There was a lot of law blog coverage when a Ninth Circuit panel held that a strip search that required 13-year-old Savana Redding to expose her breasts and pubic region during a search for Ibuprofen did not violate her Fourth Amendment rights. As I wrote in my post, despite my gut- 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 U.S. 325, the dissent was better supported by authority. Along with my gut, that was enough, so I was among those happy to see en banc rehearing granted. In today’s en banc opinion, Redding…
-
-
Maybe It’s Not OK to Strip Search a 13-year-old Girl for Ibuprofen After All
Last September, I covered (along with seemingly every other legal blogger) Redding v. Safford USD #1, case no. 05-15759 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2007), in which the Ninth Circuit held that a school’s strip-search of a 13-year-old girl for Ibuprofen, for crying out loud, was constitutionally permissible. Today, the Ninth orders rehearing en banc. For a round-up of coverage of the original opinion, see my original post.
-
OK to Strip Search 13-Year-Old Girl for . . . Ibuprofen?
One look at that blog headline and it’s no surprise Friday’s Ninth Circuit decision in Redding v. Safford USD #1, case no. 05-15759 (9th Cir. Sept. 21, 2007) has garnerd some attention in the legal blogosphere. Predictably, some of the reaction has been at a gut level. See, for example, California Appellate Report or Decision of the Day. This is a section 1983 action by the 13-year-old girl against the school officials and the district for an alleged violation of her Fourth Amendment rights by searching her for pills. The search was initiated after a student claimed to have become ill from some pills distributed by the plaintiff and pills…
-
IDEA Rights not Enforceable under Section 1983
In Blanchard v. Morton School District, case no. 06-35388 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2007), the Ninth Circuit becomes the fifth federal appellate circuit to hold that rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are not enforceable by an action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983. The court acknowledges that two circuits have gone the other way and that the Eighth Circuit has an intra-circuit split on the issue. The case arose when the mother of a disabled child sued to recover damages for lost earnings and suffering endured during her eventually successful drive to obtain benefits for her son under the IDEA. The district court granted summary judgment, finding…