{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"11499453","dateCreated":"1240858496","smartDate":"Apr 27, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/apgov08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/11499453"},"dateDigested":1531983349,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Response to T.L.O v. New Jersey","description":"After reading the summary of the case, answer the following:
\n1. What did the Court say about whether the Bill of Rights protections apply to public school officials? What was their basis for that conclusion? Do you agree?
\n
\n2. What did the Court conclude about warrants and probable clause in schools? What standards did the Court establish when it comes to searches in school? What was the dissent's view?
\n
\n3. Do you agree with the Court's decision and the standard set by the case? Explain your reasoning.","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"11513809","body":"First, I believe that the majority opinion stated that the bill of rights did apply to public school officials, with the exception that they do not have to get warrants before searching a student's possessions. They said that the public school officials cannot claim immunity from the fourth ammendment because they are still acting under the laws of the United States. I agree with this decision, but I also believe that the Fourth Amendment can be applied more loosely to public school officials. Sometimes, the risk to students safety should come first beyond the bill of rights, just as certain rights are removed for adults who show signs of inentions of harming others. Dissenters
\n
\nRegarding warrants, the court concluded that they were not necessary for public school officials. Probable cause was necessary but it was a different kind of probable cause. As sam says, all they need is a reasonable cause to go ahead and search students. This reasonable cause can be basically anything regarding student safety. Dissenting opinion argues for probable cause the standard way because it limits the amount that a public school official can cross the line with and actually search students who have little reasonable cause to be searched.
\n
\nI do agree with the courts decision. I think that in this particular case, the school had every right to search the individual since they broke the rules and smoked in the bathroom. If evidence of other offenses is seen outright then a more thorough search should be allowed. Just as cop who pulls a speeder over may see a bloody knife in the backseat and conduct a search of the back of a person's car. It is a reasonably thing to do. We must get past the technical words of each right, and actually see how these rights apply to life, and in life, often we must give up certain rights to maintain order and safety.","dateCreated":"1240886866","smartDate":"Apr 27, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"nmilbar","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/nmilbar","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11515493","body":"The court decided that the Bill of Rights does apply to public school officials, but does not require a warrant or much probable cause. The court decided that when a student enters the school, they do not give up all of their rights, but they do become more limited. In order to create a safe educational environment, the school has to be able to discipline the students and to take serious effort in keeping the school safe and drugfree. Because it is necessary for schools to protect their students, they do not need warrants in order to search the belongings of students if needed be.
\nI do agree that this does make the school function more properly and quickly if a situation like this were to occur. I agree with the court\u2019s decision because the school should be allowed to take serious precautions in an attempt to keep the school safe. Because the teacher had clear evidence and saw the paper, the teacher had enough probable cause to prosecute the student and search their belongings.","dateCreated":"1240893951","smartDate":"Apr 27, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"jfaynleyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jfaynleyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11519281","body":"In the case T.L.O v. New Jersey the courts determined that the bill or rights does apply to schools with the exception of needing a search warrant. I agree with the ruling, schools have different rights, and requiring a warrant every time a school had a suspicion would get difficult.
\n
\nOn warrants and probable cause they determined they were unnecessary, but this idea of "reasonableness" was established. It is a lower standard than probable cause because they do not real concrete evidence. Although I believe they should, if they have a "reasonable" suspicion they can search the child's things. The dissenting opinion said that this new term of something being "reasonable" lacks a true meaning and guidelines. People know it is not probable cause but that is the only thing they know. There is no clear cut definition which makes it much easier for teachers and school officials to conduct searches as they see fit.
