She was patting down my bare legs which kind of didn't make sense.

Jesus Christ. It's one thing to be incredibly invasive and unnecessary. It's another to be incredibly invasive, unnecessary and blindingly stupid.

Pat-downs of high school students by private security? That's just yicky, and more power to the lawsuit. Were the kids informed of the extent of the "security" ahead of time?

Paging Erich Honecker.

Pat downs at the prom? For what? Is there a such a credible threat of violence that pat down searches are required? And if there is, why are you holding a prom at all?

Things must be very different in Santa Fe.

The searches themselves are ridiculous.

Echoing NumberSix - the patting down of a bare leg demonstrates incompetence at an undreamed-of level (nice job if you can get it I suppose). And even the student could recognise it. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

The only thing I can think of that was even close was teachers checking for booze at school events. And that certainly didn't involve pat-downs.

It usually did involve said teachers drinking the evidence though :)

But Romero says she didn't remember seeing any guard cup a students breast and explained that in accordance with district protocol, the searches were done with the back of a closed hand in the shape of a blade and only some female students are asked to move the under wire of their bras or dresses to see if contraband is tucked inside.

Oh, because being felt up with the back of someone's hand makes it all better. I'll have to remember that defence.

Romero said during Capital's prom they confiscated cigarettes and lighters from some students.

Well done. The world is a safer place.

Pretty soon, the only way you can enter your own door is with an orwellian camera watching you or somebody by your door to make sure you will not have any forbidden items.

I just can't shut up on this one, can I? Their excuse annoys me

The district maintains that blanket searches are legal, citing safety concerns. Romero said they conduct searches because in the past some students have tried to sneak in drugs or alcohol.

"They walk in sober and within two hours they are very inebriated," said Romero referring to past incidents in which ambulances had to be called.

I'm sorry, I just don't believe that. A bag search or jacket check will suffice for alcohol - it's too bulky to hide easily in any significant quantity, at least of the ambulance calling variety. And if someone wants to bring in drugs, well, there are many ways to hide those that aren't going to be picked up short of a cavity search. I hope I don't have to draw anyone a picture.

The disease of "doing anything to look like we're doing something" seems to have spread from airlines to schools.

This is just fucking stupid beyond belief.
There is no way they can justify this. "Safety checks" for the sake of appearing safe. Stupid.

I can support bag checks for drug, alcohol and cigarettes. That, to me, seems reasonable. Anything else is overkill.

it's too bulky to hide easily in any significant quantity, at least of the ambulance calling variety

IV bottle taped to your back, between your shoulder blades.

Whoops, bag, not bottle...

More of the "if you're in a public place, you consent to search" evil. There's clearly an attempt being made to normalize this and get people used to the idea that they can be searched and groped anytime they step out of their front door.

It's funny; back in the early days of blogging, I once posted a comment at a long-gone blog wondering about the Fourth Amendment propriety of having to consent to search in order to enter the county courthouse. At the time, few people seriously questioned the need for such searches, and my own posting was more of a philosophical nature: you are sometimes required to go the courthouse in order to fulfill various duties as a citizen, so does the fact that you have such duties mean that your surrender some of your Fourth Amendment rights? My concern was that once the principle was established, it would become a slippery slope that result in the Fourth Amendment, or at least the warrant requirement, becoming a dead letter.

An interesting discussion ensued, but it was all of a pretty theoretical nature. There was some speculation about where it might go, but nobody in the conversation, including myself, seriously thought that things would come to where they are today. As I said, at the time, nobody that anyone took seriously questioned the legality or morality of these searches. In retrospect, I should have taken my own argument more seriously. But I also know that it wouldn't have done any good; nobody would have listened and it just would have wound up with me being labeled a crank.

It's pointless and it's stupid and it can't possibly be legal. I hope the girls win the lawsuit.

I was either a senior or junior when the Columbine shooting happened- so we had metal detectors and bag checks at our prom. No one used the term "security theater" then, but it's not like we felt any safer.

Plus, we left all of the pot and booze in the car, anyway. All you had to do was take some shots right before you walked in. And in highschool, you still drink nasty shit like peppermint schnapps, so you don't even smell like booze! Does anyone stay at prom for more than a couple of hours? Get the picture taken, dance a couple of songs, then go to the parties...

Amy--

The Santa Fe Public Schools need a better lawyer-- one who will correctly advise them on the 4th Amendment before they get sued. Apparently the school administrators don't understand their own code of conduct. From the KOB story you referenced:

The lawsuit also alleges that the district violated its own policy that allows for searches only when there is a reasonable suspicion that the student may be violating the law or school rules.

The fact that the students of Capital High are teenagers and teenagers sometimes drink illegally does not create a reasonable suspicion. The odor of alcohol or credible information that a particular student had contraband would suffice.

On the bright side, the Federal District Court did issue a restraining order against the Santa Fe Public Schools. I couldn't find the text of the restraining order online, but here is a short summary from KOB:

The restraining order also spells out the specific ways security can perform searches. It says a pat-down is only to be used if there are reasonable grounds and that pat-downs should not be used as a first approach for every student.

