# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2009, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/41 "2009-06-25T23:44:53Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > 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. I dunno. If there are no 4th Amendment rights in play here, then the “stranger on the street” standing of the school officials would make the strip search some form of sexual assault on a minor, which I’m guessing is a felony. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/42 "2009-06-26T00:21:35Z")
> [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > 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. I’m wondering about this as well. How is a school administrator allowed to perform a strip search in the first place. They’d be better served simply holding the child in the office under watchful eye until the police showed up. The idea that school officials are allowed to act in such a fashion strikes me as somewhat non-kosher.😕 Any of our resident legal eagles care to comment on the powers granted to school employees? ---
**Author:** ![Turek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/turek/32/18782_2.png) [@Turek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Turek)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/43 "2009-06-26T01:11:22Z")
I like this quote from him: > [@](#): > > [This decision] grants judges sweeping authority to second-guess the measures that these officials take to maintain discipline in their schools and ensure the health and safety of the students in their charge. Oh, the horror that we should judge the measures they take! :dubious: God forbid. Yes, he’s a tool. ---
**Author:** ![phouka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c5a1d2/32.png) [@phouka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/phouka)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/44 "2009-06-26T01:25:16Z")
They don’t, not if they’re smart. My sister has worked as an assistant principal in middle school for several years. If she has a kid that needs to be searched, first she asks. “May I open your backpack and search it? Will you empty your pockets for me?” It’s completely non-coercive. Most of the kids agree, even though they are carrying contraband. If they refuse, she goes to the next step. “Okay, that’s fine. The sheriff’s deputy will be by in about fifteen minutes. I’m going to put your backpack under lock and key where no one can get to it, and you can sit here with me until he arrives.” Then, when the deputy arrives, the deputy gets to make the call on searching. ---
**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 26, 2009, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/45 "2009-06-26T02:12:22Z")
> [@Turek](#): > > I like this quote from him: > > Oh, the horror that we should judge the measures they take! :dubious: > > God forbid. > > Yes, he’s a tool. I’m guessing this is the first Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of a school’s actions with respect to a disciplinary measure that you’ve ever read in your life. Am I right? ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/46 "2009-06-26T02:54:01Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > 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! This. And if they forced her, in my trial for shotgunning everybody present (except my daughter), I’d demand a jury trial. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/47 "2009-06-26T03:13:24Z")
I am a teacher. Now, thanks to the liberal pansies on the Supreme Court, I have to be constantly on the lookout for teenage girls smuggling Advil in their panties, knowing full well that I am powerless to strip-search them. You tell 'em, Clarence! ---
**Author:** ![StaudtCJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/90ced4/32.png) [@StaudtCJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StaudtCJ)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/48 "2009-06-26T04:13:47Z")
I’d be very upset if any school official wanted to see a naked or semi-naked teenager, especially if they were using flimsy excuses to get the child to strip. Isn’t there a nasty word for that, and jail sentences? Aren’t a lot of priests getting in trouble for that sort of thing? And we’re saying it’s OK? A school official is not law enforcement. If one came within yards of my child(ren) with intent to have them remove their clothes for ANY reason, I’d hurt someone. You may call me and the police, and we will deal with it from there. My child will keep his or her clothes ON, you pervert. ---
**Author:** ![Jeff\_Lichtman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jeff_lichtman/32/1531_2.png) [@Jeff\_Lichtman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jeff_Lichtman)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 6:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/49 "2009-06-26T06:26:34Z")
One concept Thomas ignored in the majority opinion is that of proportion: the idea that the seriousness of the threat must be taken into account when deciding how far a school can go in invading a student’s privacy. They were looking for ibuprofen, not heroin. Thomas’s objections might make sense if the court had ruled that strip searches are completely forbidden regardless of circumstances. No one on the court is that dumb, although Thomas is apparently dumb enough to read the majority opinion and _think_ that’s what it said. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/50 "2009-06-26T10:20:46Z")
> [@Jeff\_Lichtman](#): > > the seriousness of the threat must be taken into account when deciding how far a school can go in invading a student’s privacy. This is where I think the court got it totally wrong. Either you can search, or you cannot search. If you can search, you must be allowed to conduct a thorough search, otherwise what is the point? Are we only worried about catching kids who are dumb enough to keep contraband in searchable places? Thomas is 100% right in saying the Court decision “announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school” In this case, I don’t think the school had enough reasonable suspicion to legitimately compel a search, even of just her backpack. If they did have reasonable suspicion, then that right to search goes all the way, to any place that one might ‘reasonably’ conceal the contraband. School isn’t prison, nobody is going to stick a baggie full of Advil up their ass when they can just walk in with them in their pocket. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 10:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/51 "2009-06-26T10:47:59Z")
