go before the entire student assembly and remove their pants and shirt and stretch out the waistband of their drawers and pull their bra aside (males involved should be required to wear panties and bra for the sake of parity) to show the assembled middle-schoolers how normal it is. Any administrator who refuses or is embarrassed should be immediately fired.

This just shows how Amerika has lost its way and sensibility. School Officials strip searching a 13 year old - is just wrong! The police would not be able to do this!

Right Wing or Left Wing - government or public "authorities" are not a cure all!

Why weren't the school officials arrested? Amerika is truly heading down the wrong path. The Supreme Court is now a joke too.

School or public authorities who can not think or use common sense should not be allowed on public property and that includes judges, congress, the whole lot of those public officials that think they know best for all and that people can not think or be responsible for themselves.

Amerika is way beyond help!

The Nazis that ran Guantanamo had to find jobs somewhere. What could be more appropriate than at a school with a zero intelligence .. I mean tolerance policy.

But seriously, this is the one time they got caught. How many other times did they get away with such actions. They need to be convicted as sex offenders - never to go near a school again.

It was wrong to search that little girl, the school district should be sued, and the Principle should be jailed. I agree with everything that's been said against it. If this was my daughter, I would be flippin out.

These school administrators were incredibly foolish. The really sad thing is that because of this stupidity, someone is probably going to wind up in jail for sexual assault.

Did they know it was just Ibuprofen? So what if it is "prescription strength." It's no different than taking two that you can buy over the counter. And it doesn't give you any kind of high. If they knew what they were looking for, that is certainly "zero tolerance" run amok.

What I mean is that I don't think the original intention was sexual assault, and I think the administrators were just incredibly stupid.

That said, the administrators were wrong wrong wrong, and they will be charged with this wrongdoing.

If she had stripped like this voluntarily it would be Indecent Exposure and Public Lewdness. Being forced to strip like this is Sexual Molestation. There are criminal penalties for such behavior. A position of Authority does not place anyone above the law. The Principal and the Nurse must go to jaill and be given Sex Offender status.

you can't strip search a kid in school. No if ands or buts, school personell should not even have that authority. Even if it was something much more serious, parents and the police should have been involved.

I hope they fry the principle and the school staff. If they did that to my daughter they would have a lot more to deal with than just an appeal. I would hunt them down and take matters into my own hands. They think that they are all high and mighty. I would have something other for them to think about.

if it was as measly as ibuprofen they should have just called the parents

The schools seem to think they have more rights than a parent. There are more parents that care about the children than not. The schools often bring up the small percentage of parents that don't care about their kids when they issue new rules, new rights for the school (such as birth control pills), and so on... it ends up trampling the rights of the parents that do care about raising decent kids.

As far as stripping my child of their clothes........

It's one thing if there was an immediate threat to the school or students like a weapon or something stolen. But because they need to be in the right when they do it... they should call the cops to come in and witness it. What if they had a gun and intent on shooting someone.. safer to make sure that safety should be first considered.

But if there isn't an immediate threat then the school should call the parents BEFORE they do it and give me a chance to get there. They can wait for me to get there. I know that schools have the right to search but it shouldn't trample my rights as a parent, I will be there. These strip searches are very difficult for kids... esp when they are truly innocent of what they are being accused of. The schools need to be held responsible for overstepping boundries.

Schools for some time have stood by a "zero tolerance" policy when it comes to drugs, weapons and alcohol. Did you ever wonder why they had to do this? It was due to the reverse of this situation and the lawsuits created. So the pendulum has now swung the other way. It will be nice when schools can return to using commons sense in dealing with their students instead of trying to protect themselves from a lawsuit hungry public.

Welcome to the world of "policy", where intelligent thought (indeed, any kind of thought) is neither necessary nor welcome. "Zero tolerance" is one of those policies which can be implemented without any need for reflection, the weighing of equities, the consideration of alternatives, or any conscious thought at all, in short, exactly the level of intelligence and rationality which, sadly, we can expect from modern educators. It's a pubescent girl strip searched for the medical equivalent of a couple of aspirin because the school has a "zero tolerance" drug policy. It's the kid who gets suspended for pointing a straw at another kid and going "bang, bang", because the school has a "zero tolerance" policy for guns. It's the kid who gets sent home because he/she was wearing a crucifix and the school has a "zero tolerance" policy for "gang symbols". "Zero tolerance" is wonderful - the world neatly fitted into a nice, little matrix. All you have to do is find the correct box to check and then check it. Job done.

Regrettably, public institutions, particularly, be they schools or the Fed'l Dept. of Health and Human Services, are addicted to "policy" because bureaucrats don't like disorder. They dislike the messiness of life. Complexity repells and offends them (indeed, it may exceed their intellectual capacity to grasp it), and so everything must be reduced to a universal rule with predetermined applications, rigidly and invariably applied, even when the application is absurd or yields an absurdity. It's why government doesn't work and never will work.

So, let me get this straight. People in positions of authority at schools won't hug a student back if they're hugged, or give a student a pat on the back if they did a good job because it might be misconstrued as harassment. But they CAN strip search a student? The logic just doesn't add up.

And then people complain about and condemn the American Civil Liberties Union, one of this nation's most important defenders of individual rights under our Constitution against such egregious acts and policies.

I thought this type of stupidity only happens in the South. Thank God for the A.C.L.U.

Right on. Hate to say this, but if she were my daughter, I'd do more than sue.

I'd love to track this girl's future in school and see how this event influenced her educational future and if she does not get a bad attitude. How insulting and embarassing.