\n
\nI agree with the court's ruling, but have trouble with such a vague solution. It is like many things in the Constitution that will be brought up again to be translated. The principal had enough evidence to conduct this search. Cigarettes are not allowed in school and if he was told or had the idea that she was smoking in this case it is enough to search her purse. Also, if she has the marijuana open in plain sight to the principal then he did not violate her fourth amendment right.","dateCreated":"1240921021","smartDate":"Apr 28, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"dlauren529","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/dlauren529","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11525501","body":"The Court has said in the past and in this ruling that the court can infringe on the rights of students. In relation to the question, the Court decided that the Bill of Rights and its protections do apply to public school officials. The basis for this is, among other things, that it was in the compelling interest of the students of the school. I agree with the Court\u2019s ruling and with the schools decision. The school acted well within its rights to search the girl\u2019s bag, because there was reason to believe she had more cigarettes in her possession. However, I do agree with Sam, in that once the school found what they were looking for (the cigarettes), then they should have stopped searching, as that is what police would do when serving a warrant. It can be argued that they were just looking for more cigarettes though, so I would have to see more information regarding search and seizure in relation to stumbling onto other illegal substances.","dateCreated":"1240931063","smartDate":"Apr 28, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"JHope","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/JHope","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1236824253\/JHope-lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11542373","body":"In this case the Bill of Rights does apply to school officals. It explains that school officals act as representatives of the State, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity fro, the strictures of the Fourth Ammendment.
\n
\nIt also discusses that it is unsuited and unecessary for teachers to obtain a warrent before conducting a search. This would be too time consuming and too much trouble everytime disciplinary action was needed. It also concluded that probable cause and a warrent is not necessary and not required for a search.
\n
\nI agree with Jacob that it was in the compelling interests of its students. However, I do believe that in this case after the offical found what they were looking for, they should have stopped looking. Also, if the girl had admitted to smoking, there was no reason for a search at all. It is true that she had infracted a school rule, but there was no reason to go further, especially if she admitted it.","dateCreated":"1240956832","smartDate":"Apr 28, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"cclass","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/cclass","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11550873","body":"The court decided that the Bill of RIghts did apply to schools, since students may bring personal, non-contraband stuff into school without fear of being searched. and there are plenty of things students need to bring in, like medicine, other personal, private items. Students have the same rights as every other citizen and they have the right to privacy, etc. Personally I agree, but that doesnt mean that students could bring anything they felt like. THere are limitations based on school rules and the protection of the whole student body to consider. I believe students may have the right to privacy unless there is reason to believe that the object brought in are dangerous to others.
\nFor warrants and such, schools had no need of these to conduct a search. All they need is to have a reasonable cause to search and it is ok. This is called probable cause, and this is tough since the definition of "reasonable" can be interpreted in many different ways, in such a way that could overpower the Fourth Amendment, like the dissenting views said. I agree that it's not not to just be reasonable, but maybe reasonable and morally correct to be more specific. Maybe corresponding to, um idk, stripping a young teenager for nothing.
\nI agree in part. In a school environment, rules must be stricter in order to keep, well, order. If there is need to search a person or person's belongings for a substance or item that can pose a danger to the school or something that is illegal, the school should have the right to do that. WHen it goes too far is when the search extends into other matters and can arguable break the eighth amendment "...cruel and unusual punishment." It isn't neccessarily punishment, but it's still hurting the person in some way.","dateCreated":"1240974976","smartDate":"Apr 28, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"MDranzik","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/MDranzik","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11551259","body":"I think it is a bit much to say that the bill of rights does not apply to the school officials. I mean can you hold students against there will or force them to tell what they have done by whatever means. And I know parents get involved but some kids have been kicked out at 18 and are in school getting in trouble alone. There are some rights that should be respected. Granted I do condone entirely the search of the bag for cigarrettes. She was seen smoking so she asked for it but I think the ruling set a kind of odd precedent.","dateCreated":"1240976543","smartDate":"Apr 28, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"Tkutner123","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Tkutner123","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11552429","body":"the courts have ruled that the bill of rights, in this case, does apply to the school. However, warrant is not needed in order to search student's belongings. I totally agree with the rulings, becuase i believe that the stdent's freedom to bring stuff needs to be allowed as long as the "stuff" is legal. Also, because it is true that some rights of the students in school becuase of the code of conducts of the school, not requiring search warrant is acceptable.