The federal district court judge would issue a restraining order only if he or she believed the Herrera sisters were likely to win the case, and the Santa Fe Public Schools did in fact violate their 4th Amendment rights. Yes, the judge did call the TSA in to do the searches, but the TSA agents (or anyone else) must have reasonable suspicion before they search anybody.

Fishing around for info on Capital High, I found this story. Seems that Capital High teaches a hands-on criminal procedure class. As it turned out:

. . . the youth investigators didn't have the authority to handcuff the suspect, so his testimony could get tossed out when they seek an "indictment" from a grand jury.

The judge should require the school administrators to take the class themselves.

No surprise that abusive TSA-style practices are migrating from airports to other places. This was predictable (as some of us are hoarse from saying). The "security" mania that has gripped the public was bound to expand; it was only a matter of time.

A quotation from a past monster keeps running through my mind:

"The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it."
-Josef Mengele

They're kids, they don't have meaningful rights, especially not at school or school functions. And a good thorough pat down is the only way to make sure they don't bring drugs or alcohol into prom. You don't want the kids doing drugs or alcohol, do you? Because this is what is needed to stop them. If you oppose this, then you clearly think it's OK for kids to do drugs and drink. If they don't want to participate in a minimally invasive search like this (it's not like they were stripped), they can stay home. Besides, we're all going to have to do this before entering any public spaces soon enough. Might as well get used to it.

This is disgusting. The problem is that the remedy has no effect on the guilty. The school district gets sued, and that taxpayers pay. The administrator moves on, with a nice pension and probably severance pay as well.

At least they didn't ban any homosexual couples for wearing the wrong clothes.

Wow Christopher... I sure hope that is sarcasm. Otherwise .... well, I won't submit quietly to this bull crap. ! I already stopped flying.. for now. But if I had to, I would not submit without much noise.

@ Lisa: "The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it." -Josef Mengele

Truly chilling, making me recollect recently reading about Betrayal Blindness - when people who are supposed to be protecting us do otherwise, our minds disbelieve it in a self-protective manner rather than believe our "protectors" are really MOLESTERS...

http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/defineBT.html

Ronnie, yes, check the link at my sig. Similar to what Phillip Zimbardo, Solomon Asch, and Stanley Milgram also found. That's why I've been hammering at this issue for so long. It's not just about the TSA. It's about human nature. And power.

I think that Christopher is making a point about the sort of specious binary reasoning that motivates these acts. That is, if you oppose teen drinking and drug use, then no half measures will suffice, or you are endorsing teen drinking and drug use.

IMO this policy is a good example of institutional self interest masquerading as public safety concern. The body searches are intended to remove liability to the school, but not to prevent harm to the kids. They may actually increase the probability that harm will occur. By making participation in the event so onerous, they're encouraging the kids not to attend, or to leave early. That means that they'll be partying unchaperoned, when they would not have otherwise.

Yes, I thought Christopher was using sarcasm to make a point.

I also liked Christopher's sarcasm.

I think this is more of a woman who swallowed a fly thinking than even institutional self interest. It is like the diet science Amy talks about. The reasoning goes like this. I want to help keep people from being fat. I bet eating fat gets more fat into your body. Lets outlaw fat and make sure no one eats it. But oops, I never stopped to see if people who eat more fat accumulate more fat on their bodies.

I think the same thing happens here. I want my kids to survive their teenage years and grow up to be happy and healthy and productive adults. Teenagers do really stupid stuff that sometimes has really bad consequences. Teenagers do even dumber stuff when they drink alcohol. For example, I sure don't want my daughter to get drunk at prom and pull her skirt over her head and let some random dude grope her in front of god and everybody. Let's make sure she doesn't bring any alcohol to prom. Hey I know, we will make it a felony offense to get caught with alcohol at the prom, that way she will take this seriously and not do it. Oh, shit there are still drunk kids at the prom. Let's hire a team of people to search the kids by pulling their skirts over their heads and groping their private parts to make sure they don't have a flask hidden somewhere. Whew, I''m so glad I protected her and am ensuring that she lives through her teenage years with no regrets and goes on to be a happy healthy adult with a good job. Oh damn, she is still a dumb teenager who thought she could get away with it and took alcohol anyway. Now she is a convicted felon who will have a hard time getting a job and she just had her dress pulled over her head and her tits groped in front of god and everyone.

So just like the diet stuff, we start with good intentions but fail to go back and check to see if our attempts to intervene are having the effect that we want them to have or if they are actually worsening the exact problem we want to avoid.

I wonder if it was PTA Busybodies that demanded this type of search, or if the school administration came up with it idependently.

The principal didn't hear anyone complain? That's her defense? You really expect a highschool goody-goody to complain about her treatment by a person IN UNIFORM while the principal is standing RIGHT THERE, condoning the groping? Really? Who would she have felt comfortable complaining to?

