You may remember the post we made in April about the experience that Savana Redding had with the Vice-Principal of her school, Kerry Wilson.
Some of you thought Mr. Wilson went too far, and some of you didn’t.
Well, the ‘ayes’ have it, because on the 11th of July, 2008, the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Vice-Principal Kerry Wilson did go too far and that the strip search was unconstitutional. The full panel thought that Vice-Principal Kerry Wilson went so far out of his job description that he is financially liable in the case and cannot claim qualified immunity.
According to the ruling:
A reasonable school official, seeking to protect the students in his charge, does not subject a thirteen-year-old girl to a traumatic search to ‘protect’ her from the danger of Advil. We reject Safford’s effort to lump together these run-of-the-mill anti-inflammatory pills with the evocative term ‘prescription drugs,’ in a knowing effort to shield an imprudent strip search of a young girl behind a larger war against drugs.
It does not take a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year-old girl is an invasion of constitutional rights. More than that: it is a violation of any known principle of human dignity.
It looks like Vice-Principal Kerry Wilson is likely to be buying Savana Redding something nice this year.
Spread the word about this article!
Similar Posts:
Hehehehehhe. Idiot.
He’s lucky he won’t be doing prison time.
I wonder if he’ll keep his job.
Hey,
How much money does it cost to get a strip tease from a naked 13-year-old girl? Vice-Principal Kerry Wilson will soon find out.
[Reply]
Serves the dick right. I can’t believe tax money was going to that guy to do, what, strip searches? Hope he loses his job, but I was wondering when he would face his charges for this kind of thing. Five goddamn years later, “LOL That’s not constitutional!”
[Reply]
I’m glad the girl was publicly vindicated. What happened to her was, at minimum, ludicrous and uncalled-for, and probably caused considerable emotional harm.
[Reply]
Husher reply on July 14th, 2008:
Agreed.
[Reply]
Victim sympathy therapy is needed.
Let Bubba strip search him with Brucie watching!
[Reply]
Motrin….she was stripped over Motrin….
Im gonna grab my bottle of Advil to my childs school and see if I can get strip searched…
[Reply]
Fred reply on July 14th, 2008:
Before I had my wisdom teeth removed while I was in high school I carried a bottle of Bufferin with me and I popped them like candy between classes because the headaches were so bad.
I kind of wish that the drama club adviser felt the need to strip search me - there was this sub my senior year - I would have bought a new bottle of Bufferin if she’d have done me as well. My second principal may have been worth a bottle of such as well
[Reply]
Ha, ha! At last, someone in the world has shown some common sense! I am so glad the distinction has been made between illicit drugs like crack and OTC drugs like Ibuprofin (Advil & Motrin both have Ibuprofin) I’ve always believed that zero tolerance equals zero intelligence. It’s gotten wayyyyyy out of hand. So, score one for the good guys:)
[Reply]
To be fair, he did not personally observe the strip search. It was performed by a female nurse behind closed doors.
That said, the guy was wrong, just plain wrong.
[Reply]
Miwist reply on July 15th, 2008:
If one of my daughters or my son gets strip searched without my consent, my sense of fair play goes out the window.
Schools have gone overboard on zero tolerance. Nuff said.
[Reply]
Jason reply on July 16th, 2008:
Indeed, but I’d have been calling for criminal charges far more severe if he’d personally been in the room when the search occurred.
Sued to the poorhouse seems the appropriate response here.
[Reply]
You know, I just read the original article, and I have softened SOMEWHAT in my original horror of this situation.
The first child was actually in possession of SEVERAL types of contraband - including weapons, “fake” drugs and cigarrettes. She then implicated the second girl as being the supplier.
Now, in a perfect world, the parents would have been called, the girls would have been taken home, spanked or grounded and lectured to the point that they vowed to NEVER do such a thing again, to avoid the endless drone and wrath of the parents.
But we all know today, that’s not wht happens. Instead, the parents gang up behind the child, berate the authorities for daring to question their daughter’s right to exchange “fake” drugs, carry knives and razors, and such. They then file lawsuits against the school for suspending the child.
Anyway, don’t get me wrong. I still think this was overboard, but I can kind of understand the frustration level that the school must be facing.
It’s sad that our rights and freedoms are being stripped away by the very same rules that guarantee our rights and freedoms. Every time a ruling comes along that gives the criminals more leeway, we have to make new rules that punish the innocent in order to trap the guilty in the same net.
[Reply]
What school district take this to a federal appeals court…probably the same kind of district that will take this to supreme court. no gum chewing or advil in class.
[Reply]
TurtleMania reply on July 17th, 2008:
No caps/hats, do-rags, skullies or sunglasses inside the building.
No mini-skirts, wife-beaters, low-cut shirt tops, bandanas or trench coats.
No Gameboys or pocketplayers, and all cell phones must be turned off please.
[Reply]
Sherry reply on July 17th, 2008:
…but since you have all of the above in your posession, take off all your clothes, bend over and cough.
Thanks.
[Reply]