Shake Your Boobies (To The Song, Bye, Bye Civil Liberties Pie...)
As Lisa Simeone, who sent me the piece, wrote in an email:
If people don't recognize that this is all of a piece -- the "war on drugs," the "war on terror," the loss of our civil liberties in general -- they have their heads up you know where.
This particular story involves 13-year-old girls who were forced to strip and "shake" their breasts in a school search for pot -- with a male security guard or male security guards present (the identity of the second man seems unclear).
Yes, a school search for marijuana, not handguns. This search is about administrators and security guards wanting to "win," not protecting anybody from any meaningful danger.
Beau Yarbrough writes for The San Bernadino Sun:
The mother of a Serrano Middle School student says the San Bernardino City Unified School District stepped over the line while searching her daughter and another student for concealed drugs."Both students were escorted to the office of Serrano Middle School by the Vice-Principal, Mrs. Shenita Stevenson and the school security guard," Anita Wilson-Pringle wrote in an article posted online. "Each girl was taken into a room accompanied by Ms. Stevenson and another unknown person (whom the kids assume is another security guard) a tall white male. The girls were then searched. Not just your standard pat-down, which is by all means legal, but they were told to take off clothing."
According to Wilson-Pringle, her daughter and another girl -- ages 15 and 13 respectively -- were told to take off their bras and shake their breasts. Both girls were also told to shake out their pants. When one girl balked, she was reportedly threatened with arrest if she failed to comply.
School officials found two bottles in Wilson-Pringle's daughter's bag, one empty, and one with a bit more than a quarter of a gram of marijuana during a drug investigation. Her daughter's bag had been left unattended for almost 40 minutes between the time the girls were pulled out of class and when Wilson-Pringle's daughter called her parents, according to Wilson-Pringle.
Their eighth-grade daughter refused to sign any paperwork and claimed the bottles were not hers, according to Wilson-Pringle. She was ticketed and given a date to appear in court.
The school went out of bounds. From Adam Freedman at Quick And Dirty Tips:
Outside of schools, the Fourth Amendment generally means that the police must have "probable cause" to search a suspect. As Justice David Souter recently summarized, that means police may only conduct a search if there is "a fair possibility or a substantial chance" a search will turn up evidence of a crime.Inside of schools, the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted differently. Ever since the Supreme Court's 1985 decision in New Jersey v. T.L.O., school officials may search a student's outer clothing -- such as jackets or backpacks -- even if there is only a moderate chance of finding any incriminating evidence.
What About Student Strip Searches?
But the constitutional status of strip searches has been in limbo all these years. In June, the Supreme Court shed light on the issue in the case of Safford v. Redding, a case involving 13-year old Savannah Redding. Redding, who was suspected of distributing prescription medicines around school, was ordered to strip down to her underwear while female school officials peeked under her bra and panties to see whether she had any pills stashed there. After that -- and I hope you're sitting down for this --a lawsuit followed.The Supreme Court held that any search that requires a student to expose his or her private parts "to some degree" is "categorically distinct" under the Constitution. In other words, it requires greater justification than a search of the outer clothing. Specifically, the Court said that a school may conduct this sort of panty-raid only if school officials have evidence that the item they suspect is concealed is actually dangerous in terms of power (say, a gun) or quantity (say, a bottle of pills), OR they must have some evidence indicating that the contraband item is hidden in that particular student's underwear.
I really wish more parents would teach their children the following: do you have a warrant? do you have probable cause? I'm invoking my 5th amendment right to counsel and silence, and my 4th amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure.
At which point no talking until one's lawyer appears. Remember: most bureaucrats consider the Constitution to be a speed bump in the course of their jobs. Mention lawyers, and suddenly they become more cautious.
I R A Darth Aggie at April 24, 2015 7:51 AM
When in school, the fourth amendment does not apply, because the school assumes parental rights for children in its care. You do not need a warrant, or even probable cause, to search your child, and neither does the school.
That's not to defend the allegations in this article. But calls for warrants and such are simply incorrect.
a_random_guy at April 24, 2015 8:13 AM
So let me get this straight: if two adults have drunken consensual sex on a college campus, that's assault. But if two adults grope through the underwear of a 13 y/o looking for drugs, that's OK? What the actual hell?
Mike at April 24, 2015 8:35 AM
@a_random_guy
The Supreme Court disagrees with you.
