Modern Lolsuits: Safford Unified School District v. Redding

It's much more difficult to write about all of the terrible things you encounter in the law when you're talking about recent events and people who are alive today. There was a part of me that wanted to write about modern Torts cases here, but that just isn't something people need to hear about. For those of you not in the know, "Tort" is Latin for "God has forsaken you." Torts are very much like tortes, only instead of cake in the center there are tears of suffering and desperation. So anyway, I'm sorry, but you may never learn what happens when an experiment in fashioning an esophagus out of a colon goes horribly wrong.
One takeaway that you can get from those cases, though, is that many judges are entirely removed from the reality of the events of the cases they are deciding. On a related note, some judges are not aware of when it is appropriate to use the phrase "comedy of errors." If you are a judge reading this, let me give you a primer:
1. "Hey, remember how you were too poor to have children and tried to get a vasectomy but all of these wacky mishaps led up to you giving birth to a child with serious deformities, like scaly skin? Wow, what a comedy of errors!" (Incorrect)
2. "Hey, remember when you were fired from your job at the CIA and your wife wanted a divorce so she copied everything from your computer onto a disc, but then she somehow lost the disc at her local gym and a gym employee found it and thought the disc contained government secrets and tried to blackmail the government but really the disc just contained your memoirs? Wow, what a comedy of errors!" (Correct)
3. "Hey, remember that time back in Ephesus when you and your twin were both living there but neither of you knew the other one was in the city and both of your slaves were twins too and everyone got you confused and no one could figure out what was going on? Wow, what a Comedy of Errors!" (Accurate, but Seldom Actually Referenced)

I hope that clears things up.

So anyway, here's a modern lolsuit that really exemplifies how far removed eight of our nine Supreme Court justices can really be: Safford Unified School District v. Redding.

Redding was a 13-year-old girl who was an honors student at a small-town Arizona middle school. Just based on that description alone, I'm pretty sure you already know she is a bad person who deserves whatever she has coming to her. Well, it's worse than you think: she came to school with prescription Ibuprofen. What's the difference between prescription and non-prescription Ibuprofen you ask? It's got MORE IBUPROFEN. One prescription Ibuprofen is like a couple normal ones. Several. So I guess instead of getting a prescription you could just buy more normal ones, but then your friends would call you a little bitch. And they'd be right.

Now I guess I should clarify what I meant when I said she came to school with prescription Ibuprofen: I meant someone else came to school with prescription Ibuprofen. Someone a little less honors student-y. But that person definitely came to school with prescription Ibuprofen, and, when questioned, claimed that Redding was the source of the pills. Bringing prescription meds to Safford Middle School, by the way, violates School Rule J-3050. After reading that, it made me want to own an indexed and annotated copy of the Safford Middle School Rule Book, complete with interpretive decisions by the Safford School Counsel.

Anyway, so Redding was called into the office and she denied bringing pills of any kind to school. Her backpack was searched as well, and that didn't bring up any results. Some people might have dropped the whole thing right there, but the Safford Middle School administration knows how to spot red flags. For example, Redding had never been in trouble at school for anything, so they knew she must have been very good at hiding whatever (quasi-)criminal behavior she was mixed up in.

So naturally they had her strip completely naked for them and wave her underwear around.*

Redding called the event the most humiliating experience of her life, and the former honors student eventually dropped out of school some time later.

Naturally, this resulted in a big-time lolsuit, and it eventually reached the Supreme Court. At oral argument, things got a little weird. For example, one justice asked if doing a full body cavity search of students would be ok.

"MR. WRIGHT: We're not even clinically trained to do that, Your Honor. I would submit that if a child has something stuffed up one of their cavities -- and I assume we mean private parts, the very private parts -- that the first thing to do would be to send them to the hospital. I mean, we just don't have that clinical training."

Whew! That's a relief. I'm glad no school officials will be sticking their hands in my child's private parts (the very private parts). I mean, that would be crazy if...

"JUSTICE SOUTER: But if -- if we hold in your favor in this case and the next school district says, all right, we're going to have classes in body cavity searches, then there would be no legal basis, if we accept your principle, for saying that's out of bounds as a matter of the Fourth Amendment; isn't that correct?
MR. WRIGHT: I see your concern. That's to be left up to the local governments, Your Honor."

Um...wow. So let's review what's at stake here. The attorney for the school is saying that if the Court rules in his favor then local governments can decide to give teachers a weekend course in searching anal cavities for prescription Ibuprofen and then that would be a legal thing that teachers could do (and would perhaps, in certain instances, be required to do as part of their job). Well, that's cool. No pressure with this decision. Not really feeling anxious about which way this one turns out.

The case also revealed that almost none of the Supreme Court justices have any idea what actual public schools are like. Or maybe even private ones. They were apparently educated in pods. At one point, Justice Scalia becomes very concerned about the school's decision to list permanent markers as contraband, and the attorney for the school has to explain that kids sniff them.

"JUSTICE SCALIA: They sniff them?
MR. WRIGHT: Well, that's the -- I mean, I'm a school lawyer. That's what kids do, Your Honor, unfortunately, Your Honor. But --
JUSTICE SCALIA: Really?"

Then no one seems to get what the big deal is about being asked to strip for school officials, at least as long as it's just down to underwear.

"JUSTICE BREYER: I'm trying to work out why is this a major thing to say strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym, they do fairly frequently, not to -- you know, and there are only two women there. Is -- how bad is this, underclothes?"

Oh Justice Breyer. He knows what a women's locker room is like. I mean, he may not have been in one, but he's seen credible reports about them and he doesn't see the big deal. Ginsberg, by the way, was less amused.

So, were Redding's Constitutional rights violated or can any school official with a health course and a latex glove go searching around in barely-teen body cavities? ***Drum Roll***

Constitutional rights violated! Tell Johnny his balloon of heroin is safe. Actually, based on the oral arguments this was a pretty surprising result. In fact, almost every Justice said Redding's rights were violated. There was only Justice who didn't agree. Which one? I'll give you a hint: it's a guy who's had a little experience with wanting people to strip.

The school officials, however, were granted immunity.



* The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' narration of this event is a real literary accomplishment, at least in terms of case descriptions. It reads like a nightmare, because that's exactly what it is: "The officials had Savana peel off each layer of clothing in turn. First, Savana removed her socks, shoes and jacket for inspection for ibuprofen. The officials found nothing. Then, Romero asked Savana to remove her T-shirt and stretch pants. Embarrassed and scared, Savana complied and sat in her bra and underwear while the two adults examined her clothes. Again, the officials found nothing. Still progressing with the search, despite receiving only corroboration of Savana's pleas that she did not have any ibuprofen, Romero instructed Savana to pull her bra out to the side and shake it. Savana followed the instructions, exposing her naked breasts in the process. The shaking failed to dislodge any pills. Romero next requested that Savana pull out her underwear at the crotch and shake it. Hiding her head so that the adults could not see that she was about to cry, Savana complied and pulled out her underwear, revealing her pelvic area. No ibuprofen was found."