[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Brigitte Macron is going all the way to a U.S. court to prove she’s actually a woman

China's 'Rocket Artillery 360 Mile Range 990 Pound Warhead

FED's $3.5 Billion Gold Margin Call

France Riots: Battle On Streets Of Paris Intensifies After Macron’s New Move Sparks Renewed Violence

Saudi Arabia Pakistan Defence pact agreement explained | Geopolitical Analysis

Fooling Us Badly With Psyops

The Nobel Prize That Proved Einstein Wrong

Put Castor Oil Here Before Bed – The Results After 7 Days Are Shocking

Sounds Like They're Trying to Get Ghislaine Maxwell out of Prison

Mississippi declared a public health emergency over its infant mortality rate (guess why)

Andy Ngo: ANTIFA is a terrorist organization & Trump will need a lot of help to stop them

America Is Reaching A Boiling Point

The Pandemic Of Fake Psychiatric Diagnoses

This Is How People Actually Use ChatGPT, According To New Research

Texas Man Arrested for Threatening NYC's Mamdani

Man puts down ABC's The View on air

Strong 7.8 quake hits Russia's Kamchatka

My Answer To a Liberal Professor. We both See Collapse But..

Cash Jordan: “Set Them Free”... Mob STORMS ICE HQ, Gets CRUSHED By ‘Deportation Battalion’’

Call The Exterminator: Signs Demanding Violence Against Republicans Posted In DC

Crazy Conspiracy Theorist Asks Questions About Vaccines

New owner of CBS coordinated with former Israeli military chief to counter the country's critics,

BEST VIDEO - Questions Concerning Charlie Kirk,

Douglas Macgregor - IT'S BEGUN - The People Are Rising Up!

Marine Sniper: They're Lying About Charlie Kirk's Death and They Know It!

Mike Johnson Holds 'Private Meeting' With Jewish Leaders, Pledges to Screen Out Anti-Israel GOP Candidates

Jimmy Kimmel’s career over after ‘disgusting’ lies about Charlie Kirk shooter [Plus America's Homosexual-In-Chief checks-In, Clot-Shots, Iryna Zarutska and More!]

1200 Electric School Busses pulled from service due to fires.

Is the Deep State Covering Up Charlie Kirk’s Murder? The FBI’s Bizarre Inconsistencies Exposed

Local Governments Can Be Ignorant Pissers!!


Dead Constitution
See other Dead Constitution Articles

Title: WTF?! Court rules school officials acted properly in forcing 13-year-old to disrobe and expose her breasts and pubic area
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2 ... es-school-officials-acted.html
Published: Sep 29, 2007
Author: Marc Parent
Post Date: 2007-09-29 06:46:31 by Kamala
Keywords: None
Views: 463
Comments: 34

Friday, September 28, 2007

WTF?! Court rules school officials acted properly in forcing 13-year-old to disrobe and expose her breasts and pubic area

Update

A reader advises there is a history of child abuse regarding the school in question. I found the following,

FORMER SAFFORD MIDDLE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL ACCUSED OF FILMING TEENAGE GIRL If readers find and send in related stories, I'll add them here.

---

Court rules school officials acted properly in strip search

By Diane Saunders, Staff Writer

Safford Middle School officials did not violate the civil rights of a 13-year-old Safford girl when they forced her to disrobe and expose her breasts and pubic area four years ago while looking for a drug, according to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling.

The justices voted 2-1 in favor of the Safford School District on Sept. 21. The decision upheld a federal district court's summary judgement that Safford Middle School Vice Principal Kerry Wilson, school nurse Peggy Schwallier and administrative assistant Helen Romero did not violate the girl's Fourth Amendment rights on Oct. 8, 2003, when they subjected her to a strip search in an effort to find Ibuprofen, an anti-inflammatory drug sold over the counter and in prescription strengths. Wednesday, September 26, 2007 Print this story | Email this story Advertisement * The Safford School District has since (in 2005) adopted a policy that states, "Disrobing of a student is overly instrusive for purposes of most student searches and is improper without express concurrence from school district counsel."

The girl's mother filed a federal law suit against the district and Middle School officials because they forced her daughter to strip down to her underwear then move her bra and panties in such a way that her breasts and pubic area were exposed. The mother also asserts that she was not notified of the impending search.

In the opinion written by Judge Richard Clifton, "Based on the information available to them, defendants (Safford School District, Wilson, Schwallier and Romero) had 'reasonable grounds' for suspecting that the search of (the girl's) person would turn up evidence that (the girl) had violated or was violating either the law or the rules of the school."

