Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by Kimberly - Sapulpa, OK on June 25, 2009:

I don't understand why there was no mention of forbidding her to contact her parents when she believed she was in danger.

If my child was denied access to me at any time, I would be beyond livid.

---

There was -- briefly. While it wasn't specifically a part of the dispute that the court looked into, in Ginsberg's comments she wrote, "To make matters worse, Wilson did not release Redding, to return to class or to go home, after the search. Instead, he made her sit on a chair outside his office for over two hours. At no point did he attempt to call her parent. Abuse of authority of that order should not be shielded by official immunity." -rc

Posted by Ben from Melbourne on June 25, 2009:

I've been watching this case on TRUE and am so glad the decision has landed in Savanna's favour, and by a convincing 8-1 majority. And even then, I was glad to see that the dissenting judge dissented because of perception as opposed to legal argument (i.e. encouraging kids to hide stuff).

The precedent is therefore a bit closer to 9-0 in a purely legal sense.

I'm thankful that I live in Australia. Whilst we may have some ZT policies that have snuck in, I've not been subject to them, but you better believe that if I ever come across them they'll have someone to deal with.

Many thanks for your commitment and diligence to this issue. You are not only talking to Americans, but the rest of the world that hopefully is breathing a little easier in light of this decision too.

It's also because of that far reach that I personally think of Savanna as a hero. She may have done it for herself and that's fine, but if this heralds the retreat of ZT, there's no telling how many lives she may save in the future (i.e. withheld asthma puffers, depression averted, medication withheld etc).

Posted by Ben from Melbourne on June 25, 2009:

I just read this in the dissenting judge's reasoning:

"Reasonable suspicion that Redding was in possession of drugs in violation of these policies, therefore, justified a search extending to any area where small pills could be concealed."

Note the use of the word "ANY".

Is it just me, or is this judge not only saying the strip search was reasonable, but that it could have gone further (such as a rubber gloved finger up the rectum)?

Aren't you glad this was shot down 8 to 1??!!

Posted by Bill in Altadena on June 26, 2009:

I am stunned by the behavior of these school "officials". My wife taught elementary school until our first child was born 6 years ago. Maybe things have changed in the last 6 years, but my wife and her colleagues would NEVER have done something like this. Of course, she taught in an elementary school, but they also have rules against weapons, drugs etc. However they used some common sense...

All I can say is thank God my children are being home-schooled!! (Hey, my wife has a teaching credential -- why not?)

Lastly, since the school did not allow Savana to contact her parents, does that rise to the level of unlawful detainer? I am very lucky that I am not her parent because of the possibility that I would be in jail for assaulting the principal.

Ok ok, one last comment. Savana was a minor child -- how can the school ruffians get away with this kind of behavior without a parent or attorney present? And then have a court agree with them?

Again, my children will not be attending any public school for the foreseeable future.

Posted by Stephen, Kansas on June 26, 2009:

A few items of note relating to the Savana Redding story:

- Both the majority and dissenting opinions by the Court affirmed that the school had enough cause to search Savana, based on the other student's word and based on the fact that Savana's planner, which was found in the other student's possession, contained items of contraband. The question was not whether a search was justified but rather whether a personally invasive search was.

- School staff had formerly noted that Savana (among other students) smelled like alcohol at a school dance. Another student informed school officials that Redding had hosted a party at her house before the dance where alcohol had been available.

- The majority opinion actually stated: "Because there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear, we hold that the search did violate the Constitution."

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I find the whole "because" thing rather disturbing. First of all, it makes it sound like if the drugs in question present a danger or there is reasonable cause to believe they're concealed in a student's undergarments, a strip-search is constitutional. Second, even if it isn't implying this, it certainly leaves the door wide open for another lawsuit if such a situation ever should happen.

- 4th Amendment rights are already a questionable point when it comes to school officials. Schools do not need a warrant to search lockers, personal belongings, etc., despite these warrantless searches being clearly in violation of 4th Amendment rights if those rights apply within the school setting.

Posted by Jim, Santa Barbara on June 27, 2009:

"The dissenting judge was Clarence Thomas, who wrote "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments. Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

Clarence Thomas is an idiot and an ass (and sexual harasser) and should be impeached. His comment above, among its other problems, fails to recognize the FACT that Ms. Redding is NOT a person who concealed pills in her undergarments.

Posted by Jim, Santa Barbara on June 27, 2009:

"Now, I'm no lawyer, but I find the whole "because" thing rather disturbing. First of all, it makes it sound like if the drugs in question present a danger or there is reasonable cause to believe they're concealed in a student's undergarments, a strip-search is constitutional."

One doesn't have to be a lawyer to read the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, shall not be violated". A search based on a reasonable belief that a student is a danger to other students is constitutional. Whether it's a good idea in any given circumstance is a different matter.

---

A number of states, such as California, prohibit schools from doing strip searches on students no matter what is suspected and no matter whether it's Constitutional or not. Sounds like a smart policy, and I doubt children in those states use drugs any more than children in other states. -rc

Posted by Don in New orleans on June 27, 2009:

Are these the same school officials who complain their hands are tied to prevent disruptive behavior? So they can't paddle a minor, but they can strip them? Sounds like a need for a law REQUIRING a parent and attorney to be present for any kind of non-weapon searches. Kids have to respect authority, but how can they when these teachers apparently have no respect for their student's rights or personal dignity?

Posted by Mike from Dallas on June 27, 2009:

About the update: The lone dissenting opinion truly frightens me. Justice Thomas states that the court has "granted wide leeway in the past." Wide leeway does not constitute total, unrestricted, or limitless leeway.

Justice Thomas further stated that it's entirely reasonable that the absence of an item in one location would indicate its existence in another location (even after that "logic" was proven erroneous by its absence in the other location).

And finally, the individuals, acting as agents of the institution, are shielded from financial responsibility for their actions. The school may still be held responsible, but all they need to do to avoid it is to claim that their agents overstepped their authority, with a resultant wrist slap to show correction.

Without teeth for enforcement, the law is worthless.

---

I'm not sure the school can avoid liability that easily, especially when the school has spent the last several years justifying their agents' actions. I will update this page when the lawsuit concludes -- which will probably be several years from now (sigh!) -rc

Posted by Bill UK on June 27, 2009:

Now let's have a close detailed look at ALL rulings made by this paedophile endorsing clarence thomas, in cases of child molestation, rape etc.

While we're at it why not a look at societies/groups he, and everyone else involved in this assault, belongs to, company they keep, everything on the web ... we all know the drill.