Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

DrugReporter

The Supreme Court Resists Drug War Hysteria

By Krystal Quinlan, AlterNet. Posted July 6, 2009.


Ruling on strip-searching case is the latest sign that the High Court's drug war fever may finally be breaking.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Safford Unified School District v. Redding is a sign that the High Court's drug war fever may finally be breaking.

 

Savana Redding, a thirteen-year-old honor student, was strip-searched at school after a classmate falsely accused her of possessing prescription-strength ibuprofen (one pill is equivalent to two Advil). The school's zero tolerance policy prevents students from bringing any medication (prescription or over-the-counter) to school without administrative approval. The vice-principal confronted Redding and searched her backpack. Redding then was forced to remove her clothing and expose her genitalia. No pills were found.

 

Strip-searching a thirteen-year-old girl for Advil is a flagrant overreaction to the problem of student drug use. The vice-principle was not looking for a suspected weapon: he was after ibuprofen -- something many girls carry to school privately with parental consent to relieve menstrual cramps. He could have easily called Redding's mother and spared Redding the humiliation of having to expose herself.

 

Redding's Supreme Court victory represents a welcome change from the judicially sanctioned drug war hysteria that has plagued the High Court for the past 25 years, allowing school administrators to run roughshod over the Bill of Rights in the name of protecting youth.

 

Things looked promising in 1968 when the Supreme Court applied First Amendment protection to schools and told administrators that students do not "shed their constitutional rightsat the schoolhouse gate." However, by 2007, the Court upheld the suspension of a student for displaying a banner at a public event that read "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" because of the banner's questionable connection to the "serious and palpable dangers" posed by student drug abuse.

 

In 1985, the Supreme Court rightly recognized that schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy at school under the Fourth Amendment. While prisoners do not have legitimate privacy expectations, the Court said, "[w]e are not yet ready to hold that the schools and the prisons need be equated for purposes of the Fourth Amendment." But by 2002, the Supreme Court allowed public schools to drug test students who participate in non-athletic extracurricular activities (think chess club, marching band and 4H) because of "the nationwide epidemic of drug use." Now, administrators can force students who aspire to learn outside the classroom to urinate in a cup under their watchful eye and grant all adult activity leaders access to sensitive student medical information.

 

 

Drug war hysteria fuels irrational behavior -- with pernicious results. In 2003, SWAT team officers seized and restrained South Carolina high school students at gunpoint while a police dog sniffed for drugs. The raid was initiated on the principal's suspicion that one student was selling marijuana. No drugs were found. But the danger and trauma that the students endured was already done.

 

 

To their credit, eight justices in Savannah Redding's case addressed the traumatic effects of being strip-searched and recognized school districts that have banned the practice under all circumstances -- sending a clear message to school administrators that strip-searching students is not just illegal in many cases, but almost always unwise.

 

 

Most immediately, being strip-searched can inflict acute and long-lasting emotional damage on adolescents. Self-conscious youth are vulnerable to psychological trauma, which manifests in depression and anxiety disorders, even Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Moreover, by authorizing school officials to strip-search students, educators are transformed into policemen. Such policies erode relationships of trust and hinder open and honest communication between students and teachers, which are essential elements of a safe and productive learning environment that teach adolescents to make healthy life choices.

 

 

The purpose of school is to educate and prepare children to inherit the future. Justice William J. Brennan once wrote, "The schoolroom is the first opportunity most citizens have to experience the power of government. Through it passes every citizen and public official, from schoolteachers to policemen and prison guards. The values they learn there, they take with them in life."

 

 

The Supreme Court has, at best, a checkered history when it comes to knowing how to protect children from the dangers of drugs. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon teachers and school administrators to be mindful of the lessons we teach our children to help them reach adulthood as healthy and responsible citizens.

 


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: drugs, war on drugs, prohibition

Krystal Quinlan is a legal intern at the Drug Policy Alliance Office of Legal Affairs.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from DrugReporter! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Kids are cattle
Posted by: MT512 on Jul 6, 2009 2:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and schools are factory farms. The only right they have is the right to do exactly what they're told to do without question. In a country where we are literally arresting minors for taking revealing photographs of themselves, it is not surprising that we also strip-search young girls for Advil. I just wonder if maybe that young woman was attractive or shapely, if there was some other reason she was being strip-searched, and if perhaps a boy would have gotten the same treatment from that male principal. Same thing when school administrators confiscate a cell phone. Say you were talking on it in class or something. They'll take it and then they'll search it for any "child porn" you may have taken--of yourself. They'll have the cops haul you off to, a-hem, protect you from yourself.

...Yet somehow, in this bizarro-world, that principal who forced the young lady to strip off her clothes is not now a registered sex offender! Total impunity.

This kind of stuff angered the hell out of me when I was a high schooler with zero rights in the late 80s. I feel sorry for the kids of today who apparently have it even worse. How much longer until we tattoo them with bar codes or force them to get electronic implants that record their every word and movement?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The 4th Amendment and the Supreme Court
Posted by: johnchase34 on Jul 7, 2009 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The danger in Supreme Court 4th Amendment rulings is that they often turn on whether the subject had "an expectation of privacy". On this one we lucked out. But we have not been lucky for most of the drug war. With each successive ruling, we have gone forward with less expectation of privacy than we had before, thus less liklihood of a favorable ruling next time.

Two recent such rulings (1)require a person to produce ID, if asked, and (2)allow police to dawdle during a routine traffic stop long enough for sniffer dogs to arrive. We live in a slowly growing police state, so slowly that the change is barely noticed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shrdlu
Posted by: shrdlu on Jul 10, 2009 2:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I applaud your publication for recognizing that the drug laws in this country and many others are an extremely effective tool for oppression. Most media do not make that connection. Legislation passed to deal with the "clear and present danger" which was the eye-catching slogan which was used to identify "enemies of the state" like union organizers who were labelled as communists has been co-opted by the drug warriors. One of the most tragic effects of the a "drug war" has been to suborn many in the law enforcement community. I worked in film processing labs in the early 60's when pornorgraphy was a "clear and present danger" and the porn that we would process on company time was always sold to policemen who are always in a better position to distribute contraband than the average citizen. Not a lawyer myself but it seems to me that the only prosecutable offenses in common law are crimes against other people's person or property; we are told ad nauseum that we have dominion over our own bodies and it is a tragi-comedy that a judge will sentence a recreational drug user to unconscionable jail terms to protect him/her from themselves. The motives are so transparent as to be laughable if they didn't involve the destruction of lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That's Bull Sh*t
Posted by: joebanana on Jul 10, 2009 6:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or rather, child molestation, at the least. No adult has any "right" or "duty" to strip search anybody. And an adult that forces a child to remove any clothing is a pervert, and belongs in jail not a school. And the stupreme court failed by not allowing a law suit, that was just wrong, that poor child deserves better, and restitution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement