More

HuffPost Social Reading

Student Bra Search Case Reaches North Carolina Supreme Court

Braless

MARTHA WAGGONER   02/13/12 05:31 PM ET  AP

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.

___

Martha Waggoner can be reached at http://twitter.com/mjwaggonernc

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Filed by Katy Hall  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 940
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (15 total)
01:48 PM on 02/15/2012
Something that is obviously not a "strip search" of anyone, is being dishonestly called a "strip search" and then the rules of the Redding strip search case are being applied. Yes, in Redding she was stripped down to underwear, and yes, in that case, they looked inside of her underpants and they looked inside of her bra. A simple look at Black's Law Dictionary proves that this case here [TAS] was not a "strip search."

Judge Steelman's dissent says that the proper rule to apply is the rule about general non-suspicion searches. That would be Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 132 L. Ed. 2d 564 (1995) See Judge Steelman's dissent at http://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2011/http-appellate-nccourts-org-opinions-c-2andpdf-mjaxms8xmc0ynzutms5wzgy.html The article above doesn't even tell you that there were two separate concurring opinions and one dissent.

I have no prediction as to how this will come out. But I do know that calling a tail a "leg" will not allow a three-legged horse to gallop. And I do know that calling a bra lift by the person wearing the bra is not a "strip search", or even a "bra search" as most of the media has called it. And can somebody do something about that completely inappropriate and dishonest picture?

I guess they just figure that they get more readers that way.
05:44 AM on 02/25/2012
being in your underwear is at least a partial stripping. plus those old perverts wanted the girl to move the bra around. exactly how much they saw is not clearly known. but its still wrong for an underage girl to be searched like that. her parents should have been there and the men should not have been there. funny in order for the bra to be "lifted", i think that means she was stripped of her shirt at the very least. thats enough to be a strip as far as i'm concerned.
photo
philliplojek
Irritating liberals one at a time.
03:31 PM on 02/14/2012
Did any of the men touch or "see" anything? No? No big deal.
05:32 PM on 02/14/2012
No big deal to you you mean. I don't agree with this type of behavior. You can't honestly say they didn't touch or see anything anyway seeing as you weren't there were you?.
photo
philliplojek
Irritating liberals one at a time.
06:42 PM on 02/14/2012
Read what I wrote again. I ASKED if any of the men did wrong. If no, no big deal. If yes, it is a big deal.
11:48 AM on 02/15/2012
The undisputed facts of the case are that they didn't touch or see anything.

"The search in question was described by the court in finding of fact eight:

'each student was taken on an individual basis to another room in the school and the search was conducted. The search included shoes, book bags and coats. The school staff member or administration member conducting the search would pat down the socks. The girls were requ ired to loosen their shirt tails and hook their thumbs under the bra and pull it out so that any contraband will fall out. No private parts were exposed.'"

See the dissenting opinion of Appeals Judge Steelman at http://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/court-of-appeals/2011/http-appellate-nccourts-org-opinions-c-2andpdf-mjaxms8xmc0ynzutms5wzgy.html See also http://www.news-record.com/blog/2011/07/19/entry/a_safe_hiding_place_for_now

