Yeah, so this school in Arizona thought it had the right to strip search a 13 year old girl, including searching her underwear, to look for...ibuprofen. Turns out, heh, that violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Says the NYT:
"Thursday’s ruling sends the case back to the lower courts to assess what damages, if any, should be paid by the school district. But, by a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court held that the individual officials in the case should not be held liable, because 'clearly established law' at the time of the search did not show that it violated the Fourth Amendment."
Jesus, fine. Because adults definitely ought to rely on "clearly established law" rather than common sense when it comes to questions of "should we make this child take off her clothes while we look for Advil." On the main issue, the court ruled 8-1. Now who do you think was the dissenter?
Let's see...underage girl, strip search, underwear, stubbornly opposed to the "basic reasonableness" interpretation...ah! Thomas, of course. What is with that guy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment