Hooray for the Supreme Court for its 8-1 ruling that school officials violated an Arizona teen's rights by strip-searching her for prescription-strength ibuprofen. (Well, maybe not hooray for Clarence Thomas.) Warrantless searches were a big topic back in the mid 1900s and the courts across the nation have evolved into a "common sense" approach to them. "Can the evidence be lost while seeking a warrant through the courts?" This was one of the most determining question in developing a uniform standard for warrantless searches. Reasonable suspicion versus probable cause is definitely a factor, but once a decision has been made, that action needs to be taken, then we are back to "The Question."
So the school decided they had enough reasonable suspicion to believe Savana Redding had pills. Remember, school officials are part of the government, so they have constitutional restraints against them. But to disregard the sanctity of a person's body for evidence that was not going anywhere is excessively intrusive!
The 1985 Supreme Court even warned against excessively intrusive searches without a court-ordered warrant. So once again, this has been reaffirmed. It's hard to believe that the 9th Circuit Court upheld the Constitution, but every dog does have its day! School officials have been given too much leeway in regards to a person's body, so it's a refreshing breath of cool air that they have been jerked back to reality.
This is the type of decision that we all need to rally behind if we are going to get our government officials to respect the Constitution and the people that it protects.
Paul De Nubilo