Comments on: OK to Strip Search 13-Year-Old Girl for . . . Ibuprofen?

By: Sandy

Sandy — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 05:34:37 +0000

Anyone who believes that a 13 year old girl needs to be searched for Ibuprofen needs to get their head checked. If it was such a big deal her parents should have been called or the police. No school offical should ever have the right to lock a little girl in a room and make her strip over Ibuprofen. You are insane if you think otherwise.

By: Supremes Grant Cert in Teen Student Strip Search Case | The California Blog of Appeal

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 08:35:42 +0000

[...] quest for that dreaded scourge, Ibuprofen? I covered the original decision upholding the search here, noted the grant of rehearing here, and the en banc reversal here. Here’s the en banc [...]

By: It’s Now Official: It’s Not OK to Strip-Search a 13-Year-Old Girl for Ibuprofen | The California Blog of Appeal

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:11:08 +0000

[...] level reaction that the search was wrong, I found the majority opinion was well reasoned. Still, the dissent won me over; it was even better reasoned and, while both opinions centered around New Jersey v. TLO (1985) 469 [...]

By: Second Appeal for Presentation Input | The California Blog of Appeal

Second Appeal for Presentation Input | The California Blog of Appeal — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 04:06:15 +0000

[...] anyone is talking about YOUR case. I have had litigants contact me when I posted about their cases. One did so publicly in the comments. Another contacted me by e-mail. So I know that parties are out there [...]

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 16 Mar 2008 03:25:14 +0000

This case illustrates the lower courts struggle to fit the square peg of strip searches into the round hole of TLO. Courts do not know how to adjust TLO’s treatment of the search of a student’s purse for more intrusive searches like strip searches. The court in TLO explicitly directed that to be permissible in scope, the measures of a search must be 1) “reasonably related to the objectives of the search,” 2) “not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student,” and 3) not excessively intrusive considering “the nature of the infraction. These criteria are almost always mentioned then ignored by courts. The ninth circuit in this case not only brushed off this SCOTUS prescribed test but also replaced it with a new, and incomplete, test–further cementing bad law.

By: How Do You Use Legal Blogs? | The California Blog of Appeal

How Do You Use Legal Blogs? | The California Blog of Appeal — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 16:54:49 +0000

By: Maybe It’s Not OK to Strip Search a 13-year-old Girl for Ibuprofen After All | The California Blog of Appeal

Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:58:17 +0000

[...] a round-up of coverage of the original opinion, see my original post. Posted in Constitutional Law, Education, Search & [...]

By: Greg May

Greg May — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:38:40 +0000

Ms. Redding,

I don’t know why you think I would see things differently after reading your side. I thought the post explains that I am ALREADY on your side. I just don’t think the decision can be based on the gut-reaction revulsion. Notwithstanding the absolutist opening of the dissent, it takes some thought. In a purely intellectual sense, it is a closer call than one would call it if operating just at a gut level.

Regards,

Greg May

By: Savana Lee Redding

Savana Lee Redding — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:52:49 +0000

This article is about me. I worte a letter to the Editor of the Eastern Arizona Courier. Go to their website and check it out. It’s entitled, “How would you feel?” leave a comment about it. after you read it im sure you’ll see differently about this whole mess. thanks– Savana Lee Redding

By: silvermine

silvermine — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:24:48 +0000

This makes no sense to me. At what point was a school given these powers?

To me, the legally uneducated, if they had a problem, call the police. Who, presumably, know what the hell they’re doing. The school is NOT a law enforcement agency, no matter how much it may think it’s king of the schoolyard.