That is an undisputed fact of the case. You can safely ignore the hysterical dishonest raving of the Defense attorney. This is what defense attorneys who are unethical do. And Justice Paul Newby caught her in that lie. Even the article above acknowledges that. Thus you can also safely ignore the hysterical ravings on this board that some man touched or saw parts of these girls. That's just a lie.
02:48 PM on 02/14/2012
So typical of today's America. When I was in school many moons ago officials had the right, and took them, to search desks, lockers, cars or whatever they wanted. Kids should not have the rights of adults simply because they are minors and do not have any responsibility. They do go together, you know.
07:59 PM on 02/14/2012
Yaa who needs civil rights it isn't like people abuse power or anything. I mean cmon kids are more vulnerable than adults when it comes to abuse. Take away civil rights and its a free for all. Zero tolerance almost makes it that way already. Things were different back in the day. Things change and as a modern parent I am opposed to many of the pointless control mechanisms that are put in place. I don't think it is about kids having the same rights as adults so much as just having a protective barrier against corrupt illegal warrantless random searches. That is straight up gestapo.
01:55 PM on 02/15/2012
None of this is even remotely close to anything even remotely related to "gestapo". Perhaps you need to go see Shindler's List again, if you indeed ever saw it? Or maybe you could even go to a Holocaust museum? Seriously, how old are you?
01:22 PM on 02/14/2012
I think people need to reread the article to get a better understand­ing as to what happen. Seems to me too many Knee-jerk reactions going on here. I think the school made a mess of this by allowing men to be involved in the search but again no clothing was removed for the search. It mentions female students had to pulled their shirts away from their body but not removing them and placing their thumb on the front strap of their bra and pull it forward to allow drugs to drop if they were holding any. Of course they did find some so I'm not sure as who it to blame. Anyone is subject to search and seizure on school property but in my opinion the girls should have been detained and police called along with the drug sniffing dogs. Either way she still would have been charged with drug possession.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LilaGrace
Searching for common sense where none exists
02:19 PM on 02/14/2012
I suspect that if drug sniffing dogs had been used, we never would have heard about it because it would not have been a violation of anyone's rights or person. If you out your thumb under the front strap of your bra and pull, the only thing that will happen is your breasts will be exposed. The only way this would have worked and still allowed the student to remain covered, would have been to pull the bottom band of the bra away from the boy. This would have allowed any contraband to fall out. The other way, the only thing that would have been falling out was breasts. I have no problem with authorities conducting locker or bag searches, but this crossed the line, especially if a man was conducting searches of female students.
01:20 PM on 02/14/2012
Huffington Post That photo is a No,No! It looks more like a strip-teas then a lead photo to a story! The girls may have disciplinary problems but they deserve dignity just like all of us. The School should have called in the Mom and have her sit in on the search since she is after all under age. It's not the search but the way they went about it. Setting her aside till her mother got there would have been a better choice and would have protected the girls rights and the School against liability issues.
Rexter
Question everything.
01:14 PM on 02/14/2012
She was smuggling percocet into the school and got caught. Now somehow the non-intrusive search method overrides the fact that she was in possession of illegal drugs? How are these school administrators going to protect the rest of the children when the courts tie their hands? She needs to be expelled and spend a month in juvenile detention.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xenubarb
Nebulon V
01:05 PM on 02/14/2012
"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..."

Yeah, because boys don't wear bras, duh! So the girls had to untuck their shirts and pull out their own bra under them so anything held besides breasts would fall onto the floor. And lo! It did rain drugs when this particular girl did it.

This doesn't sound intrusive or frightening, but if I had a bra full of drugs I suppose it would be pretty scary.

The whole thing sounds like a slithery bid to wriggle out from under this by feigning outrage at the search. Clearly in her case, the search was warranted.

You folks who are complaining about this; the alternative is to allow this little muffin to keep smuggling drugs to your kids in school. Is that what you want?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LilaGrace
Searching for common sense where none exists
02:24 PM on 02/14/2012
Do boys wear underwear? Searching them would have been fair, and don't tell me that they can't hide drugs in their boxers. You'd be shocked at what the little darlings manage to shove in their BVD's. You know what would have been a better way to conduct the search? Have the police bring in ONE drug sniffing dog. No one would've had to submit to a physical search, and they would have STILL found whatever drugs were present.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xenubarb
Nebulon V
12:29 PM on 02/15/2012
Presumably the use of the term "similar search" refers to boys with bras.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoanMeijer
Author of Relentless: The Search For Typhoid Mary
12:58 PM on 02/14/2012
I can't really believe that school officials would be that cruel...fifteen is an age of such fragility...when girls are so confused about their bodies...what an act of brutality. I truly believe that anyone who would do that to a child should be fired on the spot. I hope this girl costs that school system enough to assure that all school systems will think twice before humiliating their students like that.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CarlB6979
01:31 PM on 02/14/2012
How "fragile" do you think she was, she was smuggling drugs into the school. Stop making excuses for them.
05:56 AM on 02/25/2012
how stupid can you be? only one girl was guilty, but all were FORCED into being searched that way. the whole thing is they should have conducted the search differently. they would have still found the one guilty girl but not cause problems. so stop making excuses for police and other authority to abuse and over step their power.
photo
vcrozas
One can still have an opinion...right?
12:55 PM on 02/14/2012
School shoulda had women checking out those "SWEET" little girls for drugs which btw she had on her. BUT the chickie was guilty and I guess she was should not have been being educated in an alterntive school. I think the attendants had all been female there would still be complaints probably that one was gay or something, NO win situation for school or chickie and her drugs. Wonder if she id drug free now? For sure a whopping settlement would give her lots of drug money. Seriously doubt it would be used for college.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LilaGrace
Searching for common sense where none exists
02:25 PM on 02/14/2012
A drug-sniffing dog would have solved the issue nicely, and no one would be getting sued right now.
photo
averagezoe
Don't breed or buy while homeless animals die!
12:54 PM on 02/14/2012
Another frivolous and inane law suit by some shyster who smells a payoff. So the delinquents at an alternative school had to pull up their bras - what's the big deal? Seems that the plaintiff was not exactly pure and innocent. A full body cavity search may have been a little more invasive, but simply pulling up a bra? Somehow I doubt that girls who end up at these schools are little hothouse flowers and their bras have surely been handled quite a bit more already.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JoanMeijer
Author of Relentless: The Search For Typhoid Mary
12:59 PM on 02/14/2012
that goes to prove that you don't have the soul of an animal
03:33 PM on 02/14/2012
To be fair, this is not a lawsuit, a civil suit, to obtain money. Maybe there will be one later, but I doubt it. This is a girl who does not want to be punished for a criminal act she clearly committed.
photo
DR2
Straight talk.
12:44 PM on 02/14/2012
What is this notion that students should not have any rights and be treated as if they were in some kind of prison? Our society is increasingly adopting the theory that the "End justifies the means"