And the other comment is right too. If one person got this winner idea, why would everyone else go along??? I mean the school nurse, who I assume or hope at least was a woman, why would she agree to do this to the little girl? I mean she should have told the VP "not on my watch" baby and called the cops in to report child abuse. I think the cops would have set the VP straight in a hurry. Her second call would be to the parent to come take your little girl home today until this gets cleared up.

Sad to say, the only thing that will stop this in that school and cure the sickness and maybe get early retirement or better cancel the VPs license will be a good stiff award from the court that they have to pay. Otherwise, the next one will be a total strip search, then a cavity search etc etc There's a sickness there.

sam

If in the presence of female school employees only if they had stripped her down to bra and panties and seen the outline of a 9 MM Glock in her shorts they might have been justified in going further but this was a clear case of abuse of power.Let's hope the Supreme Court can see this is a case of following policy gone way to far

Freedom123. . . What an ironic moniker for you.

If you have facts that contradict my thoughts and beliefs, please share them. Show us the error of our ways. But your baseless, repetitive word-processing and ad hominem attacks -- an effort to pass for cleverness -- carry no weight in any intelligent discourse.

Sad but it is going to take is one child molested by a school official (and we all know that official is out there ploting how to do this) to put in perspective just how wrong this policy is. Seems strange that a school without the training or legal knowledge can do more to take away a Minor's rights than police who have been trained and KNOW THE LAWS that protects that child. I always told my children they were not to let them touch them without calling me and the police. I know the schools will say it is too time consuming etc but after all we are speaking about a minor child and nothing should be considered too time consuming.

PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN NEEDS TO BE FIRST. NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW AND THAT INCLUDEDS SCHOOLS CLAIMING THEY ARE DOING IT TO PROTECT OTHER STUDENTS WHILE THEY ARE THEMSELVES BREAKING LAWS. CALL PROPER AUTHORITIES AND PARENTS.

I thought this type of stupidity only happens in the South. Thank God for the A.C.L.U.

No, we actually got running water and electricity a year or so ago, so were moving uptown now. Have you ever been to the South? Maybe you should visit sometime....on second thought were bettter off without you.

Anyone can hide behind laws and regulations all they want (like here), but the absolute final authority when it comes to children, is their parent/guardian - period - whether you agree with them or not.

I'm sorry, but if someone from a school strip searched my kid there's no way I'd be able to control myself. Man or woman, you put my 13 year old kid in a sexual position like that then you better be ready to get knocked the F out. There's only a few cases where vigilante justice is acceptable and this is one of them.

In Locu Parentis :Latin.

in the place or role of a parent.

To: Aleuicius, and others. This is the Term used for the role of Teacher and Administrators in a school setting. Many of you just assume that these persons are doing to do whatever they want. They are actually doing your job in your absence. Some of the comments today prove what I said in Post #1.13. It is always someone else's fault and we are going to make you PAY!

this is ridiculous i'm 14 and i would never let anyone do this to me and i would not let them search me of any kind until i had a lawyer! i have common sense and i would refuse for any teacher or any one of the school staff search me or take any of my clothes off. i would not even let them look in my purse. thats mine and they have no buisness in there. even if she were to caue harm this should have never happened. i am furious at this. the school staff at my school has no respect for me or my privacy so why shouild i have any for them!

Ah, so it's ok for this substitue 'parent' to strip a child bare and look at her for no real reason? Hey, that's called 'molestation' if you do it. How do they rate a different standard?

As the court in questioning the reasonable exercise of police power(that is what it is), to Control the persons, and have conformity to their rules and values. If our founding fathers were alive today:the tyranny they fought is now accepted by a controlledd populist: they would be ashamed at what we allowed this Nation to become.

Watching the Supreme Court arguments it was plain that most of the justices except Ruth Bader Ginsburg felt this could somehow be justified in the name of safety.I wonder what these fine justices will think when their 13 year old daughter is subjected to a cavity search over aspirin. It's laws like this that leave none of us safe.

Outrageous for a school to think they have the authority to do something only the police can do.

The Police can't do what the school did. Based on reasonable suspicion, they could do the standard search. Having found contraband and placed the minor under arrest, they might be allowed to do a strip search. Maybe. Finding nothing, police would not be allowed to detain the student, let alone strip search.

Not that I agree with this, but schools have been given more latitude and more power than police to conduct searches. The police can't come to your place of employment or your gym and search your locker without probable cause, a much stricter standard than reasonable suspicion, but schools have conducted indiscriminate locker searches for contraband. The courts have said that such searches are legal if school officials have a reasonable suspicion that contraband is present on campus.

I agree with you, Montana and BenCT, that conducting this search in this extreme manner based solely on the accusation of one other student, without parental involvement, without contacting the local police, is preposterous.

Didn't I read stuff from some here bemoaning the lack of security in all these different schools being a contributing cause when the kids go postal? Either the sweet little nothings have rights and the administration has none or the administration has rights and the nasty teenagers are nothing. You cannot have it both ways.

Tom, I was thinking a similar thing. But I think I'd say it a little differently.

We want school administrations to have the tools to search for weapons and drugs. But we don't want school administrators to have too much autonomy, or the door is left ajar for disastrous judgment calls like this one.

I think, as many people in other threads have said, that school administration should defer to law enforcement for drug and weapons suspicions. Exceptional situations will arise in which immediate action is needed, but the institutional mind must not be encouraged to think they can act in extraordinary ways in ordinary situations.

Where I live, in the rich NJ 'burbs, they got full-time town cops in the High School so the Godless yuppie progeny don't tear each other apart. They even have security in the buses.

Where I went to school, in the economically distressed Deep South, we had police in our middle school to deter fighting and keep people from the community from distributing drugs to students.

