Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by ray pa on April 24, 2009:

i think the school should be give that 13 year at lease 20 billion dollars for what they did.

---

Why do you think local taxpayers should have to shoulder such a huge burden? If this was your school district, would *you* want to have your share be about $30 million, so you would have to work for the rest of your life to pay off? Why shouldn't the people who ordered this outrage -- and the people who carried it out -- be responsible? -rc

Posted by Lynn, Aurora.CO on June 8, 2009:

These school authorities deserve any reprimand they may receive from the High Court. This is child abuse of the worst nature. each should be forced to register as sex offenders for forcing a strip search without a parent or an attorney even being notified. Safford Unified School District #1 et al have shown a blatant disregard for propriety and sound judgment. I couldn't justify this action for heroin, much less IBUPROFEN for goodness sake.

Posted by Mike from Dallas on June 8, 2009:

Here's a thought. How about if a parent forces their own teenager to a strip search for suspected drugs? If the teenager were to report such an action to the state child protective agency, you can bet that the agency would be all over the parent(s) with an investigation and probable court action against the parent. Think I'm exaggerating? Contact the agency in your state to find out.

Why is it that schools are legally permitted to take actions against students that even their own parents are denied? I remember learning about an ancient Greek state called Sparta that took children away from their parents at 7 years old for the purposes of the state. But of course such a thing couldn't happen in a modern, enlightened society like America, right?

Posted by Stephen, Birmingham (England) on June 11, 2009:

If part of the excuse being given is that the law on searching school children is unclear, surely part of the prevention of a repetition of the events would be to restrict the right to conduct a search to those who could be reasonably expected to have a clear understanding of the law. Require that any search more invasive than, say, asking them to turn out their pockets and running a metal detector (or similar) wand around them be conducted by a law enforcement officer, who must be appraised of the situation fully. Empower the school only to use their existing rights to detain the pupil until said officer arrives.

A LEO should, by virtue of their position, understand the law including when and when not to conduct a search. They should also have an understanding of the legal restrictions on their right to search and the penalties they may face if they breach those restrictions. All such requests for searches should, of course, be logged whether a search occurs or not. Also, the act of having to contact the police (or similar agency), fully explain the situation, potentially be told to stop wasting police time (a criminal offense here in the UK, maybe in the US as well?) and have all this recorded might give the school administrators pause and cause them to seek a less egregious resolution. The thought of being searched by the police (or a similar agency) may also cause school children who are carrying actual illicit materials to surrender them so making the search unnecessary.

Whilst it could be argued that this would waste police resources, how much court resource has been 'wasted' by the necessity of this case?

Posted by Sammi, Florida on June 13, 2009:

When I was in school, there was a "secret society" of young women with drugs and items for sale or trade, something boys were generally not aware of, but some teachers knew about. While it didn't have a name, it was made up of young girls who were menstrating, and needed relief from cramps, other symptoms, needed supplies at various times, etc. Heaven help us if that society existed today! How silly! We traded aspirin, Midol, tampons, Kotex, whatever we needed and had to share, trade or sell, depending on the need and how well you liked the other girl. In high school, my purse held everything I needed to make it through a day of school, as well as a night of work, which today would most likely get me suspended from school forever, although none of the contents were illegal.

What started out as a reasonable idea for ZT has become a supreme farce of excessive stupidity. We all know that cream no longer floats to the top...what does float should be flushed! Common sense has gone the way of the dinosaur. Can common sense be cloned? Or is it destined to die out in the same way as our large lizardly friends?

Posted by John - Sacramento, CA on June 13, 2009:

Thank God I was smart (or lucky) enough to have put my daughter in private school for her entire pre-college schooling career.

It is certain that, if I had not, I would be in jail today for throttling some idiot public school administrator.

Posted by Amy, Canada on June 13, 2009:

I find it interesting that, as far as I understand American law, a Minor must have a parent or guardian in the room when being question by the police about involvement in a crime, but apparently not when they are told to take their clothes off by a Vice Principal who thinks he is equal in authority to the police.If the drugs really were a big threat, wouldn't the police be called, or am I being naive?

And as for immunity for the actual searchers, I personally do not accept the phrase "I was just following orders/doing what I was told". They had a responsibility to stand up for that girl.

I wonder what would be said if the 13 year old was an adult women, the vice principal was her boss, and her ordered her strip searched because she was accused of stealing. How many people would deny that it was Assault? So why is it different for a child vs the government?

Posted by Scott, Chicago on June 20, 2009:

It is a principle in the American school system that the school, while the child is physically present at the school or otherwise under the school's authority, is acting in loco parentis; -- in place of the parent."

So, if the school is the one doing the strip-search, the search is done by one acting in place of the parent. So the biological or adoptive parent is not necessary: the loco parent is. Very loco parent, in this instance.

It's a good thing for schools to be able to act "in loco parentis;" were that not so, the school would be unable to call for or permit emergency medical care, were there a life-threatening medical emergency (because only a parent, or one legally permitted to act as a parent, may approve medical treatment for a child).

But any good thing in the wrong place, or taken too far, is bad. It's a judgment call, as Randy constantly reminds us - and these loco parentises demonstrated egregiously bad judgment. They should be made to pay, and pay dearly, for it. And their employers, the people of that misbegotten town, should be made to pay dearly for hiring such buffoons.

(NB: not failure to exercise judgment: poor judgment. They exercised judgment; they could have done otherwise, and ought to have done.)

Posted by Rohin, New Zealand on June 20, 2009:

For those calling for the officials to be put on a Sex Offender Registry, this is another type of Zero Tolerance which goes against common sense.

The idea of a registry is that if someone commits a sex-based offense, others can find out and chose to not go near them.

However, (never mind the abuse which happens to actual offenders) many of those who are put on the list are not offenders of a sexual nature. Moreover, once on the list, it is extremely difficult to get your name removed, even if you are proved innocent (not just later found not guilty, but proved innocent).

A friend of mine who lives in the US has been put on the Sex Offender Register. His crime was urinating in a public place. It was late at night, but the location happened to be near a school. Obviously, he was a dangerous predator and everyone should be afraid!

I've heard other stories of 'sexual' criminals being ostracised, fired from their jobs, arrested on suspicion, etc. merely because of their presence on the register. One was on there for having sex with his girlfriend when she was 17 - he was 19. Another was caught masturbating in a public restroom (his wife had just given birth, and he didn't feel it was right to do so at their one-bedroom apartment with the baby).

Anyway, the point is that Zero Tolerance insanity applies to any circumstance when a major criminal consequence can be applied to an act which common sense says is innocuous. Remember, it could happen to you under these ridiculous policies.

Posted by Bob, Michigan on June 25, 2009:

If the administration in charge at Saffron Middle School has not been fired yet, citizens of Saffrod, Arizona need to recall their school board or at least the members who do not agree on firing the administrators. Also, the parents may not be able to sue the administrators but they should be able to bring criminal charges against them.

---

I'm not sure we'll see any criminal charges, but just because the individuals aren't liable, the school district still is, and that pending lawsuit will surely now proceed. -rc