# Clarence Thomas: Facts Do Not Overrule Suspicions **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [June 25, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979 "2009-06-25T20:21:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/21 "2009-06-25T21:46:56Z")
I’m willing to concede that suspicion remains because they didn’t find anything in her backpack but how is that even the main point to this whole clusterfuck? They strip-searched a 13 year old girl over fucking Advil. Suspicion, schmuschmicion, the actions taken weren’t warranted. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/22 "2009-06-25T21:47:43Z")
Argh, this case is a mess. The school officials were clearly gone all nonsense. However, I think the Supremes overshot the mark by a country mile. The bigger question is if random school bureaucrats are actually capable of violtaing someone’s right in that sense. The 4th Amendment is generaly held to apply to _law enforcement_. While I do think students have some rights, it’s not at all clear to me that (however stupid the ). A better way to put it would be also that the administrator had no standing to search the student in that manner, any more than any random stranger on the street, but like a stranger on the street can’t violate your 4th Amendment rights. Bah, school law is all fouled up in the first place. The law should basically treat them as complete civilians, with only _very_ limited authority temporarily granted by parents. ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/23 "2009-06-25T21:49:04Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I disagree. The issue surely is the strength of the original suspicion. How can whether or not you find nothing in the backpack change that? It isn’t like you are likely to find a _clue_ in the backpack that the person has, in fact, hidden the drugs in her underwear (I’d say “like a bong”, but really, you don’t need bongs, rolling papers etc. to take Advil). > > In short, either you had reasonable grounds to strip-search someone or you did not. If you did, finding the backpack empty doesn’t change that fact. Indeed, the fact that you found _nothing at all even after the strip search_ doesn’t change that, otherwise every time the cops unsuccessfully searched someone they would be sued. The issue is “what information did you have going in”? Right; this is how I understand the meaning of the Thomas quote in the OP. It works in reverse: If the police pull you over and strip-search you for no good reason (or conduct some sort of search for which they ought to have a warrant but don’t), and they find something illegal (like drugs or a bomb), the fact that they found something does not prove that they were in the right to search you (and as I understand, such evidence, illegally obtained, is inadmissable). Likewise, if they have reasonable suspicions, get a legal warrant, and conduct a search which turns up nothing, the fact that they found nothing doesn’t prove that the search was unreasonable. Was it wrong to strip-search this 13-year-old girl under the circumstances. I’d say yes. But whether or not they found something isn’t what determines whether or not it was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/24 "2009-06-25T21:49:42Z")
A good day for anal sovereignty, to be sure—but a significant defeat in the War on Drugs. ---
**Author:** ![obfusciatrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4af34b/32.png) [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/25 "2009-06-25T21:50:05Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’m willing to concede that suspicion remains because they didn’t find anything in her backpack but how is that even the main point to this whole clusterfuck? They strip-searched a 13 year old girl over fucking Advil. Suspicion, schmuschmicion, the actions taken weren’t warranted. With this I agree completely. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/26 "2009-06-25T21:51:49Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In short, either you had reasonable grounds to strip-search someone or you did not. If you did, finding the backpack empty doesn’t change that fact. Indeed, the fact that you found nothing at all even after the strip search doesn’t change that, otherwise every time the cops unsuccessfully searched someone they would be sued. The issue is “what information did you have going in”? It appears that the “information [they had] going in” was the verbal accusation of another thirteen-year old. Seems the school district could stand to tighten up their standards for reasonable suspicion. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/27 "2009-06-25T21:53:42Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > I’m willing to concede that suspicion remains because they didn’t find anything in her backpack but how is that even the main point to this whole clusterfuck? They strip-searched a 13 year old girl over fucking Advil. Suspicion, schmuschmicion, the actions taken weren’t warranted. Everyone agrees with that, I think. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/28 "2009-06-25T21:55:38Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > It appears that the “information [they had] going in” was the verbal accusation of another thirteen-year old. > > Seems the school district could stand to tighten up their standards for reasonable suspicion. In my opinion, even if it was a dead certainty she had painkillers it would not justify strip-searching anyone - the whole zero-tollerance thing is outta hand, counterproductive, and silly. I’m merely reacting to the specific complaint in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/29 "2009-06-25T21:56:39Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > It appears that the “information [they had] going in” was the verbal accusation of another thirteen-year old. Who attracted suspicion when a teacher noticed her displaying none of the telltale signs of a headache. ---
**Author:** ![NinjaChick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71c47a/32.png) [@NinjaChick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NinjaChick)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/30 "2009-06-25T21:56:48Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > That makes it even _more_ absurd. > > I read it as “prescription strength”. Both, actually. The girl who first ‘tipped off’ the school principal was found with plain old OTC naproxen (Aleve), and 400mg tablets of ibuprofen. 400mg tablets of ibuprofen are indeed technically prescription drugs. However, the difference between that ‘prescription-strength’ ibuprofen and the bottle of Motrin I have in my medicine cabinet is that I’d need to take two pills from the Motrin bottle to get the same dose instead of just one. To say she was suspected of having ‘prescription strength pain relievers’ is, IMO, slightly misleading. I hear that phrase and I think about Vicodin or Tylenol 3, drugs that certainly do have the potential to cause harm, not ‘two tablets worth of Motrin or Advil’, which…well, if you take it on an empty stomach could kind of upset your stomach, but it’s certainly not likely to cause anyone any significant or lasting harm, and it’s certainly not going to get you high. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Understander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3da27b/32.png) [@The\_Understander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Understander)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/31 "2009-06-25T21:59:59Z")
Clarence Thomas… strip searches… teenage girls… Joke Overload. Joke Overload. Clear the area immediately. (Especially if you’re having a Coke.) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/32 "2009-06-25T22:00:00Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > In my opinion, even if it was a dead certainty she had painkillers it would not justify strip-searching anyone - the whole zero-tollerance thing is outta hand, counterproductive, and silly. You’ve got that right. And I say this as the father of a 13yo junior high student. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/33 "2009-06-25T22:04:34Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Who attracted suspicion when a teacher noticed her displaying none of the telltale signs of a headache. That’s a joke, right? Ve-e-e-r-r-r-r-y subtle. Well done. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/34 "2009-06-25T22:05:18Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > A good day for anal sovereignty, to be sure—but a significant defeat in the War on Drugs. Anal sovereignty _uber alles_, man. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/35 "2009-06-25T22:09:14Z")
They should change the name of the newspaper inthe OP’s link, btw. It would be so much cooler if it were called _Kids Today_. They could have a little cartoon mascot that look like Erma Bombeck. ---
**Author:** ![Jack\_Batty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jack_batty/32/3201_2.png) [@Jack\_Batty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jack_Batty)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/36 "2009-06-25T22:11:45Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Everyone agrees with that, I think. Well then I don’t get the argument over suspicion. If someone beats someone up with a baseball bat, do we really want to argue over the grip? ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/37 "2009-06-25T22:16:02Z")
I am amazed that Clarence Thomas didn’t see this a a violation of a child’s constitutional rights. And I’m absolutely baffled by the fact that all of the lower appeals courts ruled in favor of the school district. If some principal or school nurse ever wants my daughter to strip and shake out her bra looking for ibuprofen, I hope she screams “RAPE!” as loud as she can! ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/38 "2009-06-25T22:23:55Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > I am amazed that Clarence Thomas didn’t see this a a violation of a child’s constitutional rights. Dude. It’s Clarence Thomas. What’s to be amazed about? I mean _besides_ the fact he didn’t vote the way Scalia voted. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/39 "2009-06-25T22:24:20Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > I am amazed that Clarence Thomas didn’t see this a a violation of a child’s constitutional rights. Clarence Thomas almost never sees anything as a violation of anyone’s constitutional rights. That’s not a slam, it’s a fact. He’s a strict constructionalist beyond any bounds of reason, IMO. He makes Scalia look like a civil rights activist. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/40 "2009-06-25T23:40:56Z")
> [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > Suspicion, schmuschmicion, the actions taken weren’t warranted. Which isn’t the point. Just because you find something distasteful doesn’t mean it’s unconstitutional. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979.md?page=3)