> [@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. > [@malthus](#): > > Everyone agrees with that, I think. > [@Jack\_Batty](#): > > 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? I think that your comments are sort of missing the point, **Jack.** The point of the OP was that eight of the nine justices agreed that strip-searching a 13-year old girl over Advil was not justifiable; that there was only one vote that thought it WAS justifiable; that vote was from Justice Thomas, and his rational was this bit about suspicion not being dispersed. So, the beginning point of this discussion is that practically everyone on the planet agrees the action wasn’t warranted, except for Clarence Thomas. And the discussion is why in the whirled he would vote differently, and lecture the other justices. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/52 "2009-06-26T10:59:29Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > And the discussion is why in the whirled he would vote differently, and lecture the other justices. Did he lecture the other justices? ---
**Author:** ![ReuvenB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9fc348/32.png) [@ReuvenB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ReuvenB)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/53 "2009-06-26T11:38:48Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > Thomas is 100% right in saying the Court decision “announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school” You don’t think kids already know that the safest place to keep the weed is your asscrack? If a school official thinks that a kid is carrying contraband, then the proper thing to do is turn them over to the police, whose job it is to find out. If the police think that having ibuprofen (oh, lordy!) is a good reason to do a strip search (which they won’t), then they’ll do one. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/54 "2009-06-26T12:06:05Z")
> [@Enfant Terrible](#): > > Clarence Thomas… strip searches… teenage girls… > > Joke Overload. Joke Overload. Clear the area immediately. > > (Especially if you’re having a Coke.) Thomas thinks it’s perfectly justifiable for schools to answer the question, “Who has put coke on their pubic hair?” ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/55 "2009-06-26T12:49:30Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Thomas thinks it’s perfectly justifiable for schools to answer the question, “Who has put coke on their pubic hair?” I award two points to Hentor the Barbarian. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![aruvqan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aruvqan/32/2891_2.png) [@aruvqan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aruvqan)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/56 "2009-06-26T13:34:58Z")
> [@phouka](#): > > They don’t, not if they’re smart. > > My sister has worked as an assistant principal in middle school for several years. If she has a kid that needs to be searched, first she asks. > > “May I open your backpack and search it? Will you empty your pockets for me?” > > It’s completely non-coercive. Most of the kids agree, even though they are carrying contraband. If they refuse, she goes to the next step. > > “Okay, that’s fine. The sheriff’s deputy will be by in about fifteen minutes. I’m going to put your backpack under lock and key where no one can get to it, and you can sit here with me until he arrives.” > > Then, when the deputy arrives, the deputy gets to make the call on searching. And that is how it should be done. If there is a suspected cache of drugs, it is a police matter, not a school matter. If they search the back pack, they needed to either let her go or get the cops in to do the search. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/57 "2009-06-26T13:39:22Z")
> [@aruvqan](#): > > And that is how it should be done. If there is a suspected cache of drugs, it is a police matter, not a school matter. If they search the back pack, they needed to either let her go or get the cops in to do the search. In this case, the drugs may not have been illegal for the student to possess, but only against the school’s rules for the student to possess at school. If that is so, can a police officer search when there is no crime with probable cause, only a possible school rule infraction? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/58 "2009-06-26T13:49:20Z")
> [@Giles](#): > > In this case, the drugs may not have been illegal for the student to possess, but only against the school’s rules for the student to possess at school. If that is so, can a police officer search when there is no crime with probable cause, only a possible school rule infraction? I guess that raises the issue of what business the school has in regulating the use of drugs which are perfectly legal for the child to have. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/59 "2009-06-26T13:56:36Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I guess that raises the issue of what business the school has in regulating the use of drugs which are perfectly legal for the child to have. Or more generally, are there any situations in which we want to grant schools the right to strip search children in matters that would not be a violation of the law? Notes in class, copied homework, cheat sheets… I can’t think of any. ---
**Author:** ![StusBlues](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@StusBlues](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/StusBlues)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2009, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979/60 "2009-06-26T14:04:22Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > A good day for anal sovereignty, to be sure—but a significant defeat in the War on Drugs. I can honestly say that the former concerns me a great deal more than the latter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarence-thomas-facts-do-not-overrule-suspicions/500979.md?page=4)