\n
\nThe courts also have ruled that warrants and probable clause is unnecessary. As long as the search is being conducted with certain evidence that a student brought an illegal material to school, the school is allowed to search students' belonings without warrant or probable clause. However, the dissent argues that the degree of reasonableness is too unclear, therefore, it needs clearer standard of what is acceptable.
\n
\nI agree most of the rulings and standards of the case. the decision that the bill of rights are applied to students in school but no warrant is needed when there is a reasonable evidence of illegal substances is in a student's belonging is very reasonable. However, I also agree with the dissent that there needs to be more clearer set of standard of what is acceptable and what is not because it is possible that some may abuse this unclearness of the precedent.","dateCreated":"1240981993","smartDate":"Apr 28, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"aereex3","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/aereex3","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11559495","body":"The courts decided that the Bill of Rights does in fact apply to schools but a warrant is not required. A school is meant to be a save environment for all of its students and if one student makes the mistake of bringing something harmful to school, the environment is no longer safe. Also I agree with deanna that bringing in a warrant each time a student needed to get searched would be difficult.
\nThe courts concluded that a warrant and probable cause are unnecessary in schools. It is fair for a student to be searched as long as a teacher has what is considered reasonable evidence or the least bit of suspicion. The dissent however argued that the ruling was unclear.
\nAs everyone seems to agree, it was in the best interests of the students to search the girls bag, however, she admitted to having cigarettes so why was it taken farther? Although she broke a school rule by having cigarrettes, she admitted to having them.","dateCreated":"1241012693","smartDate":"Apr 29, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"smitchell27","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/smitchell27","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11594021","body":"The court decided that the Bill of Rights still applies in schools, but due to the circumstances, there are limits to a student\u2019s rights. A search warrant is not required for a school official to conduct a search-only probable cause. The majority opinion stated that students do have a right to privacy in that they should be allowed to bring perfectly legal things to school without fear of being searched. However, since school officials are responsible for the safety and education of the entire school, their ability to conduct searches, and limit free speech as well to some extent is entirely justified. I agree with that idea because dealing with so many students makes it more difficult to maintain order and safety. The importance of the bill of rights is evident, but it should be maintained in accordance with maintaining the order of the school.
\n
\nThe majority opinion held that schools have a lower standard for conducting searches, and that reasonable suspicion is enough evidence for a school official to conduct a search. The dissent argues that reasonable suspicion is too broadly defined and vague, making it easy for school officials to override the fourth amendment rights of students.
\n
\nI see the reasoning behind the court\u2019s decision and I definitely agree that it is imperative that school officials be able to conduct searches when they suspect illegal activity. In a time after Columbine and Virginia Tech, schools will continue to gain more privileges when it comes to limiting the Bill of Rights to students. As it is their responsibility to protect and educate their students, they will claim a greater need for a lenient Bill of Rights. However, when schools do go far-as they did in the Strip Search Case- is when the courts may need to define more clearly what can and cannot be called reasonable suspicion.","dateCreated":"1241092838","smartDate":"Apr 30, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"rfs09","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/rfs09","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11596501","body":"The Court set a significantly lower bar for school officials to meet than the Fourth Amendment sets for police officers. The Court stated that the school has an interest in maintaining a strict and disciplined atmosphere, although the Bill of Rights still applies, in somewhat modified form. The majority opinion reasoned that many students bring non-contraband items to school and that those who do not bring contraband or who the school has no reason to believe possess contraband, are not subject to search and seizure of their property at any time. The school must show some cause for the search. I agree with the majority opinion. The school has an interest in maintaining a disciplined and safe learning environment and, pursuant to this interest, can violate the rights of its students to an extent. I agree with the dissenting opinion that it is a school's duty to prepare children to become citizens under the law, but this duty is secondary. The first duty of school is to teach children - physics and chemistry have little to do with becoming a good citizen, although the school environment should certainly promote active, constructive participation in society. But it has a much greater interest in keeping drugs like marijuana (which impairs learning)out of the school and maintaining the safety of the other students.
