>If this had been done in a parochial or private school, what would law >enforcement’s reaction have been? But since civil servants committed >this act the brethren circle the wagons to protect one of their own >from the criminal prosecution so richly deserved.

There is no criminal offense.

Also, *only* because this is a government school could this civil rights case be brought.

>I agree that the court in a civil suit brought by the parents who had >to pay for their attorney ruled in favor of the child and will no >doubt make a monetary award that the school district’s insurance >company will pay out after deductible with premiums to be raised in >the future on the backs of the taxpayers.

The parents did not have to pay for their attorney; they were represented by the ACLU. But they still wouldn’t have to pay if they were represented by regular attorneys; these cases are done on a contingency basis, with the prevailing party’s attorneys being statutorily entitled to attorneys fees.

Yes, all of this is ultimately paid by the taxpayer.

>But if I heard that someone in authority had told my child to strip, >my first call would not be to my family attorney to commence civil >proceedings. It would be to the Police to have the alleged perpetrator >picked up on child molestation charges and with whatever else it is >the cops charge people like this.

You can call whoever you want, but there is no crime.

>Imagine the same thing had happened at a Catholic school with someone >from a religious order involved. Given what’s gone on with the priests >and kids, I suspect the situation would have been handled much >differently by the press and prosecutors. Why? Should not the public >schools be held to the same standard?

I’m sure if there were the same history of pedophile teachers they would be.

>This is not the first incident of this type we have read about. One >would think there would have been a moment of reflection after the >first one and the application of some judgment in future situations.

I can’t disagree with this

>But instead, the little Hitlers with their zero tolerance policies >continue to assault our children with impunity because they need not >fear individual personal criminal prosecution. Why not?

Because they haven’t committed a crime?

Similar to the recent Supreme Court decision on the second amendment, which was 5-4, the other scandal is that the vote of the court was 6-5, not 11-0. Don’t look to courts to protect your individual rights. They’re much too busy taking them away one by one.”

Not so simple. The vote on whether the school acted appropriately had an 8-3 vote against. The 6-5 vote was on whether or not the Vice Principal had qualified immunity from prosecution. The indecision rested, apparently on whether the VP knew or ought to have know about a previous legal decision that was similar, but not the same. The previous decision dealt with the search of a purse–and the substance was something other than ibuprofen.

I would say that the larger scandal was that the district’s legal counsel did not advise the district to ‘fess up and settle long before it got into an appeals court.

Similar to the recent Supreme Court decision on the second amendment, which was 5-4, the other scandal is that the vote of the court was 6-5, not 11-0. Don’t look to courts to protect your individual rights. They’re much too busy taking them away one by one.

Jeez, this is stupid.

Several years ago, East Stroudsburg gave pelvic exams, even to protesting jr hi kids. The PA dept of ed had so many calls for info they had a separate line with a recording of extensive rationalizations.

What maroons.

What happens with a kid who needs anti-seizure medication? Or someone with chronic migraines who has to take the migraine meds RIGHT THEN when they’re getting one? Are they expected to go down to the school nurse (if there’s even a nurse on duty*) and wait until the nurse is free to get helped?

(*When I was in eighth grade, my class was having a study hall outdoors. On some very old wood bleachers. I slid over to help a friend with a math problem and wound up with a very large number of large splinters in my thigh. Recent budget cuts had necessitated that the school nurse “cycled” between the different schools in the district, and it was not her day to be on duty at the junior high. By good fortune, my MOM was at home and the principal called HER in to remove the splinters and treat the injuries.)

The more I read “public school follies” the more I figure if I had a kid, he/she would be in private school or homeschooled.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Michael Daly Hawkins wrote: “We should resist using our independent judgment to determine what infractions are so harmful as to justify significantly intrusive searches.”

“Admittedly, ibuprofen is one of the mildest drugs children could choose to abuse. But that does not mean it is never harmful.”

To answer your question Chris, what we have are judges who are unwilling to do what they are being paid to do. The purpose of the Court is to protect the rights of individuals when they are clearly being violated. By not using his “independent judgment”, he is in effect giving the school administrators carte blanche to abuse students. If the judge refuses to use his judgment then he should be in some other line of work, one preferably where he does not have to think.