Clifton wrote that Wilson and the others had reasonable grounds for believing the girl had Ibuprofen based on conversations with two other students.

The other students said the girl possessed Ibuprofen and had distributed the drug to others, according to the court report.

Judge Richard R. Clifton, however, disagreed with Thomas and Judge Michael Daly Hawkins, and wrote the dissenting opinion.

"I disagree, however, with the assertion that the search of (the girl's) person was reasonable in scope," Clifton wrote. "It was unreasonable to force (the girl), a 13-year-old girl, to expose her breasts and public area to schools officials."

Safford School District Superintendent Mark Tregaskes said school officials do not see the Appellate Court's ruling as giving them the OK to strip search students when possession of over-the-counter drugs are suspected.

"That's never been the case either before or after this decision," Tregaskes said, adding that the term can be misleading.

He also said parents are usually notified, depending on the circumstances.

A school district policy, adopted in 2005, states, "School officials have the right to search and seize property, including school property temporarily assigned to students, when there is reason to believe that some material or matter detrimental to health, safety and welfare of the student(s) exists. Disrobing of a student is overly instrusive for purposes of most student searches and is improper without express concurrence from school district counsel."

School district policies also state that students cannot possess or take over-the-counter drugs without the written consent of their parents. Over-the-counter drugs must be brought to the school in its original container and be administered by a school official, the policy states.

Under certain circumstances, however, students may administer medications to themselves if they provide written permission from their parents.

Posted by CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS mparent7777 Marc Parent CCNWON at 11:13 AM

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

#16. To: Kamala, Diana, Angle, Cynicom (#0)

this story occurred in a very small town in eastern Arizona, right next to New mexico border.

hard to believe they did this for ibuprophin.

you know for some drugs they have ridiculous prohibitions against. and then some drugs like ritalin/prozac are mandatory.

Red Jones  posted on  2007-09-29   10:07:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Red Jones (#16)

you know for some drugs they have ridiculous prohibitions against. and then some drugs like ritalin/prozac are mandatory.

Our society is SO controlled now, they want to have power over every aspect of our lives. I also can't believe they are making kids take all these phychotropic drugs but they are. Parents seem to have no rights to their children anymore. Instead the state does.

Diana  posted on  2007-09-29   10:34:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 20.

#30. To: Diana, christine, robin (#20)

Our society is SO controlled now, they want to have power over every aspect of our lives. I also can't believe they are making kids take all these phychotropic drugs but they are. Parents seem to have no rights to their children anymore. Instead the state does.

Yep.

State control manipulated by federal control.

Public schools are now required by law to give over all the names of their male high school students as soon as they reach age 16 so that the info is logged in with Selective Service who send little reminder notes if said males do not register at the exact minute when they reach the birthday that requires them to do so by federal law.

In fact, parents need to insist on being given an "opt out" form to be able to keep their sons off this automatic reporting list sent into Selective Service by our public school educators. Nice, yes?

Mothers birth little boys and keep them safe and healthy for 16 years and then the gov't says "thanks for growing such delicious cannon fodder for us - we'll take over now."

scrapper2  posted on  2007-09-29 12:57:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: Diana (#20)

Parents seem to have no rights to their children anymore. Instead the state does.

It doesn't just seem that way - it IS that way. Concerning children, parents are in a guardian/ward relationship with the state - the state is the WARD, the parents are the GUARDIANS, and the WARD basically gets to "call the shots".

My oldest daughter will be having her first child in about 5 months. She told me she really wants to use a midwife and have the baby at home, but she's not sure she will. I urged her to check into home birth more, and think it's a good idea. Then I told her that if she DOES use the hospital to make sure of 3 things:
1) DON'T fill out a birth certificate application - simply tell them you haven't decided on a name for the baby yet, and you'll fill it out later and send it in - then simply "lose" it and NEVER fill one out. They may not like it, but that's NOT illegal.
2) DON'T fill out an application for the baby to get a Social(ist) Security Number.
3) DON'T let them give the baby ANY vaccinations before they leave the hospital.

#3 is just good advice as (at that age especially) the baby's immune system is just not formed at all and the baby is easily susceptible to anything a "vaccine" may contain. But #1 and 2 are what will ensure that she DOES "keep the rights" to her child - if she follows that advice, she won't be entering into that guardian/ward relationship with the state.

innieway  posted on  2007-10-01 07:56:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]