Would you be mad?

[mistanice]

Would you be angry if they SRO (school resource officer) and Vice principal, took your son into the VP's office and patted him down and made him take his pants off for being accused of possessing Marijuana? I understand that maybe patting him down was fine, but when you get to having a student taking his pants off in front of two men? Do they have a authority to do such searches at school without a parent being notified or present? Oh, and nothing was found on him. This happened to a family member of mine. seems pretty iffy to me!

[gobbler grad]

:thinking: :thinking: :thinking: believe I would be asking some questions...

[Emerson1]

Sue for millions

[piratebg]

I guess it's ok as long as they wore latex gloves and gave him a sucker when they were done.

[SPF25]

I would be upset if it was my child. Someone would have alot of explaining to do.
Piratebg get your head out of the gutter.:rolleyes:

[piratebg]

In all seriousness, it's a school and not a prison. Patting him down and checking his locker is one thing, but if they told him to drop his pants, I'd give my son permission to use any kind of language he wanted to when telling them no.

Now, if this happend to my daughter, then both of those men would go missing.

[lepfan]

Most kids (that have the 'stuff') will keep it on their person....because they can not be searched at school. So I've been told. I think the SRO and VP were a bit out of line for only suspecting....

[Hupernikomen]

Principals have less restrictions on searches than the police. If they had a reasonable grounds they were within their rights.

"has reasonable grounds to believe that a student possesses evidence of illegal activity or activity that would interfere with school discipline and order."

There were two for the safety of both parties (i.e. a witness).

Here is what I think is the current stance of the legality of searches at school.


--Although the U.S. Supreme Court has not addressed strip searches, the high court's 1985 decision in New Jersey v. T.L.O. established a two-step analysis for school searches. First, a search of a student must be reasonable in its inception. That is, there must be reasonable grounds to suspect that the search will turn up evidence of a crime or a violation of a school rule. Second, the search must be reasonable in scope. That is, it must be reasonably related to the purpose of the search "and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."

[GreenMonster]

Originally posted by Hupernikomen
"and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."

Sorry, but I think removal of one's pants is excessively intrusive. The pat down is not excessively intrusive and is OK. Removal of one's shoes would also be OK, but these guys went overboard and need to reprimanded. There have to be limits and those limits must not be exceeded. I would have flat refused and requested the Police be called to protect me from persecution.

[Hupernikomen]

Originally posted by GreenMonster
Sorry, but I think removal of one's pants is excessively intrusive. The pat down is not excessively intrusive and is OK. Removal of one's shoes would also be OK, but these guys went overboard and need to reprimanded. There have to be limits and those limits must not be exceeded. I would have flat refused and requested the Police be called to protect me from persecution.

The excessively intrusive complaint is certainly what gets these sort of things in courts. If it was me I would check the local policy to see if they have adopted a search policy.

Best I can understand Supreme Court has stayed away from hearing anymore cases on searches and the T.L.O. case is the one we operate by.

[mistanice]

how about when the SRO grabs the boys undershorts (which he had on underneath his pants) and pulls on his shorts to look down into his crotch area?

He had on Pants, undershorts(like gym shorts), and boxerbriefs

[piratebg]

Originally posted by mistanice
how about when the SRO grabs the boys undershorts (which he had on underneath his pants) and pulls on his shorts to look down into his crotch area?

He had on Pants, undershorts(like gym shorts), and boxerbriefs


Is this being hypothetical or did he really check his crotch like this?

[mistanice]

STEPHENVILLE -- The parents of a 10-year-old boy have sued the Stephenville school district and three of its employees who strip-searched their son because they suspected that he had cigarettes.

Roger and Theresa Salter sued Monday in U.S. District Court in Fort Worth, seeking compensatory and punitive damagaes on allegations that their son's constitutional rights were violated.

According to the complaint, the boy was strip-searched Sept. 29 by teacher Kevin Ferguson at the direction of resource officer Sgt. Ann Shell while teacher Nick Heupel watched at the Gilbert Intermediate School. The suit claims that the boy had already been questioned about and searched for possession of cigarettes before the strip search. Nothing was found in either of the searches, the complaint says.

Stephenville Superintendent Darrell Floyd said he had not seen a copy of the suit and could not comment on it.

The Salters say that Shell orchestrated the search and that individual apologies after the incident were half-hearted and insufficient to "undo the damage that was already done."

The suit says the searches were in compliance with the school district's policies, which "tolerate and encourage the warrantless strip search of young children for no good reason." It also claims that the school district did not provide the three employees with adequate supervision and training, which in turn resulted in the strip search.

The couple say the school district refused to discipline the three employees after it learned of the incident.

According to the suit, the parents removed their son from the school "for his own protection" and school officials had been told that the Salters did not want their children searched without their consent.

The lawsuit says the damage to the boy include loss of privacy, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and psychological trauma.

The suit seeks damages for Robert and Theresa Salter for the loss of their parental rights, the cost of providing their son with an alternative education, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and medical bills.

In a Nov. 15 letter to Floyd, the Salters' attorney, Curtis B. Stuckey of Nacogdoches, offered to settle the claim for $140,000. Stuckey said the offer remained open until Nov. 27; he said he sued after receiving no response from the school district.

[mistanice]

Originally posted by piratebg
Is this being hypothetical or did he really check his crotch like this?

No this was true, i was told firsthand by the boy. He told me that the SRO grabbed his shorts "waistband" and pulled it back and looked down to make sure he had nothing on him.

[piratebg]

That is CRAZY!!! :crazy:

Do they let male coaches watch female athletes shower just to make sure that they are not doing anything they are not supposed to be doing?

If that is the way it is going to be, than maybe we should just start sending our kids to school naked to avoid these kind of issues.

[Hupernikomen]

Originally posted by piratebg
That is CRAZY!!! :crazy:

Do they let male coaches watch female athletes shower just to make sure that they are not doing anything they are not supposed to be doing?

If that is the way it is going to be, than maybe we should just start sending our kids to school naked to avoid these kind of issues.

Well it certainly isn't an everyday event at every school. It they pulled back his underwear to check for cigarettes I would think they are in some trouble. I don't think the courts will consider this acceptable, but I am no judge. If they suspected he had a weapon maybe they could get away with that, but not looking for cigarettes. IMHO.