The Constitution Still Applies to Children: Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding

In the past week the United States Supreme Court has decided a number of important cases. Two of them have received the most attention. One was Ricci v. DiStefano, decided June 29, 2009 which is noteworthy because it both a) involved a complex reverse discrimination issue and b) overruled a decision of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor. The other was Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, decided June 25, 2009, which was a landmark interpretation of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as applied to the certificates of analysis used by prosecutors in drug and DWI cases.

Another important opinion was issued on June 25th in the case of Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, also known as the "middle school strip search case". The facts of the Safford case were outrageous: a 13 year old middle school girl was brought from her classroom to the assistant principal's office. She was interrogated there by a male assistant principal. The assistant principal and his administrative assistant searched the girl's backpack and found no contraband. The girl continuously denied having any contraband.

The two school employees accused her of distributing pills in the school and confronted her with 5 pills (one of which was an over the counter ibuprofen pill). The young girl denied any knowledge of the pills. The assistant principal then ordered that the girl be brought to the school nurse's office to be searched for pills.

Once inside the nurse's office, the school nurse and the administrative assistant ordered the girl to remove her outer clothing and they searched it, finding nothing. The school officials then ordered the girl to pull her bra out and shake it as they watched, which exposed the girl's breasts, but again exposed no pills. The school officials then ordered the 13 year old to pull out the elastic on her panties which exposed her pelvic area to the school's henchmen. This too revealed nothing. After this humiliating series of searches was concluded, the school officials did not bring the girl back to her classroom. They did not call her mother. Instead they left her sitting on a bench outside the assistant prinicpal's office for two hours after the strip search had concluded.

In Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding, the Supreme Court ruled that this outrageous strip search violated the Fourth Amendment. In a major victory for the privacy rights of all citizens, but particularly some of the most vulnerable to privacy intrusions, this opinion establishes, at least, that the government cannot extend the battlefield in its "War on Drugs" to a 13 year old's underwear.

Mark Stevens

Mark Stevens
LAW OFFICES OF MARK STEVENS
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
Tel 603-893-0074

http://www.ByeByeDWI.com

http://www.ByeByeOUI.com

http://www.ByeByeDUI.com

http://www.twitter.com/byebyedwi

http://www.byebyedwi.blogspot.com

The Right to An Independent Breath Test Preserved by the New Hampshire Senate Judiciary Committee 5-0

On May 11, 2009 I wrote an article in this blog titled Did You Know that the New Hampshire State Legislature is in the Process of Taking a Right Away From You? The article concerned a bill sponsored by the department of safety that would have squashed the right of New Hampshire citizens to independent breath testing in DWI cases. At that time House Bill 363, which would annihilate an important right in New Hampshire and which costs the state nothing had quietly passed the House of Representatives.

It is important to note again that the cost of obtaining the independent analysis is borne ENTIRELY BY THE DRIVER! Yes, that's right, these independent tests don't cost the state one red cent. So why would the state want to strip the accused driver of the best chance to challenge the state's evidence? There may be some reasons for it, but none of them are good ones.

The state recently announced that it had purchased a new $500,000.00 Bat-Mobile to roll out at DWI roadblocks. It is more likely this year than ever that you will stopped for no reason at all in a DWI roadblock, a numbers-driven event, frequently marked by very marginal cases resulting in arrests to justify the grant money needed to run more roadblocks. So the state bought a half-million dollar shiny new truck, and wanted to annihilate one of the few remaining challenges that an accused has when he or she decides to blow into a breath gadget, when that challenge is paid for entirely by the citizen. Sound fair?

NOW FOR THE GOOD NEWS: Despite the state's efforts in convincing the house of representatives to pass HB 363 in order to stomp out this important right for no reason other than easier prosecutions for the state, the Senate Judiciary Committee has wisely killed this bill by voting 5-0 that the bill was inexpedient to legislate.

So for now, this right to prove the state's drunk-in-the -box isn't infallible survives. It is important to remain vigilant and keep an eye on bills the legislature is considering.

Mark Stevens

Have a safe night,

Mark Stevens
New Hampshire Lawyer Mark Stevens
LAW OFFICES OF MARK STEVENS
5 Manor Parkway
Salem, NH 03079
Tel 603-893-0074

http://www.ByeByeDWI.com

http://www.ByeByeOUI.com

http://www.ByeByeDUI.com

http://www.twitter.com/byebyedwi

http://www.byebyedwi.blogspot.com

Today's Article in the Eagle Tribune Regarding ByeByeDWI.com

Hello everyone.

In today's Eagle Tribune there is an article regarding my effort to advertise ByeByeDWI.com on police cruisers. I have attached a link to that article below. Thank you all for the many thoughtful emails I have received on this topic.

http://www.eagletribune.com/punews/local_story_154043208.html

Have a great day!

Mark Stevens

http://www.ByeByeDWI.com

http://www.ByeByeOUI.com

http://www.ByeByeDUI.com

Legal Advertising