WASHINGTON (CNN) — A former middle-school student who was strip-searched by school officials looking for ibuprofen pain medication won a partial victory of her Supreme Court appeal Thursday in a case testing the discretion of officials to ensure classroom safety.

Redding was an eighth-grade honor student in 2003, with no history of disciplinary problems at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona.

During an investigation into pills found at the school, a student told the vice principal that Redding had given her prescription-strength 400-milligram ibuprofen pills.

The school had a near-zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.

Redding was pulled from class by Vice Principal Kerry Wilson, escorted to an office and confronted with the evidence. The girl denied the accusations.

A search of Redding’s backpack found nothing. A strip search was conducted by Wilson’s assistant and a school nurse, both females.

Redding was ordered to strip to her underwear and to pull on the elastic of the underwear, so any hidden pills might fall out, according to court records. No drugs were found.

“The strip search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had,” Redding said in an affidavit. “I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.”

The decision was 8-1.  Justice Clarence Thomas thought the Constitution doesn’t really cover the “preservation of order, discipline and safety in public schools”, so if you want to strip-search 13-year-old girls at school, the Founding Fathers would have been cool with that.  Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens thought the girl should be able to sue the school administrators who humiliated her, but the rest of the court decided that up til now it hasn’t been very clear how much protection the Constitution gives 13-year-old schoolgirls from strip searches, so the administrators couldn’t be reasonably expected to know they couldn’t just do that (if I’m reading SCOTUSblog’s analysis correctly).

So, from now on, there will be more protection for 13-year-old girls in school to not be expected to strip to their panties for school officials – not police, a freakin’ vice principal’s assistant and a school nurse! - when a teenage snitch lies about them holding drugs.  But all you 13-year-old girls who were strip-searched, you have no recourse.

I don’t suppose anybody ever considered just calling the girls’ parents.  ”Hello, Mrs. Redding? We have a tip your daughter may be holding prescription ibuprofen in violation of our zero-tolerance policy.  Can you come down to the school, please?”  No, wait, excuse me, I forgot, we’re talking about drugs; there’s no room for common sense here!  What am I thinking?  I just expected someone who takes seriously the phrase “zero tolerance” to show common sense.

Related posts

• Arizona school violated 13-year-old’s rights in ibuprofen strip search (0)
• Washington State Supreme Court says pot smell isn’t enough to arrest all car’s occupants (0)
• US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked without cause (0)

Why I’m Standing Up Against Random Drug Testing at My High School

Allie Brody is a senior at Allentown High School in New Jersey and is one student that has had enough of being treated like a criminal.

I’ve written for my school newspaper, helped out with the production of musicals and even traveled abroad through a school club.

I was later inducted into the French Honor Society and the National Honor Society. Last year, I even co-founded the school’s first philosophy club.

But this year I am barred from participating in any of it. The irony is that my school has made me ineligible for any extracurricular activity for what they believe is my own self-interest. What did I do to deserve this punishment? I acted on my principles and stood up for fairness, privacy and dignity for me and my fellow students.

Student drug testing for extracurricular activity was pushed by the Bush administration as the panacea for high school drug use. Besides, what would convince more kids to stop doing drugs than to give them more time to use them. Allie Brody decided to take action.

Last year, when I found out my school board was considering a random student drug-testing policy, I immediately began organizing a student opposition group.

We worked to get the community involved: Students joined with parents and teachers, donning “Drug Testing Fails Our Youth” T-shirts as we filed into the school board meetings. We even brought a toxicologist to speak with the board about the unreliable nature of the drug-testing technology, the problem of non-professionals interpreting the test results, privacy and legal-liability issues and the general lack of research supporting student drug testing.

To us it seemed the school’s arguments in favor of testing were based more on emotional rhetoric than data. But, in the end, emotion carried the day, and random student drug testing went forward.

Allie didn’t simply accept the schools drug testing policy, and neither should you. Despite being terrible policy, it’s a total waste of taxpayers dollars. It’s an ineffective way to combat drug use and Allie does a great job pointing it out in the post.

In a policy statement, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) cautions that student drug testing is unsupported by scientific research and carries inherent dangers. Drug-testing programs break down trust between students and administrators. They also carry the inherent danger of motivating some students to switch to drugs that will leave the system quickly, like alcohol, or drugs that not show up in the tests, such as inhalants and herbal concoctions.

I commend Allie Brody for both the principled stand on the drug testing issue and for the willingness to sacrifice for a closely held belief. We are lucky to have teens of Allie Brody’s character in America, and as a society we become stronger for it.

History is written by those who show up.  [And if I may add... Many of us have had the fantasy idea that if everyone just refused to take a pre-employment drug test, there would be no more pre-employment drug test, because there wouldn't be enough workforce. Alas, that is just a fantasy, because the reality of supporting families and mortgages comes into play.