I've since become friendly with my former principal (who is now a neighbor of mine) and recognize that she had a hard job. Juggling budgets, the school board, and parents was at least two full time jobs. Handling security was at least one more. Problem schools are forced to either create a position for security issues (and thus rerout funding from academics), accept a tolerable amount of drugs and violence, or take draconian/zero-tolerance measures. None of these are great options.

I can't tell if you're saying the cops aren't necessary. But, I think a policy that identifies when to defer to law enforcement is just good sense. Since most school principals are average people, not especially suited to wear multiple, competing hats and endure continuous stress, mistakes are inevitable.

No proof - no suspicious activity - nothing but a snitch. Used to be, when someone was reported, there was follow-on observation before any action -

- and the snitch got punished if nothing at all was observed to support the accusation, because it was assumed (and most often rightly) that they were using the blind establishment as a way to cause trouble for another student (usually some form of jealousy or revenge).

Today, the snitch has nothing to fear - is even rewarded sometimes - and we have another victim of over-zealous authority.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty

Steech -

My middle school had cops and metal detectors at the entrance. By the metal detectors were boxes filled with knives, brass knuckles, etc. confiscated from students. At the time NYC was the murder capital of USA. Nobody's locker was ever searched. No student was strip searched. Was this pervert academy in some rough neighborhood I never heard of? There is no explanation for this incident. It was a crime, pure and simple.

I don't know if people are still reading this thread on Wednesday morning, but:

Ben wrote: "My middle school had cops and metal detectors at the entrance. By the metal detectors were boxes filled with knives, brass knuckles, etc. confiscated from students. At the time NYC was the murder capital of USA. Nobody's locker was ever searched. No student was strip searched."

When I was in middle school in '89-'91, the most serious things were brass knuckles and knives. There had been a shooting at our high school a few years earlier, but bringing guns to school was not the norm. Further, middle school was the only time I've ever seen brass knuckles, and I never saw them actually being used. Kids brought the weapons to school as show; very seldom were they used. Still, the school had to take them seriously.

Lockers were searched, but bags seldom were. So all of the weapons and drugs were on students. Honestly, my memory isn't reliable enough for me to certify whether students were ever patted down, but I really hope they were.

This goes back to my point: It shouldn't have been the school administration's job to pat the students down. If a student was suspected of having a weapon or drugs, the police should have been called to do it. There's a liability issue, but there is also a training deficit. The police are just the logical authority to conduct intimate searches.

I take issue with the term "pervert academy." This wasn't sexual assault. It was a really bad judgement call. Really, really bad. No justification. However, mistakes are either intentional or unintentional, malicious or inadvertent. The principal shouldn't be let off the hook here, but he really faces a lesser charge, given that he had good intentions. If he had called the police, instead of trying to be a hero, this wouldn't have happened.

Steech,

I hate to beat a dead horse but stripping a thirteen year old girl down to her underwear then forcing her to pull them away from her body in full view of an adult not her primay care physician, parent, or legal guardian constitutes a sex crime anywhere but in school. I think that glaring exception should be rapidly removed.

I tend to agree with you. The Bill of Rights gives everyone protection against illegal search and seizure. There is nothing to indicate that this was legal. There is a lot of suggestive evidence that this action was perpetrated by a bunch of do gooder Nazi types that abused their individual rights of a minor.

With idiots like this running our schools, how can anybody expect that they are capable of providing children with a decent education!

Aha! Aren't the kids infant minors, bereft of many adult rights? Aren't the school authorities acting in loco parentis for the security of the entire school community? What rights? These are kids. When they hit 18, they carry the full constitutional menu. When still kids, younger than 18, conform to the norm or stay home.

According your your argument any boy or girl under 18 must submit to whatever action an adult demands, which apparently includes sexual voyeurism and touching since they have no rights? If this were true then it would be a great justification for any school teacher or gym coach to use their position to get them to strip and expose themselves or to allow the adult to touch them.

A Wikipedia article on loco parentis states "First, it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.^[1]".

1. ^ ^{a b} "Law.com Law Dictionary - in loco parentis". Law.com. http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=in+loco+parentis&type=1&submit1.x=86&submit1.y=20&submit1=Look+up. Retrieved on 2008-09-03.

I'm glad tom343 can speak for the pro-child molestation contingency. On the other hand, I'm VERY glad that most people are taking the anti-child molestation side.

tom343,

I hope you don't have children either.

Oh, and where did you get your degree in Constitutional law?

Oh, gee some licensed school employee, surrounded with witnesses and nurses, touched my poor little baby! Where's my lawyer? We're made for life! Oh my sweet baby, quit snickering about this with your friends! Part of our case is that you're emotionally ruined.

Natwah, is it some sort of lame debating trick to accuse your opponent of something so outrageous or unseemly that he'll either just slink away ashamed or storm away in a huff? Forget it!

No one got molested here, or abused sexually, or had permanent or even temporary harm done to them. The schools do have a limited policing authority. If accepted procedures were followed, it is just greed that is motivating this whole deal. And so far as being an expert in constitutional law is concerned, the constitution was deliberately written simply and clearly enough so laymen could comprehend it. It's only these greedy, self-serving power-mad pencil-necks that try to imply it doesn't contain what's written in it or alternately try to imply it says things not written in it.

The schools do have a limited policing authority!??!?!

WTF are you talking about? Yeah the school can suspend a student....where in the whole wide world did the schools EVER think they had the right to strip search ANYONE?!?!?

And no one was harmed by this? This statement is so outrageous, that its really hard to even comprehend how anyone could say something so stupid.

But since you have said it, even with all the other posters pointing out how wrong it is, I'm guessing your just never going to "get it". So theres no need for me to try.

Tom343,

So if I accused you of having drugs, you would be perfectly fine with the police doing a strip search of you and searching your house?

