From: Jim Burnes <jim.burnes@ssds.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 1997 06:52:19 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: (Fwd) Gotta love the Supreme Court
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971111153602.323D-100000@westsec.denver.ssds.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




Whew.. Well I hope we don't have to depend on the Supreme
Court for further privacy decisions.....

>   
>U.S. High Court Denies Strip-Search Appeal
>
>   By James Vicini
>   
>   WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court let stand Monday a ruling
>   that public school officials did not violate clearly established
>   constitutional privacy rights by twice strip-searching two girls in
>   the second grade.
>   
>   The justices left intact a U.S. appeals court ruling that the
>   officials may be guilty of "questionable judgment," but could not be
>   held liable for money damages for an unconstitutional search of the
>   8-year-old girls.
>   
>   The case began May 1, 1992, when a teacher and a school counselor in
>   Talladega, Ala., conducted the strip-searches after a classmate
>   reported $7 missing from her purse.
>   
>   Another classmate accused one of the girls, Cassandra Jenkins, of
>   stealing the money and putting it in the backpack of the other girl,
>   Oneika McKenzie. No money was found in the backpack.
>   
>   The two girls were taken to a restroom and told by music teacher
>   Susannah Herring to remove their clothes. They were told to come out
>   of the toilet stalls with their underpants down to their ankles, which
>   they did.
>   
>   No money was found on the girls or in their clothing. After a trip to
>   the principal's office, the girls were taken by Herring and guidance
>   counselor Melba Simon back to the restroom for another, unsuccessful
>   strip-search.
>   
>   The parents of the two girls sued for damages under the civil rights
>   laws, alleging violations of their constitutional right to be free
>   from unreasonable searches.
>   
>   A federal judge dismissed the lawsuit. A divided appeals court in
>   June upheld the decision, ruling that the teacher and counselor enjoyed
>   partial immunity from the constitutional claim.
>   
>   The appeals court said that in 1992 the law involving searches of
>   students at school had not been sufficiently developed to place the
>   educators on notice that their conduct was constitutionally
>   impermissible.
>   
>   The Supreme Court in a 1985 ruling gave school administrators greater
>   flexibility to search students, but said they still have a legitimate
>   right to privacy and added that the search cannot be "excessively
>   intrusive."
>   
>   Attorneys for the two girls appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing
>   that the appeals court decision conflicted with the 1985 precedent.
>   They said the appeals court decision sent the wrong message to
>   "school officials nationwide."
>   
>   They said school authorities may strip-search students to prevent
>   imminent danger from the possession of weapons or illegal drugs, but
>   they may not use intrusive searches for "the most minor suspected
>   infractions."
>   
>   The attorneys said Supreme Court guidance was urgently needed on the
>   extent of constitutional constraints on strip-searches in schools.
>   
>   Attorneys for the teacher and the counselor urged that the appeal be
>   denied, saying the appeals court correctly decided the case. The
>   Supreme Court turned down the appeal without any comment or dissent.
>    

"THE BILL OF RIGHTS: Void where prohibited by law."

jim