Haven’t seen a vote breakdown on this decision. Wonder where Strip Search Sammie came down on the scale of justice?

Does anyone have the vote on this? Was it unanimous? Did Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito say it was okay to strip search a 13yr old girl?

Great post, Christy! Always glad to see a righteous case brought by the ACLU validated!

It was an 8-1 decision.

C. Thomas was the only one that was cool with that.

Wow, the Fourth Amendment and Habeas Corpus? The SCOTUS is going all ”retro” and nostalgic! What’s next? Will they bring back platform shoes and wide lapels? Rule that it’s unconstitutional for the DHS and NSA to listen in on phone calls and e-mails? Start playing disco? Those crazy kids!

Here’s how the vote breakdown went:

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and SCALIA, KENNEDY, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined, and in
which STEVENS and GINSBURG, JJ., joined as to Parts I–III. STEVENS, J.,
filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which
GINSBURG, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part
and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the
judgment in part and dissenting in part.

From what I’ve read elsewhere, the Court further held (a) that the persons conducting the search cannot be held civilly liable therefor, but (b) it’s possible that the school district may be held civilly liable.

Guilty but with no punishment for strippers= home free. Is this Justice?

Well, they find that the strip part of the search was unconstitutional, but they still give immunity to the strip searchers.

Looks like everyone but Thomas agreed on the unconstitutional, but Ginsburg & Stevens peeled off on the immunity rationale.

How have we fallen so far that you hand out immunity for stripping a 13 yo girl over alleged possession of Advil, bc gosh darn it, the case law is just so darn unclear.

thanks christy .. and .. it’s good to see your banner flying …

There is discussion about the qualified immunity issues on this — because the search grounds weren’t specifically prohibited at the time the search occurred. Am still trying to wrap my brain around the back and forth on all of that end of things, but this isn’t a decision that will make attorneys doing school board work less nervous, I can say that — it’s about time we had a good look at the “no thought required” no tolerance policy anyway, so this may be the thing that does that.

But it’s too early in my read to say for sure.

The back and forth on immunity is a wacky one, isn’t it?

btw, if folks catch language in the opinion they think is significant, please feel free to note it in the comments. Am reading this opinion while playing Go Diego Go on the wii with The Peanut. And thus I might miss something… *g*

I normally don’t like to see large monetary awards in these kinds of cases, but I hope they break the school district on this one and force them to start over. They have clearly lost their way.

I think that Souter wanted the opinion to be clear cut and well supported. He gave Roberts and Scalia, who aren’t all that disturbed about the child abuse aspects of the having people in power order up the strip search of a 13 yo girl, the immunity issue to at least get the clear case law on the search issue.

What parent with a young girl would feel safe having that girl in those people’s care, though? It was basically molestation and the pureyors are still in charge of children. Creeps me out.

Emptywheel has a new post up and ready for our perusal: “Did “the Family” Force Sanford to Ditch His Mistress?”

btw, if folks catch language in the opinion they think is significant, please feel free to note it in the comments.

this is disturbing

areasonable search that extensive calls for suspicion that it will suc-ceed

they have made it clear, if something was found then the search WAS legal

I’m sorry, that doesn’t fly, this means if the CAN perform the search they simply have to find something, then if they don’t, in order to avoid repercussions they will have to plant something

this is not cool at all

“It was basically molestation and the pureyors are still in charge of children.”

I think an investigation of these people’s lives would turn up other actionable instances of child abuse. It’s not likely this is their first offense.

this is also not cool;

the official who ordered the unconstitutional search is entitled to qualified immunity from liability.

and I might be reading that out of context but this does not look like a win at all, then check this out;

Wilson learned from Peggy Schwallier, the school nurse,that the pill was Ibuprofen 400 mg, available only by prescription

they are stripping a girl down because of ADVIL!!!

advil?

are they out of their child molesting minds?

raven, see my 20, they are molsting this girl making believe they are looking for advil

ADVIL!!!

A 13 year old with more courage than A.G. Holder, I’m shocked.

I have yet to look at this decision but concur with the ideas expressed about the scope of the search and the troubling take on immunity.

I would note in the passage cited the use, twice, of the word “privacy” which is good but in the context of “expectations of privacy”, instead of “right to privacy” which is not.

Another half a loaf. The majority said the search was unconstitutional but that the officials who ordered it should be immune from prosecution because it wasn’t “obviously” unconstitutional!!! Justice Ginsberg said it best in her dissent in part:

Here, “the nature of the [supposed] infraction,” the slim basis for suspecting Savana Redding, and her “age and sex,” ibid., establish beyond doubt that Assistant Principal Wilson’s order cannot be reconciled with this Court’s opinion in T. L. O. Wilson’s treatment of Redding was abusive and it was not reasonable for him to believe that the law permitted it. I join JUSTICE STEVENS in dissenting from the Court’s acceptance of Wilson’s qualified immunity plea, and would affirm the Court of Appeals’ judg-ment in all respects.

[Emphasis added.]

I also just took a look at Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, a 5-4 decision with an unusual makeup in the vote. It involves a 6th Amendment violation of right to confront (and cross-examine) witnesses in a drug case where lab certificates were substituted for lab personnel testimony as to what and how much in the way of drugs had been seized.

the more I read about this ruling the more I think it is a complete loss.

they have empowered the search not restricted it as far as I can tell

How surprising.

wtf

I think this ties in with the “reasonable expectation” language. I don’t know the history of this law, but I suspect that language means that they believe there is no Constitutional guarantee, but that people think they have privacy and if the right-wingers gradually whittle away at it with warnings, then one day they’ll be able to say there’s no remaining right (no remaining expectation) to privacy. Give them an inch and they’ll gradually get it all.

How far back does the “reasonable expectation” language go?

this court is turning our country into the kind of country we see in the movies, where the land owners can come by and rape your daughter, molest your son and claim some kind of eminant domain

that is what they want and that is how they ruled in this case

Can always count on Christy to cover the Court’s significant rulings. Thanks goodness!

In all the hubbub over Michael Jackson’s death I’m not seeing anything on the front page about this decision.
Frankly, half a loaf or not, I’m glad this came down.

Of course, we knew instantly, on hearing it was 8-1 who the “1″ was.

To me, what it shows most of all is how important it is to get more women and “minorities” on the Court.

Important. Can you believe they turned down hearing the Plame outing case