Uh, tom343, where do you get a school employee 'license'? And where did it say that this girl was 'surrounded by witnesses'? There were, if the story is correct, one nurse and one Vice Principal. I'd be willing to bet that if you and a female friend of yours who happened to be a nurse did this you'd both be crucified by the press and prosecuted by law enforcement and rightly so. Get your head out of that deep, dark hole you've dug for yourself and look at the facts. You've made a lot of groundless accusations so it's impossible to take anything you say seriously.

Restore the constitution and stop all warrentless searches. The damage done to this girl far outweighs the damage an ibuprophen would cause anyone. Teach our children English, Math and social responsibility instead of forcing them to conform to the governments will at any cost. If the Supreme court does not rule in her favor it will set a precedent that will further degrade our constitution to the status of a$$wipe.

Restore the constitution and stop all warrentless searches.

This should encompass all invasions of privacy: including, but not limited to, eavesdropping on our telephone conversations and reading our personal mail and e-mail without a court order which are permitted under current Executive Order which has the force of law until overturned.

Brad,

We are at least adults, able to defend ourselves. What is being done to children today is beyond comprehension. Did you hear about the kid who was expelled because his parents refused to ddrug him with Ritalin? Or the girl who was sent to Juvie because she wrote something negative about a teacher on Facebook?

War on Drugs = War on American Citizens , another excuse to violate our rights.

"Stop all warrantless searches"? I understand and agree with the sentiment, but do you really know what you're asking for? You're saying that the police should have to appear before a magistrate and make a case for probable cause before conducting any search. That means that a lot of legitimate and crucial police work would come to a grinding halt while the warrant is obtained.

There are times when the delay of obtaining a warrant can endanger someone's life or property. I think that the better goal should be to so narrowly define those times and situations that the State does not unnecessarily and egregiously violate anyone's Fourth Amendment rights.

The problem has been that the courts have increasingly broadened, rather than narrowed, police powers; and in the "wars" against illegal drugs, immigration, and terrorism, the Government has pushed for a far greater expansion of its powers.

Hey JPF; If the legal structure impedes the state from doing its job, let the state go to the people and make a case for amendment. Amend the constitution, don't read stuff in it that's not there nor remove from it things it states plainly. It has been amended close to 30 times already. It is not an allegory. It is case law.

As adults in power, they should have been able to make a better decision based on the situation. Lewis Lonacker wrote " Well,it just goes to show that they who believe they have all power can do whatever they want,when they want and to whom."

Another example of Zero Tolerance equates to Zero accountability for the school administrators or so they thought. It is time to end the idiotic Zero tolerance rule. School administrators should be forced to think about there actions not fall back to a rule that lumps all behavior together, absolving them from making a decission. Isn't that what they are paid to do ?

Many people spent their school years taking illogical, pointless orders from morons and having their will to live systematically crushed.

And people say school doesn't prepare kids for the real world.

It is easy to use this incident to try to slam public schooling, but a similar incident happened at a private religious school last year. As I recall this was in Michigan. The issue is not that it was done by someone in a public school or not. This sort of thing occurs when people use their position of power to bully and intimidate others. Bullying like this could easily happen in a business, a college, or a church.

There was an incident at a Burger King in Tennessee or Kentucky last year or the year before at which a female cashier was strip searched by the female manager who later turned the girl over to her boyfriend. The boyfriend, under the instructions of someone watching via a security camera, made the girl do a range of things including giving him oral sex. The same sorts of things can be done in a public or a private school.

TOR, that's an unduly heavy-handed selection of quotations given this case. Would you prefer having an unschooled, ignorant citizenry incapable of formulating informed decisions?

This thread is about the unreasonable search of a 13 year-old by school officials, not a condemnation of the process of education.

But what did Ron Kuby say? Kuntzler? Dirshawitz? Cotton Mather?

You are right. And the quality of education is near zero. Real education begins in College. The only good thing about high school is sex and parties. What's the use of Middle School? Does anyone remember anything from Middle school?

The real purpose of Public education is to remove potential workers from competition with Adults. Look it up. The industrial revolution was staffed by teenage workers. This is fact.

Um d.... It was an advil. That is not a prescrition drug. This is not dangerous pusher this is a kid who gets headaches or cramps and the parents thought "just keep these advil/mortin/tylenol in your bag and if you get a headache take it rather than go through the hell of the psycho nurses office.

You can't strip a kids because another one "TATTLE" tails. Odds are the "tattle" student got her info as a rumor in the first place. We are talking bout an honor student with no record. Also, honor student or not, school officials have NO BUSINESS EVER strip searching children FOR ANY REASON EVER. IF it is that serious CALL THE POLICE.

Actually, carla, it was prescription strength ibuprofen. But still.........kinda crazy to go doing a strip search over that. As someone pointed out, it wasn't like they thought the girl had a bomb in her panties. THAT would be a little different.

d-in arizona:

Did you even actually read the article. She was searched on the word of a student that was found with the drugs. No drugs were found on the girl that was strip searched. You have no clue if she was "tipped off and dumped" anything. You're probably right though since no 13 year old would falsely accuse another to avoid punishment.

I've got news for you. You are part of the problem, not the solution.

This is how the Salem Witch Trials began - mass unfounded hysteria fueled by accusations of thirteen year old girls.

Are you serious? No one and that means NO ONE is permitted to strip search a child without a) the police being present and b) without the parent being present and that includes the cops! Read the law before you try to quote it.

In D's defense depending on the dosage of this said "pill" it could actually do dmg to a young person, who's to say she didn't give it to someone who was allergic to it?

That being said, there is no way she should have been stripped searched for it, that is way out of line. Parents should have been notified, search the backpack, find nothing... girl goes back to class.