This "bra search" of this young girl was ridiculous and what is more, will not be effective in the long run. There are too many creative ways to hide things. Just read about prison camps during war time or just ask any prison guard today.

The solution? Have a policy that any student caught selling or using drugs at school will be suspended for a certain number of days. If there is a second offense, they will be expelled.
01:14 PM on 02/14/2012
Schools already have policies like that in place called, Zero Tolerance. I think people need to reread the article to get a better understanding as to what happen. I think the school made a mess of this by allowing men to be involved in the search but again no clothing was removed for the search. It mentions female students had to pulled their shirts away from their body but not removing them and placing their thumb on the front strap of their bra and pull it forward to allow drugs to drop if they were holding any. Of course they did find some so I'm not sure as to blame the school or the student in this case.
06:01 AM on 02/25/2012
i guess the 2 men were there to make sure the girls did what they were supposed to. hmmm.. probably by looking down the girls blouse to make sure. we only have the word of teh 2 men that there was no nudity. i'm sure they'd like to avoid prison time so they say there's no nudity. i say the whole thing was not only inappropriate, but also illegal. oh wait, thats what they are deciding on. guess we should wait and then debate once we hear what they say.
12:24 PM on 02/14/2012
Try being an older woman trying to get thru airport security with an underwire bra and a total knee implant!! I"ll show you some improper searches!! The TSA are masters of the pat-down and bra poking, right out there in the open, providing pre-flight entertainment for all! Haven't flown since!
12:37 PM on 02/14/2012
That is a tough one. I feel sorry for you, and I confess to driving a lot more these days, even if it's several hundred miles.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BannedFromCommenting
♼ ♼ PLEASE RECYCLE TROLLS ♼ ♼
12:06 PM on 02/14/2012
My guess is she was already strongly suspected of having drugs on her. Given, well she did! Men don't wear bras so they can hardly be bra searched but were they not searched at all?? That is what I wonder.. as they didn't clearly answer. If the men had to "position themselves" to possibly see breasts, those are a couple of two REALLY LONELY men, if the only time to see 'b00bies' is via drug searches.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bobby Whyaskin
Out of order comes chaos
12:06 PM on 02/14/2012
"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."

So she was embarrased and humiliated that she got caught and this suit is just to deflect the fact that she was apparently guilty of breaking several laws. That being said, the school should have had women conducting the searches on girls and men on the boys.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SoapboxKing
12:19 PM on 02/14/2012
Why? What ever happened to probable cause?
01:16 PM on 02/14/2012
You don't have probable cause on school grounds. Anyone is subjected to searches on school proper whether they have evidence or not. In this case they had other students who apparently told school officials that these students mention above had been bringing in drugs on campus.
06:59 PM on 02/14/2012
I say if she got in trouble for her wrongs the people responsible for mishandling the search should be held accountable as well. This might help to make that happen or at least prevent future mis-handling of searches. If one person is expected to follow the law we ALL are.
06:03 AM on 02/25/2012
bravo!! well said. girl had illegal drugs and is being punished. those doing the illegal and inappropriate search should also be punished!!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
BannedFromCommenting
♼ ♼ PLEASE RECYCLE TROLLS ♼ ♼
12:03 PM on 02/14/2012
Can someone tell me what genius at Huffpo uses such stupid, ill fitting stock photos???
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:02 PM on 02/14/2012
I can only imagine this photo was used to sensationalize the story