Strip Search of High School Student Ruled Illegal

[Ifreann]

In many ways I have found "Atlas Shrugged" to be much like "the Necromonicon". A text of such pure and concentrated evil that even opening the cover threatens your very soul. Except that instead of having their soul pulled into a vile dimension to be devoured by Ancient Old Ones for all eternity, those that gaze upon its words run the risk of becoming objectivists.

Which in many ways is actually worse.

Except that copies of Atlas Shrugged ACTUALLY EXIST. This makes it infinitely worse than a fictional book.

Unless.......Atlas Shrugged IS the Necronomicon. The pure evil contained therein manifested itself in the form of a work by the eminent 20th century Russian American C'thulhu cultist, Ayn Rand.

[Treznor]

I'm not sure. I find it here and everything seems to point back to that. It originated just this year.

I looked through that, and I followed a (rather interesting) link in the comments, to this. Holy crap.

Whoa. I'm bookmarking this one. It's truly disturbing in its revelations about Rand's mindset. Sociopath, indeed!

[Fartsniffage]

My understanding is that he's not saying that it's "not both" so much as he's saying that something unconstitutional is by definition illegal, as violating the constitution is an illegal act.
The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is that what he's saying is equivalent to saying that something is a square, and that being a square falls within the subset "rectangle" and it's redundant to say something is "Both a square and a rectangle." If it's a square, it's by definition a rectangle, and if it's unconstitutional it's by definition illegal

That's what I understood so my question was heading more toward whether calling the search illegal was a proper and useful description as unconstitutional would cover both descriptions whereas illegal would leave the door open for it to be constitutional.

[Deus Malum]

My understanding is that he's not saying that it's "not both" so much as he's saying that something unconstitutional is by definition illegal, as violating the constitution is an illegal act.
The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is that what he's saying is equivalent to saying that something is a square, and that being a square falls within the subset "rectangle" and it's redundant to say something is "Both a square and a rectangle." If it's a square, it's by definition a rectangle, and if it's unconstitutional it's by definition illegal

That's what I understood so my question was heading more toward whether calling the search illegal was a proper and useful description as unconstitutional would cover both descriptions whereas illegal would leave the door open for it to be constitutional.

Yeah, that was what struck me as off about the Associated Press article in the first place, and why I asked that question in the OP. It's definitely more technically accurate to call it unconstitutional.

[Deus Malum]

In many ways I have found "Atlas Shrugged" to be much like "the Necromonicon". A text of such pure and concentrated evil that even opening the cover threatens your very soul. Except that instead of having their soul pulled into a vile dimension to be devoured by Ancient Old Ones for all eternity, those that gaze upon its words run the risk of becoming objectivists.

Which in many ways is actually worse.

Except that copies of Atlas Shrugged ACTUALLY EXIST. This makes it infinitely worse than a fictional book.

Unless.......Atlas Shrugged IS the Necronomicon. The pure evil contained therein manifested itself in the form of a work by the eminent 20th century Russian American C'thulhu cultist, Ayn Rand.

...
...
...
......
Oh gawd. How could we not have seen this. We're doomed. DOOOOOMED!

[Farnhamia]

I'm not sure. I find it here and everything seems to point back to that. It originated just this year.

I looked through that, and I followed a (rather interesting) link in the comments, to this. Holy crap.

Whoa. I'm bookmarking this one. It's truly disturbing in its revelations about Rand's mindset. Sociopath, indeed!

Seriously. Thanks, UNI.

[Ifreann]

My understanding is that he's not saying that it's "not both" so much as he's saying that something unconstitutional is by definition illegal, as violating the constitution is an illegal act.
The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is that what he's saying is equivalent to saying that something is a square, and that being a square falls within the subset "rectangle" and it's redundant to say something is "Both a square and a rectangle." If it's a square, it's by definition a rectangle, and if it's unconstitutional it's by definition illegal

That's what I understood so my question was heading more toward whether calling the search illegal was a proper and useful description as unconstitutional would cover both descriptions whereas illegal would leave the door open for it to be constitutional.