Going off the word of another student is complete inappropriate. The staff should be punished, sex offenders? that's a bit much, Fired though, that's reasonable..I'm sure the school district will feel this one in their pocket book.

.

It is painfully obvious that you want to live in a country where Teachers have the right to strip search a Child. I wonder what you would say if this was your child.

All I can say is, God help any teacher who attempted to strip search my young daughter. That teacher would have a severe problem and would personally have to deal with me.

Hypocrisy is truly the worst of human traits

IB Profin is not always a perscription drug you can get it over the counter at any store. I dont feel that this should be concidered an illegal drug in school because alot of girls carry it due to monthly cramps. The girls cant even have midol in school anymore. These kids are not using it as a drug they are using it for what it is intended for. This was a violation of that girls rights. She is a child and probably didnt know what she was being called to the office for so why would she hide pills in her underware?

Hey! they did not find any drugs. Where do you get off condemning this kid.

R. Williams -

Totally agree. So if students start accusing each other of carrying aspirin, are they going to strip search every single student?

Based on this article, they strip searched this girl because of another girl "tattling" on her.

Hopefully these administrators go to prison.

Maybe they should have waterboarded her to find out the real truth. Then the schools would be safe for sure. (of course I'm being sarcastic)

It is obvious that you didn't read the article, and that you also are a moron. The "perscription" in this case, was ibuprofen, and it was only a 400 mg strength. That is the same as taking 2 tablets, from stuff you can buy off the counter in pretty much any store. In fact, it is the same strength, that is recommended to take. On top of this, you talk about "laws" that were written, when this isn't a "law". This was based on a "school policy", of ZERO TOLERENCE on anything, which is the way the schools are being run nowadays. Both the Repukes, and the Dumbos, are at fault for this, from the school boards, administrations, and down to the teachers. All this "let's get tough" stuff, all in the name of being able to be re-elected, and then possibly run for a "higher" office later on.

Based on this article, they strip searched this girl because of another girl "tattling" on her.

Not only was the school wrong to do this, but if students know they could be strip searched at any time, some of them may use this as a weapon against other students. Any student could maliciously claim they saw so-and-so put some pills in her bra and then laugh as the victim gets carted off to be strip searched.

It's ridiculous. I get that schools are between a rock and a hard place and they must do all they can to ensure safety of staff and students. But I sure don't think a strip search for a low-level drug that won't even give you a high is it. OTOH, a student could be telling the truth about seeing a fellow student with a gun or drugs. Then what do you do? I guess call the police.

But what if it had turned out to be Ricin? Anthrax powder?

tom343: where the hell would she get Ricin or Anthrax? Maybe she a terrorist in disguise or maybe your post is off the wall...

Hey, I hear some kids snuck big time weapons and shot up a school! And ricin is easily made in home labs, just like crystal meth. And Anthrax is literally everwhere.

I'm sure the school district will feel this one in their pocket book.

That's really the issue, isn't it? If you need an argument against extraordinary powers, here it is. This was a bad judgment call. It wasn't a sex offense and was done with good intentions. But it was a mistake that everyone pays for.

The kid had to change schools and probably learned to suspect, rather than respect, authority figures. The parents had to endure the pain of having their child violated by an official and then denial of satisfaction by the lower courts. The principal is already damned by the court of public opinion - and the nurse, too, probably. The school will have to work very hard to reclaim credibility with parents. There may be financial compensation. The principal and the school district already have their own legal costs. Every parent in the school will pay for the school's legal defense, as will everyone else in the community who pays taxes, whether they have school-age kids or not.

according to the article it seems the vice principle could be held personally responsible and not the school district.

Either way, while I know our school system is drastically short on funds. Maybe hitting them in the pocketbook will send a message to other schools, not to do something so stupid.

A line has to be drawn, and demanding a child remove her shirt and pants is completely unacceptable, let alone asking the child to pull them, to verify there is nothing in them.

Some of you think it's nothing, but you really need to think about how violated you would feel. What if you were at work and your boss suspected you stole, and you were forced to be strip searched. You would be tramatized as well.

And let's not get into the argument, that in all honestly, come on people....if you forced your child to strip for you because suspected drugs, you'd probably get a child abuse or worse charge.

Steech,

The road to hell, they say, is paved with good intentions. As for whether or not this was a sex crime, ask the little girl how she felt when she was told to take her clothes off. It was more than a simple case of poor judgement, since the district is not only defending its actions but begging the Supreme Court to say it's ok to search whenever and however they want to on whatever evidence they determine is 'reasonable'. Whatever happened to checks and balances?

I told my child that if anyone EVER tried to strip search them, and if they don't see me there saying it's allowed, that they are to RUN away.

I will teach my children to disobey everyone. They will be the meanest, most contrary little bastards in the USA. These skills will help them rise to the top of corporations, and eventually, run the government.

Obedience is for doomed sheep.

BenCT - I agree to an extent. Schools teach conformity and I believe we have enough Wal-Mart greeters in the country already.

That being said, I try to raise my kids to non-conformists in positive ways. I am very fortunate and both of my sons are very bright. They get bored easily in class and had a tendency to get in a little bit of trouble sometimes. I taught them how to be "ass-kissing" non-conformists. They get A LOT more privileges that way. Instead of detention they get free time in the library. It is a lot better for all involved.

Now those are skills you can take to the board room.

I was being half-sarcastic, half-serious. Serious about the mean, contrary part. This country has been going the wrong way for a long time now. It seems to me that now is the time to take a stand. Politicans and CEO's, Secret Police and mad scientists, School Principals and Crossing Guards... all derive their power from our obedience. It is time to make a principle of oneriness. People keep forgetting that what wins Revolutions is the inability of the Occupying Power to control the people.

See BenCT's posts if you wonder how some kids become bullys.

