翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ Safidar, Chaharmahal and Bakhtiari
・ Safidia
・ Saffo (opera)
・ Saffo the Greek
・ Saffold Dam
・ Saffold virus
・ Safford
・ Safford Cape
・ Safford Center for the Arts
・ Safford City-Graham County Library
・ Safford High School
・ Safford House
・ Safford Mine
・ Safford Regional Airport
・ Safford Unified School District
Safford Unified School District v. Redding
・ Safford, Alabama
・ Safford, Arizona
・ Safford, Arizona micropolitan area
・ Saffordoceras
・ Saffordville, Kansas
・ Saffres
・ Saffron
・ Saffron (album)
・ Saffron (color)
・ Saffron (disambiguation)
・ Saffron (singer)
・ Saffron Aldridge
・ Saffron Brand Consultants
・ Saffron Building Society


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

Safford Unified School District v. Redding : ウィキペディア英語版
Safford Unified School District v. Redding

''Safford Unified School District v. Redding'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a strip search of a middle schooler violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution where the school lacked reasons to suspect either that the drugs (Ibuprofen) presented a danger or that they were concealed in her underwear. The court also held, however, that because this was not clearly established law prior to the court's decision, the officials involved were shielded from liability by qualified immunity.
==Background==
Officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona received a report that 13-year-old Savana Redding had given a classmate four prescription-strength 400 mg ibuprofen and a 200 mg over-the-counter naproxen. Based on this suspicion, they first searched her belongings; then, believing that "students ... hid contraband in or under their clothing," had her strip to her underwear, "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it," and "pull out the elastic on her underpants" to see what might fall out.〔Slip op. at 2, 10.〕 The officials did not find any contraband on Redding's person, and they did not contact Redding's parents at any point during the investigation.
Safford School District, like many school districts, has a policy strictly prohibiting the use, possession, or sale of any drug on school grounds, including prescription drugs, without advanced administrative permission. A week before Savana was searched, a student reported to the school’s vice principal, Kerry Wilson, that students were bringing drugs onto campus, and, furthermore, the student reported becoming sick after taking pills obtained from a classmate. On the day of Savana’s search, the same student turned a white pill over to Mr. Wilson. The pill was later identified as a form of prescription ibuprofen. The student claimed that Marissa Glines had given him the pills. He also reported that he attended a party at Savana’s house at which alcohol was served to his peers.
In the presence of Helen Romero, an administrative assistant, Mr. Wilson requested Marissa turn out her pockets and open her wallet. Marissa produced a blue pill, several white ones, and a razor blade. Marissa identified Savana Redding as the person who had supplied her with the drugs. Wilson did not follow-up with questions to determine when Savana may have given Marissa the pills, where Savana might be hiding drugs, or how Savana had obtained them.
After escorting Savana, an 8th-grade honor roll student with no history of disciplinary problems or substance abuse, from her classroom to his office, Wilson questioned her about the drugs. Savana denied possessing drugs and also denied giving drugs to other students. She agreed to allow Mr. Wilson and Ms. Romero to search her backpack; the search revealed no drugs. Then, at Wilson’s direction, Savana was taken by Romero to the office of Peggy Schwallier, the school nurse, where they subjected Savana to a search of her bra and underpants. The search revealed no pills.〔http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu-challenges-unlawful-strip-search-over-ibuprofen-allegation-school〕
Several faculty members alleged that Savana and Marissa were among a group of disorderly students at a school dance earlier in the school year. Marissa’s statement that the pills came from Savana, information from a student that pills were being brought to school, and information from faculty regarding the relationship between Marissa and Savana was determined to be sufficiently plausible grounds to justify the suspicion that Savana was involved in pill distribution.22
Redding's mother sued the school district and several school officials, arguing that this second, strip search violated Savana's Fourth Amendment right to be secure against "unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Reddings were represented by Adam Wolf of the ACLU Drug Law Reform Project and Tucson-area attorneys Bruce G. Macdonald of the law firm McNamara, Goldsmith & Macdonald, P.C. and Andrew Petersen of the law firm of Humphrey and Petersen, P.C.〔http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform/aclu-challenges-unlawful-strip-search-over-ibuprofen-allegation-school〕 The defendants denied that such a violation occurred; the individual school officials further argued that, as school officials, they had qualified immunity from such a lawsuit.
The district court found that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed. But in an en banc rehearing, the full Ninth Circuit reversed the panel: it found that Savana's Fourth Amendment rights were violated, and further rejected the individual defendants' claims of qualified immunity.
〔The Supreme Court elaborates:
::Following the two-step protocol for evaluating claims of qualified immunity, see Saucier v. Katz, (533 U. S. 194 ), 200 (2001), the Ninth Circuit held that the strip search was unjustified under the (Fourth Amendment ) test for searches of children by school officials set out in ''New Jersey v. T. L. O.'', (469 U. S. 325 ) (1985) . 531 F. 3d 1071, 1081–1087 (2008). The Circuit then applied the test for qualified immunity, and found that Savana’s right was clearly established at the time of the search: “‘()hese notions of personal privacy are “clearly established” in that they inhere in all of us, particularly middle school teenagers, and are inherent in the privacy component of the (Fourth Amendment ) ’s proscription against unreasonable searches.’ ” ''Id.'', at 1088–1089 (quoting Brannum v. Overton Cty. School Bd., 516 F. 3d 489, 499 (CA6 2008)). The upshot was reversal of summary judgment as to Wilson, while affirming the judgments in favor of Schwallier, the school nurse, and Romero, the administrative assistant, since they had not acted as independent decisionmakers. 531 F. 3d, at 1089.

The defendants (now petitioners) appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari and approved her appeal.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「Safford Unified School District v. Redding」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.