\n
\nThe Court established that searches conducted by school officials do not have to meet the burden of proof set for officers of the law. School officials require the ability to take swift disciplinary action, so that they can maintain order and protect other students. Searches on students must simply be "reasonable" and not too intrusive. Justice Brennan's dissent decried the reasonableness standard because there was a great chance that it would be applied unevenly. Brennan further said that while the Assistant Principal had cause to believe TLO was in possession of cigarettes, he should have stopped the search once he found the cigarettes - proceeding further was unjustified and illegal. Justice Stevens simply set a more specific and somewhat higher standard than the court, holding that the school officials should have evidence that the student is violating the law or seriously disrupting the school order before conducting a search.
\n
\nBecause the school environment is so controlled and so limited in its extent, I believe that school officials have a right to absolutely ensure safety within reason. They do not have the right to search any student at any time. This would simply be harassment and would disrupt the order that such searches hope to maintain by unduly violating the students' rights. If there is reasonable evidence to believe that a student is in possession of contraband or is engaging or going to engage in an illegal activity, the school officials have the right, and possibly the duty, to search this student. Their interest in maintaing order and protecting other students far outweighs the students' civil liberties. A search is reasonable if two or more reliable (which the teachers can determine) students, a school official, or a confederate in the illegal act provide evidence. TLO's search was reasonable because evidence was provided by a teacher and TLO's confederate. Further, once the search for contraband has commenced, the school official can search any property the student has with them, because they cannot assume that whatever contraband they have found is the only contraband in the student's possession. Further, school is a right, but not an unalienable one. A student who disrupts the school environment or endangers other students does NOT have the right to be in school, they have sacrificed that right. Thus, because school is, in this respect, somewhat of a privilege, not all of the rights that normally apply apply in schools. Any contraband discovered during a search is legally found, even if this is not the original object of the search. This is because the school has an overriding interest to remove students like TLO who endanger the school environment. Additionally, because of the increased need for safety in the school, school officials can assume that any instance of rule breaking or possession of contraband may indicate further rule breaking or possession of contraband. It is their duty to prevent the situation from rolling down the slippery slope. TLO's search was reasonable and the second she broke the rules inside her school, she sacrificed her right to privacy.","dateCreated":"1241097667","smartDate":"Apr 30, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"msoyfer","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/msoyfer","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11620403","body":"The courts ruled that the bill of rights protections do apply to public school officials. The basis for this ruling was that students should not have to completely give up their rights to privacy simply because they are in school. There are many non-contraband items that students may want to keep private for personal reasons, and they should not have to be in fear of possessing such items. However, the courts have also stated that in a public schools, this right and privilege that students have are less strict and do not require the process of getting warrant.I agree with this general ruling.
\nThe courts decided that school searches and investigations should be allowed to carried through as long as there is reasonable suspicion. So a warrant would not be needed in a case in school. The dissent's view is that this ruling gives school officials too much power in determining what is reasonable in their minds.
\nI do agree with the court's decision, but in the of T.L.O. I believe that school officials did have reasonable suspicion to further conduct the search after having fun rolling papers in her bag. In my mind, this is plenty evidence to search the student for possession of inappropriate susbstances.","dateCreated":"1241129678","smartDate":"Apr 30, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"lindduh","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lindduh","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":4}]},{"id":"11365357","dateCreated":"1240443475","smartDate":"Apr 22, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"CBurton-haldeman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/CBurton-haldeman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/apgov08.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/11365357"},"dateDigested":1531983351,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"Strip Search Case","description":"1. Describe your reaction to the case. Was the school's action reasonable? Why or why not?
\n2. Discuss your reaction to the justices questions?