Mr. Rogers.

I told my child that if anyone EVER tried to strip search them, and if they don't see me there saying it's allowed, that they are to RUN away.

Unfortunately, in this day and age, that'll get the poor kid shot...

I totally agree with the sentiment behind it though. What about a cell phone -everybody's on it night and day nowadays - just have mom & dad's number preprogrammed so that all you have to do is hit a button and presto! the parents know that they are needed IMMEDIATELY. I personally don't have one of the stupid things but I'm sure some whiz kid would know how to set this up.

I totally agree. She made the choice to strip down. At that age I would have told them to kiss my @ss. Let them call the cops or my mom. Maybe her mommy should have had a serious talk with her about taking her clothes off for just anyone.

She made the choice? Excuse me? Not all kids are alike. If you're generally brought up as a good kid who never gets in trouble and never has any reason to resist against the adults who are supposed to be looking out for you, of course you're going to be traumatized by something like this. It doesn't mention it in this article, but she was such a kid. And yes, at that age, some kids are "hardk0r" as you apparently were (...) but if you've never tested those kinds of boundaries before, you won't think you have a choice... or at least a choice that doesn't carry even worse consequences.

Get real. First of all if this is true why hasn't she gone into therapy.

You're assuming she has the money for a therapist, or has really good insurance. Was that in the article? I didn't see that part.

How the hell do you, and the other Pseudo- Intellectuals know what this kid has been dealing with?

I believe you would have something completely different to say if this was your child.

How can you say a 13 yr old had a choice? Were you there? Do you know if she felt threatened? Or felt if she refused that she would be in trouble? I certainly remember being 13 and your thoughts & ideas are just forming. I would have been scared & confused, I think at that age I would have done it because I had no choice. If that happened now? Of coarse I would tell them to kiss my a**, but at 13, No. Thats why we have laws.

Chances are good she was told that if she didn't let them search her it was as good as being guilty, and if she was guilty then with Zero Tolerance she would be automatically suspended or expelled.

To a honor student like she was, being told they are going to be suspended or expelled is a horrible threat. Especially when we train kids that grades or sports or their special little talent is what is going to get them far in life.

Yeah she was only in 8th grade, but thats right on the brink of highschool and depending on where she was, she may have been trying to get into a certain program in high school or something where a suspension or expulsion could seriously rock her future plans.

It was a BAD decision. Search her locker, ok, search her backpack/purse, ok, anything further, call the parents and wait for them to get there. Even if she had to sit in the office the rest of the day, it would have been worth it to avoid all this years later I think.

Ahh, some more from the pro-molestation crowd. I was worried that you scumbags had been shamed into silence.

tootsie, I hope you're just beiing facetious. If not, you would have been arrested and probably tossed in juvenile hall for such an act. There was no choice here and it takes only some rational thought to realize it.

Dave, grow a sense of decency and maybe some empathy. This was a 13 year-old girl in a situation that most of us can't even conceive of. Get real yourself and realize that not everyone is as tough as you seem to feel you are.

okay, I have to amend what I said. I missed the part where it said perscription strength. But I still believe that strip searching a 13 year old girl and or a boy is wrong unless a parent is present and informed of such a search before.

A ''prescription dose' of Ibuprofen is an 800 mg tablet. That is equal to 4 OTC 200 mg tablets. You can take a whole bottle of them and it will not harm you.

Umm actually, when I was about 18 years old (wow, that seems so long ago) I took too many ibuprofen, due to a bad tooth ache, and had to go the ER I was really really sick.

ibuprofen IS a prescription drug read the article she had or was accused of having prescription strength ibuprofen should she be subjected to a strip search? I don't think so but it wasn'nt the schools administrator that did the strip search it was the school nurse

You can get prescription doses of 200mg but they usually start at 400mg or 600mg. Either way, if someone did this to my daughters they would have to deal with me and my husband.

In point of fact, seen it before, the article says she was taken to the nurse's office, not that the nurse was the only one to view the search. The case doesn't specify that either, but we can't make any assumptions here.

The strength of the drug is irrelevant, since any medication is prohibited due to the school's policies.

The girl won her case a long time ago. The school has appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to win back their right to strip search 13 year old girls.

Seriously?? The girl won her case and this is the school taking it to the Supreme Court?

Why not? This way they get sued if they do and sued if they don't! As usual the taxpayers loose and the lawyers and insurance companies win.

You are a complete Moron... What in the name of god are you babbling on about? You need to go back to bed and take your meds.

Can you honestly say that a 13 year-old, taught to listen to and obey the instructions of teachers and school officials, called into a vice-principal's office and told to go to the nurse for a strip search, reasonably believed that she had ANY choice in the matter?! Get real.

I agree. I have talked to my kids about this already.

Kinda scares me what they would have done had she refused since they seem to think they had a right to strip search her in the first place.

People, people, people...Yes, this is outrageous and uncalled for, but we have to blame ourselves. Yeah I said it!

Totally disagree with this statement. As a father of four, the last thing that ever crosses my head to tell my 13-yr old daughter is.."Oh yeah....don't strip in front of your principal."

As parents, we have the absolute responsibility to safeguard and inform our kids on events that are common and forseable. For example, I monitor my kids internet access, because I know of the dangers. As parents, we should expect no less than 100% confidence in our kids teachers and administrators that they are keeping our kids best interest at heart. I totally blame the principal of this school and anyone else at the school who was involved.

kVOTHE...Ok, but do you see why this girl and her parents would have benefitted by educating her? Nobody forsees this happening to their kids. If we only taught our kids about things we can forsee happening, our kids wouldn't have a chance.

kVOTHE...Ok, but do you see why this girl and her parents would have benefitted by educating her? Nobody forsees this happening to their kids. If we only taught our kids about things we can forsee happening, our kids wouldn't have a chance.