That depends what one means by constitutional. If it means that something doesn't violate the constitution, then some illegal things could be constitutional if the constitution simply doesn't say anything on the matter. I doubt there's anything in the constitution about driving without a license, for example. This definition doesn't seem terribly useful, however. Alternatively, constitutional could mean something that is explicitly allowed by the constitution, whether in the text itself or as the result of a SCOTUS ruling. In that case, something cannot be illegal and constitutional.

[Deus Malum]

My understanding is that he's not saying that it's "not both" so much as he's saying that something unconstitutional is by definition illegal, as violating the constitution is an illegal act.
The best analogy I can think of off the top of my head is that what he's saying is equivalent to saying that something is a square, and that being a square falls within the subset "rectangle" and it's redundant to say something is "Both a square and a rectangle." If it's a square, it's by definition a rectangle, and if it's unconstitutional it's by definition illegal

That's what I understood so my question was heading more toward whether calling the search illegal was a proper and useful description as unconstitutional would cover both descriptions whereas illegal would leave the door open for it to be constitutional.

That depends what one means by constitutional. If it means that something doesn't violate the constitution, then some illegal things could be constitutional if the constitution simply doesn't say anything on the matter. I doubt there's anything in the constitution about driving without a license, for example. This definition doesn't seem terribly useful, however. Alternatively, constitutional could mean something that is explicitly allowed by the constitution, whether in the text itself or as the result of a SCOTUS ruling. In that case, something cannot be illegal and constitutional.

Right, something that is illegal isn't unconstitutional by definition, just like how something that is a rectangle isn't automatically a square. The other way holds true, though.

[Fartsniffage]

That depends what one means by constitutional. If it means that something doesn't violate the constitution, then some illegal things could be constitutional if the constitution simply doesn't say anything on the matter. I doubt there's anything in the constitution about driving without a license, for example. This definition doesn't seem terribly useful, however. Alternatively, constitutional could mean something that is explicitly allowed by the constitution, whether in the text itself or as the result of a SCOTUS ruling. In that case, something cannot be illegal and constitutional.

That is pretty much my point.

If the search was illegal but wasn't protected but the constitution then it could be made legal by a relatively simple change in the the law but if the search was unconstitutional than it would require a much more difficult constitutional amendment to make it legal.

That why I was asking if the language used was correct as it makes a bit difference to the judgement.

[Neo Art]

That depends what one means by constitutional. If it means that something doesn't violate the constitution, then some illegal things could be constitutional if the constitution simply doesn't say anything on the matter. I doubt there's anything in the constitution about driving without a license, for example. This definition doesn't seem terribly useful, however. Alternatively, constitutional could mean something that is explicitly allowed by the constitution, whether in the text itself or as the result of a SCOTUS ruling. In that case, something cannot be illegal and constitutional.

That is pretty much my point.

If the search was illegal but wasn't protected but the constitution then it could be made legal by a relatively simple change in the the law but if the search was unconstitutional than it would require a much more difficult constitutional amendment to make it legal.

That why I was asking if the language used was correct as it makes a bit difference to the judgement.

The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. And as anything unconstitutional is by default illegal, it is not improper to say that by ruling it unconstitutional, the Court found it illegal.

Now you are of course correct in that there are many thing illegal that are still constitutional (indeed, pretty much any law that limits the range of private actors creates activities that are illegal but not unconstitutional, as (virtually) nothing a private actor can do can possibly be unconstitutional as the constitution only (for the most part) limits governmental actors, not private ones). However the issue before the Court was one of a constitutional question. As such the only matter before it as to its legality/illegality was whether it was constitutional.

As such, saying they found it "illegal" is technically correct, and technically limited by the point that the ONLY way the court could find it "illegal" is by finding it "unconstitutional" as that was the only question before it (in regards to its legality).