\n3. What should determine the reasonableness of a school search?","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"11421375","body":"This is probably the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my entire life. First off, this girl is described as a nerd, no "nerd" is going around popin pills and distributing them. Second, there is no mention of the parents at all. If they were suspicious of Reading, they should have at least called the parents and ask, "we are suspicious, is there any reason why your daughter would have drugs on her if we found any?" Not, "hey um... we thought your daughter had drugs so we searched everything on her and since we're perverts we took all her clothes off too. Sorry." I mean come on. Schools have the right to search bags, lockers and jackets, etc, when given suspicion, but a strip search?? On a thirteen year old, without asking, without parental consent, without a warrent, without thinking. This is how I think of it, the girl that had the drug didn't want to be caught and so she blamed the innocent, nerd girl. And then the officials of the school went way out of line. For the fact that they keep on mentioning gym, and how they strip down in the locker room. Well first school people are not standing staring at you get undressed, and if there is any school person, it would be the same gender as the gender of the locker room. And nobody walks around the locker room half naked, they strip down and put the gym stuff on quick. Having Reading stand there halfnaked and then having to shake her underwear out is nothing like a gym locker room. If the justices don't see this as unconstitutional and\/or just morally wrong and sick, we should just walk around naked so there is no suspicion of anything since they would strip you anyway.","dateCreated":"1240578412","smartDate":"Apr 24, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"MDranzik","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/MDranzik","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11422111","body":"The school's search was completly unreasonable. This is a case of the administration having zero common sense. Let's take this to an absurd conclusion-what can we get the administration to do? Students would quickly rat on each other and the administration to be consistent would have to search everyone. Having the school do that would be very interesting. The school had no evidence except another person's words-who probably was not very reliable-she probably wanted to avoid getting searched so she ratted.
\n
\nThe justices should not have accepted such a simple case with relatively no consequences. However, the questions they asked show they were trying to find the precise limits to their ruling and the consequences they might have. It is a little annoying that the justices try to make everything clear cut-it adds to the bureaucracy and many times remove common sense. Humans can think-we do not need mechanical regulations.
\n
\nSchools could reasonably stripsearch individuals if they have prior disciplinarian records or if they have very credible information and after all other options had been exhausted. And even then it should be handled with care.","dateCreated":"1240579003","smartDate":"Apr 24, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"david19028","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/david19028","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11446689","body":"The school officials were absolutely out of line in this situation. Savannah Reading was a good student with no prior record of misdemeanors. The officials did not get parental consent, did not There was no clear statement that gave administration reason to believe that Reading had the pills other than that of another student. I absolutely agree with Matt and David that the other student must have been trying to get the blame off of him- or herself. Also, the drug in question was ibuprofen; which, while considered contraband in the school, does not warrant such an extreme search. If the question were over an illegal substance, circumstances may be different, but either way, a strip search is an extreme means to result to. If there were no other options, such as a locker or purse, and the substance were truly dangerous, more extreme measures could be taken, but, as David said, handled with care. Also, the "ick factor" is quite valid. Hiding pills in one's undergarments would not make for the best candidate to be suspected of distributing drugs.
\n
\nJustice Scalia made a good point about body cavity searches. If a strip search is okay, then where is the line drawn? The justices looked at the case from the legal standpoint and applied the wording of the Fourth Amendment. The justices had no emotional connection to the case, although Justice Ginsberg did have a valid point.
\n
\nThe reasonableness of a strip search is determined by the reasonableness of the suspicion and a clear statement, as Reading's lawyer said, that the student is hiding drugs in his or her undergarments.","dateCreated":"1240608443","smartDate":"Apr 24, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"teckard","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/teckard","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11450249","body":"The school\u2019s immediate decision to conduct a strip search is not covered by the extended rights of educational institutions to act in both the interest of the students and the school. There seems to be many issues with this case, the first being that ibuprofen is not exactly going to start a drug craze among the students, so there was no reason the school should have been willing to go to such great lengths to find it. Also, the student had no prior record and the other student accusing her had no evidence that she possessed the pills. There is also no imaginable reason that other places shouldn\u2019t be searched before doing a strip search. What kind of illogical person thinks, \u201cWell, there\u2019s no way she has it in her bag or locker, she is obviously hiding it on her body. We should start there!\u201d There was a complete lack of common sense. Furthermore, whose great idea was it to have a thirteen year old strip in front of a couple of untrained adults? I agree with Scalia in saying that the line is too thin between a strip search and a cavity search, not really in an actually physical sense, but as far as the rights of the school goes.