Well if you start right now and create a list of all of the unforseen possibilities that could harm your child you might finish before you die. We should, at the bare minimum, be able to trust our teachers and school officials. I am all about educating your child, like "don't ever talk to strangers", or "don't ever use drugs", but it takes a village to raise a child, and unfortunately our village is apparently full of idiots.

LusciousDC,

Up until now, who in their right mind would think a middle school vice principal would be so a)stupid, b)perverted, c)despotic, or d)all of the above to strip search a student on the word of another student already in trouble? At worst, it was an attempt to redirect attention to someone else. At best, a mistaken identity. Neither case justifies such a thing and I would quite literally rip body parts from anyone who did this to my child. We're supposed to trust our schools, or did that thought somehow escape you? School staff are supposed to undergo a background check and be thoroughly checked out BEFORE being allowed to work around children. Apparently no one checked these staff members for an IQ above 50 or common sense.

Dean...With all of these teacher/student love affairs on the rise for how many years now; this wouldn't prompt you to tell your child to NEVER take their clothes off for ANY body at school? Trust? The only people I fully trust with my kids are my family. People put blind faith in other people because of their job titles and outward appearances...Give me a break, priests are even molesting kids. Just because they do a background check means absolutely nothing except the perv hasn't been caught yet. See, I wouldn't have to rip off body parts because my children would not have taken their clothes off. Actually, knowing them, they would have told him where to get off and maybe tried to help him get there..and not in a PC way.

That's nice. The world needs more mouthy brats. Thanks for providing them

carlacomment... For one, MY children aren't brats. But they aren't pushover-wussie-crybabies either. Wouldn't you rather your child get mouthy and NOT take their clothes off or vise versa? Sound to me you agree with the vice principal. When your pantywaist-sissy children has this done to them, think about what I said. Don't blame the other adult in the situation, blame yourself for not arming your child with enough information to prevent this.

LusciousDC,

We're not talking about a love affair here. It was a not a case of infatuation or something that could even remotely be classified as mutual. This was an action calculated to humiliate this child and exert control over her. That's rape, not a love affair, and I somehow believe that telling the VP where to 'get off' would have only resulted in greater trouble for her. I'm not being PC, just realistic. I've dealt with authority figures and most don't take kindly to challenges to that authority.

I hope your children are never in this kind of situation because it wouldn't be a matter of telling someone 'no'. What rapist (yes, I consider this a kind of rape) ever stopped because the victim protested?

Dean..I don't think you're getting what I'm talking about. If my child had told this principal where to go, how much more trouble could she get in that is worse than taking her clothes off for these people?

Oh, let's see, taken in by the police, thrown in a real jail, a few others I can think of, and would probably still be strip-searched. Police are not much more sympathetic than this idiot. All I'm saying is that it's not always easy to say no in a situation like this and one should be prepared for the consequences.

Dean...you're either not able to understand me or unwilling to..If your child refused to be strip searched at school, you would be called as well as the police. The police would PAT the kid down in front of you. If nothing is found that would be the end, except maybe some questioning. But a strip search would never come into the picture, especially with the flimsy witness statement they had. I even doubt the kid would be arrested unless it was warranted. Refusing a strip search by a principal is not reason enough for an arrest. This is just common sense. No, I agree, it isn't easy to say no in a situation like this when you're a scared kid, but we have to teach our children the way of the world so they know that they have choices in a situation like this. No we can't teach them about each and every situation that may arise, but if we give them their basic rights and knowledge of how far aan adult in this position can go, they can at least make an informed decision to strip or not without the parent being present.

Good comment. Like I said charge the idiots.

Because they didn't photograph her. No photo = no pornography.

I love a good loophole!

The burden of proof is on the nurse and the principal. Did the nurse touch the girl's body in any way? Was there a witness? Did the Principal have access to school surveillance of the nurses office at any time? Did the Principal ask for descriptions of the girls body? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then both are Sex Offenders. And like I said, the burden of proof is on them. If they can't prove that none of these actions took place, they are circumstantially guilty. Co-defendants will often back each other up in court. Then again, in Supreme Court, it's a different playbook. But in a lawsuit, same rules apply. Of course it all comes down to the jury, but that outcome is pretty predictable.

I totally agree.

The Nurse was probably just OBEDIENT, a sickness easily cured by a bottle of whiskey and a withheld paycheck.

I say give the girl the vice principal's pension and his house.

Obviously you have no children.

Really...on the word of another student ...Maybe somebody should drop you off at Cook County for a weekend...your an adult you can handle it right??

This was a young girl if it wasn't a nurses office..if it was a teacher in a classroom...the teacher would have been sitting in jail already...

Just because it was a school nurse and an administrator does not make it right

Pete your a MORON!!

Pete in Chicago....

I was involved in a federal lawsuit against my town's local school system with "no financial gain" involved. Lawyers on both sides drag a case like this out for years...they could care less about the child, the family, or the town involved. Doing what is right is not on the menu. School administrators are so full of themselves it is sickening. Look at the comment in the article by an involved "official" in this strip-search case...."courts should defer to school officials' judgement" in matters such as this. What crapola.

When a major problem arises that necessitates a lawsuit, it is in the school system's best interests to twiddle their thumbs and tell you "no comment" until the aggrieved parties actually file a lawsuit. Once the lawsuit is officially filed, the school system's legal fees are entirely paid by the system's insurance provider...so administrators can tell the local taxpayers that the lawsuit is not costing the town any money. The insurance company's lawyers mainly seek to delay, delay, and delay any justice from coming into the mix. What is 'right' for the involved child is only the main concern of the child's family.

Anytime I read a comment about students and/or their families filing suit against a school system "for the money"...I can tell you from first hand experience that the system has it established that it is never worth it for the famliy involved. School systems and their scummy attornies know this. And should a suit be filed with "no financial gain" involved, truth is never the goal...the goal is to stretch things out as long as possible and wear the aggrieved party out.

Most of us were brought up to believe that schools exist to provide benefits to children. When a school teacher or administrator steps far over the line and action is needed...you discover that a school system exists to protect the so called adults it employs. Nothing more.

tony,

Amen.

If it was my sister, none of those people would be safe for the short remainder of their lives.

rick & Ben...

Hate to say it, but you guys are correct.

Looking back to the problem some parents in my town had with a school teacher who was a bit too "friendly" with pre-teen girls...we may have been better off to deliver a bit of 'street justice' and moved on...rather than see actual justice for children be the last thing on the agenda for school officials to be concerned with.

When more and more abuses like this happen in the name of the "War on Drugs", the "War on Terror", and whatever other wars our government starts, there will be more people with your viewpoint. Vigilantism will run wild. Then, either the government will really crack down and stay in power by force until it falls apart economically and revolution ensues, or they will realize that they're losing their influence and willingly back off. I'm interested to see which way it goes. I just hope I can keep my loved ones safe from the gestapo in the mean time.

So if I say to the police you gave me some cocaine, would it be okay for the police to pick you up, take you to the station, interrogate you and strip search you without reading you Miranda rights? I don't think so.

Hi Mo,

You are comparing apples to oranges. As you know the "rules" governing school behavior and such vary from state to state and county to county depending on the school boards decisions. That was my point. There is no uniformity in how the schools should proceed. I was in no way condoning what happened just pointing out that under the "rules" given the school had cause to instigate the search. I don't think that the strip search was warranted at all.

In many states strip searches have been ruled unconstitional for violations and misdemeanor arrests. This is so far beneath that level it is obvious. The parents in this district should press the scool board to hammer the administration. If they won't, vote them out and then hammer the administration. I am the father of teenage girls and I WOULD NEVER do this to my own children lrt alone tolerate a vice principal doing it.

The only "rule" involved here is the Constitution, and last time I checked, that already was uniform for all the states. The problem is that schools think they are above the law.

Hi alk,

As a rule the Constitution is open to interpretation thus the reason for the Supreme Court hearing the argument in the first place. If it were clear then there would either be a viable suit or there would be no charge at all. That is the genius of the Constitution as or founding fathers intended. The Constitution can be changed and interpreted to the times in which it applies. So get off the hysteria charge of the "schools are above the law" It was extremely poor judgement I agree and there should be outrage that it happened. Lets be rational about this and hear both sides of the story before we try to lynch anyone.

not to mention the Constitution only applies to government entitites. What if this was a private school? There's needs to be a much clearer rule than that one, old document.

One more time, if not monetary damages, then what? How are you going to deter someone from doing something if you don't exact some kind of penalty?

A guilty verdict would be the punishment exacted. If jail time is warranted then that also would be punishment exacted. The "pound of flesh" if you'll pardon the expression doesn't have to be money to the mother or to the girl who got searched, they should be satisfied with a guilty verdict if that is the way the court rules.

Capt tripps:

"The Constitution only applies to government entities." Are you for real? If this were the case, blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus, wouldn't be allowed in many restaurants and hotels, women wouldn't be allowed in law school, or they'd be denied real jobs. It (or most parts of it) applie to everyone in this country: citizens, immigrants, prisoners, visitors. And yes, the law applies to private school as well. That just means they get their funding from tuition, instead of tax dollars. They still take government-mandated tests, and follow the minimum state curriculum. Just like with busses: neither NJTransit nor Greyhound can discriminate against their passengers, because of the 14th Amendment.

Jim:

I don't see how my post conveyed any sense of hysteria or lynching. Anywho, I am very familiar with the Constitution, thank you, and I know it's a living document subject to the interpretations of the times, but separate from the 'fleeting majoritarian concerns" of the public, blah blah, all those years studying law paid off.

It's obvious I need to explain myself a little better. Some schools think they are above the law because there is no Constitutional amendment saying it applies to them. The states thought the same thing until the 14th Amendment was interpreted saying otherwise. Would it surprise you to know that Louisiana fined Catholic burials in the early 1800s? A priest sued saying that he had freedom of religion, and the USSC unanimously ruled that he did NOT have the protection from states, only from the federal gov.

It is my opinion that we need something to say SCHOOLS must obey the Constitution, to protect the rights of children. A cop can't come up to you on the street and demand to search you / your purse, so why can a school official? I hope this case brings a clearer definition of the "reasonable suspicion" test, and tightens it up a bit.

Jim,

Guilty of what? No criminal charges have been filed, though in my opinion they should have been. It takes a lot to shake up a bureaucracy and that usually means hitting them in the wallet. If we didn't do that, you'd probably still have asbestos in your walls and lead in the paint on your child's crib.

The priests don't need a union, they have The Pope and a ton of money to shut people up. It's worked so far...and that has nothing to do with politics. It's just religious hipocrasy.

the hell did you get those numbers from?

Oh right, thin air.

grbman....

In my state a teacher was convicted of having sex with a student and his defense was that he had the legal right to have sex with her because she was over the age of 16. And you are correct....more teachers get tagged for molesting students every year than the total number of priests serving time for the same.

You can damage your liver. Look it up.

In our district the superintendent was convicted of molesting a teenage boy.(He had a sexual relationship with him for multiple years during middle school and high school) He went to prison, yet because of the law. He keeps his pension. So our taxes pay for his incarceration, the lawsuits, and his future. That is a crime.