But at a school... Imagine if every member of the football team or school band or drama club just outright refused to take the tests, what then? These are cases where the drug tester needs you much more than you need the drug tester. Imagine the headlines when John Hughes High School can't field a football team or a band or a play because kids finally had enough and stood up for privacy! They can't expel or suspend the kids for not going out for extracurriculars. The district will be paying the salary of a coach, a conductor, or a director with no students to teach. If everyone did it, there's no way to single out the "stoners" from the rest.

NORML does not at all support the use of marijuana by those under age eighteen except in medical circumstances as directed by a physician. But we do support the privacy rights of students not to be accused of being drug users for merely trying out for extracurriculars. C'mon, kids, show your elders a thing or two - just say no to school drug testing. --"R"R]

Related posts

• Is Home Drug Testing A Parental Necessity Or Overreaction? (3)
• Combining cocaine, alcohol, creates toxic cocaethylene stored in liver, blamed for heart attacks (6)
• California teens’ marijuana use steady, but prescription drug abuse skyrocketing (1)

Local News | State Supreme Court narrows probable-cause grounds in pot case | Seattle Times Newspaper
Law-enforcement officers who detect the odor of marijuana from a vehicle can’t arrest all of the occupants, the state Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

In a unanimous ruling, the court determined the smell of pot isn’t enough probable cause to warrant the arrest and search of everyone inside a car. While smell alone may be reason for a vehicle search, the court determined, it doesn’t warrant handcuffing passengers without other supporting evidence.

Defense attorneys on Thursday called it a right-to-privacy victory. Law-enforcement officers say it won’t greatly affect the way they make arrests.

Summing up the state Supreme Court’s decision, Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote: “Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual.”

Attorney David Zuckerman, who brought the case before the state Supreme Court, said the problem is that arresting someone based solely on the odor of marijuana can affect innocents.

“The smell of marijuana smoke can linger for weeks,” Zuckerman said. “You could have a perfectly innocent citizen get into a car where somebody smoked marijuana at some point … and an officer can just pull you out of a car and book you based on that.”

This may be a good thing to know as you’re all road-tripping up to Hempfest in Seattle.  Not that any responsible adults would be smoking marijuana in their cars while driving, of course.  And it wouldn’t affect you anyway because if you were to break a law and transport marijuana, you’d at least have the sense enough to place it in a smell-proof container and store it in the trunk, so the state trooper would have nothing to smell.  Still, it’s nice to see a privacy-affirming ruling from a Supreme Court from time to time.

Related posts

• School’s strip-search of teen girl ruled unconstitutional, but girl cannot sue (6)
• Zogby Poll: Nearly 6 in 10 on West Coast favor marijuana legalization (3)
• Why I’m Standing Up Against Random Drug Testing at My High School (3)

Medical marijuana list released | HonoluluAdvertiser.com | The Honolulu Advertiser
Angry telephone calls started coming in to the state Department of Public Safety almost as soon as the June 27 issue of the Hawai’i Tribune-Herald hit the streets.

A front-page article on medical marijuana mentioned that the department had provided a database with patient names and addresses, the locations of their plants, their certificate numbers, and their prescribing doctors.

The breach of privacy was an inadvertent mistake, and the newspaper did not name any of the patients, but many were alarmed because the information is like providing a roadmap for a stash of legal pot.

On Monday, Clayton Frank, the department’s director, sent letters of apology to the 4,200 medical marijuana patients statewide, informing many who had not read the article that their confidential information had been compromised.

The letter explained the information had been forwarded by e-mail to a Tribune-Herald reporter who had asked for statistics on medical marijuana users. The department’s information technology personnel have since isolated the list and added other internal controls to prevent it from being mistakenly released in the future.

David Bock, the newspaper’s editor, said the newspaper complied with the department’s request to destroy the information.

“We just wanted to know the number of people in Hawai’i County who were currently receiving medical marijuana,” Bock said. “And they erroneously sent us the list with the actual names.”

Under the law’s administrative rules, patient names and other information is confidential and can only be disclosed to law enforcement as verification that patients are in the program.

Of course, the reason that the private information was even able to be leaked in the first place is because of the prohibition against marijuana for healthy people.  There has to be a list to keep track of the legal sick people who smoke pot because it’s still illegal for most people to smoke pot.  I write this to remind the medical patients that just because “you gots yours” doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be fighting for the responsible use of marijuana by the rest of us.  Until you do, you will always suffer high black market pricing, plant limits, possession limits, rip-offs, privacy breaches, law enforcement harassment, and difficulty acquiring medicine.

Related posts

• Worcester, Massachusetts, wants bigger pot penalties than Question 2 allows (5)
• Why I’m Standing Up Against Random Drug Testing at My High School (3)
• Washington State Supreme Court says pot smell isn’t enough to arrest all car’s occupants (0)