The Associated Press © February 13, 2012
By Martha Waggoner
RALEIGH, N.C.
A student who had to pull her bra away from her body so school officials could check whether she was hiding drugs must have been humiliated and frightened by the unreasonable search, her lawyer told the North Carolina Supreme Court on Monday. An attorney for the state argued the search was minimally invasive.
The state’s high court heard oral arguments in the case involving a student known only as T.A.S — unidentified in court because she was 15 years old when the “bra-lift search” occurred at the Brunswick County Academy in 2008. The justices will decide whether the search violated the Constitution’s protection against unreasonable searches.
“It is unconstitutional for our daughters to be treated this way by the public schools of North Carolina,” attorney Geeta Kapur told the state’s highest court.
Sandra Robinson, the principal of the alternative school for students with disciplinary and other problems, called for the searches after a general tip from other students that prescription pills were coming into the school. She got no more details on what kind of pills or who was bringing them, but knew students usually would hide drugs and other contraband in their underwear, including bras, and their socks and tongues of their shoes.
During the search, students passed through metal detectors, then waited in the lunchroom before being brought one-by-one to a classroom to be searched. The female students had to pull out their shirts and place their thumb underneath the bra to pull it out, allowing any hidden drugs to fall out. Attorneys said there’s no evidence the boys participated in a similar search.
Only the principal testified at trial, and she didn’t witness the search, which occurred in front of three adults, two of them men.
Assistant Attorney General LaToya Powell said the search was minimally invasive because no skin was shown. “By doing this, absolutely no body parts were exposed,” she said.
During the search, a white powder identified as Percocet and drug paraphernalia were found on the student. The student asked a trial judge to prevent the evidence from being used, but the judge refused. She pleaded guilty in March 2009 to two drug-related misdemeanors.
A divided state Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in favor of the student, finding the search was “degrading, demeaning and highly intrusive.” The state appealed that decision. The state Supreme Court decision is expected to affect 1.5 million public school students.
Powell said the search was not unreasonable because there was “a compelling governmental need” that outweighed the rights of individual privacy, she said. The school’s primary responsibility “was to promote the health and safety of students,” she said.
Although she said in her brief that students at an alternative school have a lower privacy right than those at other schools, Powell told the justices that wasn’t the case. Under questioning by Justice Mark Martin, she said students at alternative schools have the same rights as those at traditional schools.
Kapur argued that two men should not have watched the search because it that violates the Brunswick County school board policies. “We don’t know what happened in that room,” she said. “We don’t know if the two men saw her breasts or positioned themselves to see her breasts.”
Justice Paul Newby asked if the issue of exposure was contested on appeal. It was not, Kapur said.
But in the end, she said: “Who was looking … whether anyone saw any private parts … is irrelevant to Fourth Amendment rights” against unreasonable searches.
Merle T. Rutledge Jr response – Should adult men and women that are not related or have legal guardianship be allowed to view the private areas of underage teenagers without a warrant. I believe the answer should be “no” because it would violate public policy. They would literally have to release sex offenders that was only merely peeping toms back into society because this argument would be used to validate other arguments on the matter. This is a sensitive issue and beware because we look at the black and white of it as being right for government’s purpose. Can the public actually use that purpose to further pedophilia agendas. A warrant needs to be secured under conditions of removal of clothes. I believe, if they are going to be more intrusive than they need to be more inclusive to more civil rights for children.
Mark my words NC, this can blow up in your face in light of victory. Some victories are just worth giving up in order to protect the safety and health of the people in which the state serves. I could see a blistering of legal arguments for adults that have view even pornography because one part of the skin or “sensitive areas” may be considered no different than others. It is the same reason why pedophiles conviction for videotaping underneath women skirts was overturned.
Children must go to school. Children are not forced to ride a airplane. If you want to ride the plane than you must follow those rules. The schools have a extreme amount of power when it comes down to children civil rights and that is why it must be scrutinize from time to time. This is a great case, but to say the TSA and FAA is a valid argument for this type of search is hogwash. Being forced and being compelled are two different subjects.
merletrutledge 