The SCOTUS body slammed public schools on a major strip search scandal. From the ruling:
The only dissent, from Clarence Thomas, seems to be based primarily on federalism grounds, not defending anything that actually happened or the use of power.
(I had to "take a break from the break" since this was an uncommonly good SCOTUS ruling)
What was missing from the suspected facts that pointed to Savana [Redding] was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear. We think that the combination of these deficiencies was fatal to finding the search reasonable. [emphasis mine]Is this a crack in the zero tolerance edifice? The Supreme Court just smacked them down on the basis that there was no reason to believe that the pills were harmful, and that the public school officials had no reason to believe she would go so far as to hide them in her underwear. Both are excellent points since the first point reinforces the issue of there being actual harm, and the second not only reinforces the fourth amendment by restraining how far a search can go, but can be cited in the future to stop perverts (think it's not an issue?) from using it for a peep show.
The only dissent, from Clarence Thomas, seems to be based primarily on federalism grounds, not defending anything that actually happened or the use of power.
(I had to "take a break from the break" since this was an uncommonly good SCOTUS ruling)
I was hoping for a "you should not commit a greater crime to prevent a lessor crime" ruling.
For an adult school authority to molest a child to catch a child with misdomenor drug possession or a simple violation of school rules is way outside the lines.
It's a good start, but I'll be more impressed when they start coming down with equivalent rulings against law-enforcement (something I see as highly unlikely, considering the current line-up).