\n
\nThe only way a strip search should ever be conducted is if the drug can do more potential harm to students, all other places are searched, the student has a prior record, and the motivation behind the accusation is investigated.","dateCreated":"1240624682","smartDate":"Apr 24, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"juliamcmeans","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/juliamcmeans","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11478675","body":"I agree with everyone who has posted so far, the schools actions were entirely unacceptable. The main factor that really made the administration look bad was the fact that they immediately resorted to a body search after other searches were inconclusive. Obviously the school had the right to question the student, and even search her bag regardless of the source of the information. I think one of the main points everyone is focusing on is the girl that ratted her out, saying that she was the one who probably had the drugs in the first place. Schools need to treat every piece of information they get with the same type of merit, regardless of where it comes from. If they were to start differentiating where, or whom they would listen to, issues of neglect and safety come into play.
\n
\nObviously the drugs were an issue of safety, but not to the extent of having a weapon or something that is immediately dangerous to the welfare of the entire population of students. The administration should have taken the time to search the locker of the student, which they are completely entitled to do, but to require a student to strip and be searched all for a pill of aspirin is a little ridiculous.","dateCreated":"1240799171","smartDate":"Apr 26, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"GlenDeGeorge","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/GlenDeGeorge","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11478769","body":"The only other point I would like to make is my disappointment with the Supreme Court's handling of the case. I think they brought up a few good points which Trisha highlighted, with deciding where to draw the line of the power of the school administration. I think what mainly disappointed me was the way the report was structured ending the report with the slip up of one of the judges, stating that he had often had things put in his underwear. The whole thing seemed to undermine the validity of the case and put a juvenile twist to a matter that is quite serious.","dateCreated":"1240799454","smartDate":"Apr 26, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"GlenDeGeorge","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/GlenDeGeorge","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11505847","body":"The school's reaction was highly unreasonable and unintelligible. The appropriateness of search and seizure rights of authorities seems to greatly depend on whether or not authorities had good reason to suspect a misdemeanor. In the case of thirteen year old Savannah Reading, there was no strong evidence that the student was actually carrying drugs, let alone in her undergarments. According to the report by NPR, they described Savannah as a "nerd" which implies that she did not have a good relationship with her classmates. If the school officials, including Savannah's teachers, principles, and guidance counselor, had any clue as to what went on socially in the classrooms, they would've taken this fact into account when one of her classmates accused Savannah of possessing drugs on school grounds. This source is highly unreliable because:
\na)It's bias due to Savannah's relationship with her classmates.
\nb)The information is coming from a middle school child who had also been accused of drug possession.
\nThe school officials should've relied more on common sense than they did to strip search a thirteen year old girl. I think searching her bag, lockers, purse, and desk would've been appropriate, but when it comes to searching someone's body,no matter their age or sex, there should be damning evidence that the individual is actually guilty of the accused misdemeanor before the strip search can be allowed to take place.
\n
\nI thought that the question of whether the type of drug a student was accused of possessing would factor into whether or not the strip search would be conducted by this school system was a valid point. Where should school's cross the line? If a student were to carry Tylenol to school because he or she had a bad headache, would this result in a strip search? Can a school carry an investigation that far for such a trivial matter just because tylenol falls under the category of drugs?
\nI didn't like how some justices claimed that strip searches at the age of Savannah were not a big deal. I think this depends on the individual, and it is not his place to claim that fact for anyone
\n
\nThe reasonableness of a school search should rely on the reliability of evidence, the degree of the accused or suspected misdemeanor, and the form in which the search takes. Generally, I believe that locker and book bag searches are reasonable while strip searches are not unless there is great reason that a strip search has to take place to protect the student and the school.","dateCreated":"1240872242","smartDate":"Apr 27, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"lindduh","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/lindduh","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11513191","body":"This case is a prime example of school
\n-when is it justifies-hiding drugs in undergarments
\nsutor-risks more important than embarrasment
\n
\nThis case is a prime example of what I believe is schools setting examples for other students by punishing or embarrasing one student. This scare tactic can be usefull, but often results in more students wanting to take risks. For this reason, I believe that the school was wrong on two accounts.
