Clarence Thomas was the lone dissenting justice in a Supreme Court judgment on behalf of a 13 year-old girl who was strip searched by Arizona school officials who were looking for . . . tablets of Advil:
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the strip search of a 13-year-old schoolgirl violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure.
In a closely watched case filled with poignant facts, the court ruled 8-1 that Arizona school officials violated student Savana Redding’s Fourth Amendment rights when they searched her down to her bra and underpants. Officials were looking for pain relievers, which they didn’t find.
The details of the search were pretty unbelievable:
A school nurse and administrative assistant, both female, took Redding into a back room.”With both officials staring at Savana, she took off her pants and her shirt,” Redding’s legal brief recounted.
“The officials did not notice any pills hidden in Savana’s clothing, on her body, or under her panties or bra. Still, they told Savana to pull out her panties and bra and to move them to the side.”
The strip search exposed Redding’s “genital area and breasts” to the school officials and was “the most humiliating experience” in the girl’s life, according to a legal brief. It didn’t detect any pills or contraband, and Redding said it harmed her.
Sounds dreadful. Did I mention that she was an honor student? How is a judge supposed to respond to such a clear violation of this student’s right to privacy?
If your name is Clarence, like this:
Justice Clarence Thomas was the only member of the court to decide that the search of Redding was reasonable.
Thomas is making the world safe, one pair of panties at a time.
And although they voted with the other 6 justices, Scalia and Roberts appeared close to supporting the invasive search. Justice Scalia used the same logic that governed the search for WMD in Iraq:
Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia . . . sounded sympathetic to the school’s actions, with Scalia in particular suggesting that “the drugs must be in her underpants” if every other reasonable hiding place on the student had been searched.
And I suppose, by that reasoning, if no Advil were found in her underwear then school officials would be forced to take the inquiry into the vagina and colon. And if that doesn’t work there’s always the water board or sensory deprivation to break the case. Then we’ll get to the bottom of this analgesic cabal.
Nice work, gentlemen.