I actually find it more disheartening that nobody complained. Blind complacancy is what allows these things to happen in the first place. Pretty soon, it'll become so accepted that no one will think to complain anymore. It'll be a part of thier normal lives. And the ironic part is that the world still won't be any "safer".

and from a Disney Press release announcing the upgraded "Star Tours" ride:

"The second room of the queue is now a security check area, similar to a TSA checkpoint. The two G-series droids are still there, G2-9T scanning luggage and G2-4T scanning passengers...When it's your turn to go through the passenger scan (a thermal body scan effect), you may be verbally accosted by a security droid."

yep, get the kiddies young. pathetically, Disney inserted an update after this paragraph claiming the checkpoint is "a great parody at the expense of TSA". yeah, parody, that's the ticket.

http://www.mouseplanet.com/9624/Walt_Disney_World_Resort_Update

I went on the new Star Tours two weeks ago (at the soft opening) and didn't deal with any of that. They had the thermal scan going but it was really a projection of your thermal image in different colors on a plasma screen on the wall in the queue line no droid accosted us and I certainly didn't feel like I was being "checked". I wish I had gotten to experiance all 54 ride options though!

"I actually find it more disheartening that nobody complained."

Complain, and you get kicked out of the prom and you aren't allowed to walk at graduation. The kids all know how it works.

All I can think about while reading this:

First they set up invasive searches at airports, and I didn't care, because I didn't have to fly.
Then they set up invasive searches at train stations, and I didn't care, because I didn't take the train
Then they set up invasive searches at schools, and I didn't care, because I wasn't in school.
Then they set up invasive searches in order to go anywhere in public, and there was no one left to care.

Not that that is how I feel, personally. Just seems the vast majority of people. Especially those who value the appearance of "safety."

"She was patting down my bare legs which kind of didn't make sense."

Silly girl, of course it makes sense! You could have a peg leg or a fake leg full of booze, drugs or bombs! You could be the next columbine killer with a fake leg that has a machine gun in it, james bond style! Didn't you ever see the movie Carrie?

SUBMIT SERF er Citizen.

"There was some speculation about where it might go, but nobody in the conversation, including myself, seriously thought that things would come to where they are today."

Lather, rinse, repeat - this is the part where history repeats itself.

If we were talking about the future in a roadside café in Frankfurt, in 1937, and I told you that this "new" guy everybody was so excited about would gas the Jews, put "God is With Us" on every Army uniform - and the nation would be rubble in less than ten years, you'd have laughed for hours.

Are you laughing now?

Anybody?

Raddy, I hear you. It's hard to relate to something like that when it's so far outside of your personal experience. The WWII generation tried to warn us about stuff like this. And I thought I was paying attention. I really did. I'd read about the Holocaust, the killing fields, Mao, Stalin. I thought I understood it.

I see now that I understood it at an academic level, but I didn't really get it.

Yes, let's all ignore the fact that two Santa Fe Capital High students (the Herrera sisters) not only objected to the search, but sued the Santa Fe School District and won. The TSA was called in by the Federal District Court Judge to supervise security at other Santa Fe high schools, under a temporary restraining order against the Santa Fe School District prohibiting them from conducting personal searches without reasonable cause.

Why the TSA? I'd guess a federal judge felt more secure ordering around a federal agency than a local police agency. Anyhow, if the Santa Fe School District or any of its minions violated the temporary restraining order by patting down random students, they'd be dealing with a very angry federal judge, fines, and maybe jail for contempt of court.

You should be congratulating the Herrera sisters; not only did they enjoy their prom, they and their parents knew their civil rights well enough to nail both the principal and the school district.

"Anyhow, if the Santa Fe School District or any of its minions violated the temporary restraining order by patting down random students, they'd be dealing with a very angry federal judge, fines, and maybe jail for contempt of court."

But if the TSA does it, that's OK. I see. No, wait, I don't.

IV bag taped to your back, between your shoulder blades.

IRA Darth, I thought of that, but discarded it because if I did that with enough booze to get me drunk I'd look like the Hunchback of Notre Dame. I suppose for a school kid it's plausible.

I like it though - run the tube down your sleeve with a tap on the end inside the cuff and you can discreetly spike your punch without anyone the wiser. Stick to vodka to minimise smell. I'll have to remember it for the next dry wedding reception I go to...

Cousin Dave wrote:

But if the TSA does it, that's OK. I see. No, wait, I don't.

Any search by the TSA was subject to the same restrictions: no search without reasonable cause.

Dale, you aren't very familiar with the TSA, are you?

Any search by the TSA was subject to the same restrictions: no search without reasonable cause.

This is garbage. Wasn't the TSA empowered to search everyone who came? That means that cause had nothing to do with it, unless "attending prom" = "cause."

I think it perferable that my son drink and do drugs over being searched at prom in an invasive and traumatic manner by TSA molesters.

If the Santa Fe school district is that concerned, they should stop holding the Prom on school grounds. Let the students rent a private facility and let them (private entity) determine what level of security is necessary.