TugerUnderGlass at April 24, 2015 8:51 AM
The only reason these petty tyrants got the girls to go along with this was the threat of arrest. And that points up one of the real problems here - the ubiquitous presence of the 'school resource officer', also known as 'the copper who couldn't hack it in real police work.'
Principals and teachers and 'security guards' can't arrest anybody - it is only the presence of a police officer that gives this threat any weight at all.
So children should be taught not to be frightened by threats of arrest. When being bullied into giving up your rights 'voluntarily', the threat of arrest is no threat at all - if they had grounds or powers to arrest you, they would have already done it, because then they wouldn't have to ask you to do anything voluntarily - they could search you, by force if necessary.
Don't answer questions, don't volunteer anything, demand to speak to a parent and/or a lawyer, and if threatened with arrest, simply ignore the threat. In a situation like that, being arrested is actually a very good thing to have happen - now it's on the record, and there are procedures, and reports, and something that you can use as grounds for getting the problem to go away. Teachers and principals and rent-a-cops can bluff and bluster all they want, but an actual officer who makes an arrest has to justify it afterwards. If he doesn't have probable cause, the arrest is unlawful. And a bunch of teachers squawking 'because drugs!' is not probable cause. I'll wager that, if it wasn't for the search coerced with the threat of arrest, there was absolutely zero evidence of criminal activity, and so no officer in his right mind would have complied with any demand that the child be arrested.
llater,
llamas
llamas at April 24, 2015 9:11 AM
My 14 year old has been told time and time again if the cops or the school question him over perceived shenanigans, he is to zip it. Politely.
He's a good and responsible kid and perceived as such, so hopefully he won't have to put that lesson into practice.
JanetC at April 24, 2015 9:12 AM
All the adults involved need to be put on the sex offender register pronto.
dee nile at April 24, 2015 9:27 AM
TugerUnderGlass, got a court case that supports your contention, or is that just a bald assertion?
Patrick at April 24, 2015 9:53 AM
@Partick:
The Supreme Court case Safford v Redding
Matthew Cline at April 24, 2015 10:18 AM
I can smell the lawsuit from here.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at April 24, 2015 1:09 PM
From the linked article: “Our number one priority is to keep students safe..."
I'm so tired of hearing that crap. "Safety" has become the default pretense for any kind of molestation or abuse the authoritarians desire to inflict on someone else.
Coercing young girls to take their clothes off, or submit to being groped or molested in humiliating, degrading ways is in most cases a serious crime -- because treating them that way is seriously disturbing and damaging to them. Doing the same thing under some pretense of authority or noble cause (e.g. "safety"), or while wearing a uniform, doesn't mitigate the harm.
Also from the article:
Wilson-Pringle [the girl's mom] said in an interview that the family has had issues with Stevenson since they first registered their child at Serrano Middle. Saying they feared retaliation, Wilson-Pringle said that her daughter is now being home schooled for the rest of the school year.
In the meantime, she said, the family is considering legal action.
(Yes, sue their asses off; and even if you're not doing it for the money, take their money anyway - lots of it - make them pay!)
“I had a lawyer before I walked out of the school,” Wilson-Pringle said. “I told them: I’m not putting up with this.”
Music to my ears.
Ken R at April 24, 2015 1:17 PM
Also, the 13 year old's mother is playing the race card, claiming the school officials are profiling black and hispanic students. Which may have something to do with the article pointing out that the security guard who participated in searching the girl's was a white male, while not mentioning that the vice principle who singled out the girls and conducted the searches is black.
Ken R at April 24, 2015 1:45 PM
What's the problem? Just call this an administrative search and people will immediately agree it's perfectly OK.
Radwaste at April 24, 2015 2:34 PM
What's the problem? Just call this an administrative search and people will immediately agree it's perfectly OK.
Well it was carried out by an administrator, so...
I R A Darth Aggie at April 24, 2015 5:15 PM
@Partick:
The Supreme Court case Safford v Redding
Posted by: Matthew Cline at April 24, 2015 10:18 AM
This case doesn't say what you think it does. The strip search violated the students 4th amendment rights, because they didn't have a reasonable suspicion that the drugs would be found with a strip search, (and none were)
But the school district got away with it because the court ruled that they have qualified immunity which is the real problem here.
Isab at April 24, 2015 5:45 PM
Agreed Dee Nile - put all those adults on a sex offenders list.
Those folks should not be in any position of power; let alone power over children who can't/don't know how to say no.
charles at April 25, 2015 5:51 AM
Leave a comment