\nFirst, what justified a strip search? Without any direct reference to the undergarments of the girl who was searched, the school had no reason or tangible evidence that would equate to a strip search to these undergarments. I think it is an excellent point that her lawyer made when he said that a strip-search is only allowed once a direct reference is made to a certain piece of clothing under what is shown.
\nSecond, the school sets no precedent here for what type of contraband deserves what type of "prosecution" or punishment. Since it was only Ibprfoien (dont know how to spell it), then the detailed search was not required. It is almost like saying that a student who has a bb-gun hidden under the seat of their car should recieve the same punishment as a student that has an actual gun loaded and ready in his locker. The two "crimes" are of different magnitude, and should be dealt with in different magnitudes.
\nWith all these thoughts in mind, I do agree with Justice Sutor when he said that certain embarassment should be forgotten when regarding serious risks to the health and safety of the students. But where do we draw the line?","dateCreated":"1240885383","smartDate":"Apr 27, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"nmilbar","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/nmilbar","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11513209","body":"ignore the first part of my post...it was notes that i didnt mean to put up.","dateCreated":"1240885426","smartDate":"Apr 27, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"nmilbar","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/nmilbar","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11515343","body":"The school\u2019s actions were definitely unreasonable. The teachers had no clear evidence that Savannah was hiding anything. She was a good student and did not have a bad record so they did not really have probable cause other than a classmate\u2019s tip. I believe that a strip search is going way too far. I believe it is necessary for some of our rights to be taken away in order to increase safety in our schools, but not to this extreme. I think that the officials should be able to check the children\u2019s lockers, bags, and pockets, but definitely not all the way down to their underwear.
\nI liked that Justice Scalia asked them if they would have conducted body cavity searches if they had the proper equipment. I think that made a good point about the intensity of the strip search. If they would done that it would have been equally as embarrassing and emotionally scaring as it was for the young girl to strip down to her underwear and shake in front of teachers she would have to see every day after that. It bothers me that the women teachers did not see anything wrong with that or feel for the young girl. She must have been horrified.
\nReasonable cause should be some kind of clear evidence like maybe if a teacher actually saw drugs coming out of her shirt. Teachers should not believe everything they hear from little children who probably do not understand the seriousness of something like this. At least the kid who suggested her name could have told the teachers where to look or maybe what they were looking for.","dateCreated":"1240893258","smartDate":"Apr 27, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"jfaynleyb","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/jfaynleyb","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11551225","body":"The whole circumstances surrounding the strip search case really gives the girl all the leverage. She didn't have a drug laden past and didn't have previous infractions. So, the school should have really considered this before demanding to see whats in her panties. To that end I don't necessarily support money being given out to those who feel offended. But, there should be some punishment to the school district for such a rediculous decision.","dateCreated":"1240976323","smartDate":"Apr 28, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"Tkutner123","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/Tkutner123","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}},{"id":"11585013","body":"This is where using subjective opinion is important in the Unite States judicial system. To strip search any 13 year old is only something the most tyrannical governments should be expected to do. The girl that was strip searched was not only 13, but had no track record of doing anything that should have warranted a reaction so over the top for a simple over the counter drug. Orders that limit privacy to increase safety can be reserved for debate, but in a situation as insignificant as this, there is no way to defend the school's decision.
\n
\nGoing back to what Niv was saying about the magnitude of the "crime", how could the school justify taking measures so strong over such a minor offense that was not even proven? They had no knowledge of the girl having the drugs, and therefore used extreme measures over something they had no evidence of. Schools must use their knowledge of the particular student to enforce rules, and must use the spirit of the law to an extent. Everyone knows the students who do and do not cause trouble and when the school begins to act oppressively over all students, they have crossed the line.","dateCreated":"1241053972","smartDate":"Apr 29, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"wpeltzman","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/wpeltzman","imageUrl":"https:\/\/ssl.wikicdn.com\/i\/user_none_lg.jpg"}}],"more":13}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}