Though yes, you're right, "unconstitutional" is perhaps more specific than "illegal", though I imagine the use of the technically correct term "illegal" was more a stylistic choice on behalf of the author, to avoid having to keep saying "unconstitutional" over and over again.

[Bluth Corporation]

Kids, can you say "non sequitur"? Good! I knew you could!

Not at all, as the premise underlying his comment is that I am somehow ignoring reality by arguing that things should be done in a manner differently from the way things currently are done.

On the contrary, I am arguing against your premise that the law is irrelevant as that argument isn't going to help you in court.

Then the courts operate wrongly and need to change.

[Bluth Corporation]

I'd love to hear Bluth Corporation's answer to my reasonable question.

Perhaps you should be patient; I have better, more important things to do than sit in front of a computer 24/7 staring at a website. So if I don't answer your question right away, it's because either (a) it's not as reasonable as you think it is, or (b) I'm off doing one of those "better, more important things."

[SaintB]

I for one am glad its ruled illegal, its basically a form of sexual harassment. She was a teenager at a school, not a felon at a drug bust.

[Blouman Empire]

Holy crap that's surprising. I had bad feelings about this case, and am VERY happy it was such a decisive opinion.

Additionally, the action is unconstitutional because it violated her 14th amendment rights. To violate ones 14th amendment rights is a crime, hence it's illegal.

14th? Being strip searched violated her citizenship rights?

You mean it violated her 4th amendment rights: Right of search and seizure regulated.


What is this I corrected Neo on a legal matter? And a US one at that. Hell hath freezeth over.

[Neo Art]

Holy crap that's surprising. I had bad feelings about this case, and am VERY happy it was such a decisive opinion.

Additionally, the action is unconstitutional because it violated her 14th amendment rights. To violate ones 14th amendment rights is a crime, hence it's illegal.

14th? Being strip searched violated her citizenship rights?

You mean it violated her 4th amendment rights: Right of search and seizure regulated.


What is this I corrected Neo on a legal matter? And a US one at that. Hell hath freezeth over.

No, actually, you didn't. The 4th amendment protections, like all protections offered under the original Bill of Rights, place restrictions only upon the FEDERAL government. Not the state governments. Since her search was conducted by an official of a public state school, this official could not have violated her 4th amendment rights, because the 4th amendment only provides protection against agents of the FEDERAL government, not STATE governments. It's legally impossible for a state agent to violate 4th amendment rights, you HAVE no 4th amendment rights protecting you against actions by STATE officials.

On the other hand, the FOURTEENTH amendment's due process clause provides limitations on STATE officials analogous to the restrictions placed on federal officials by the FOURTH amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).

This was a state official acting in his capacity as a state employee. Thus the 4th amendment, given that it restricts only federal government, is utterly irrelevant. The 14th amendment is what restricts the states, and thus it is the 14th amendment, not the 4th, that is relevant here.

I said 14th, I meant 14th. If this was a federal employee and not a state employee, I would have said 4th. It wasn't, so I didn't.

[Blouman Empire]

*snip explanation.

FUCK!!!!

And all is right with the world once again.

Thought I had you there.

Fair enough and I wasn't think you had made a mistake in what amendment it was but rather that you had accidently hit "1" but you didn't so it doesn't matter.



I'll get you one day.

[Delator]

...there is an aspect of the Court's decision that is deeply troubling. The majority held the school officials that conducted the strip search were protected by qualified immunity because it wasn't clearly established that the strip search was wrong. So they are off-the-hook for their clearly illegal actions.

Yeah...when I heard that the radio earlier today, I literally did a double take.

I for one am not much interested in the legal arguments...it is wrong to strip-search a 13 year old to look for ibuprofen based on the finger-pointing of another teenager, and those responsible ought to suffer consequences for their actions.

...but clearly the court disagrees.

"Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."

That's a big heaping pile of win right there.

[Shaftique]

Why the hell do such obvious things end up in the Supreme Court in the US? Anywhere else, the police and the school board would have dealt with it straight away. School officials clearly have no authority to conduct a strip search.