RTFA: http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/01/16/teen.strip.sea…

A 13-year-old Arizona girl who was strip-searched by school officials looking for ibuprofen pain reliever will have her case heard at the Supreme Court.

The justices accepted the case Friday for review. They will decide whether a campus setting gives school administrators greater discretion to control students suspected of illegal activity than police are allowed in cases involving adults in public spaces.

Arguments are expected to be heard in April.

At issue is whether school administrators are constitutionally barred from conducting searches of students investigated for possessing or dealing drugs that are banned on campus.

A federal appeals court found the search “traumatizing” and illegal.

Some parents say older children deserve the same constitutional rights as adults, but educators counter that a school setting always has been treated differently by the courts. They say a ruling against them could jeopardize campus safety.

The case involves Savana Redding, who in 2003 was an eighth-grade honor student at Safford Middle School, about 127 miles from Tucson, Arizona. Earlier that day the vice principal had discovered prescription-strength ibuprofen pills in the possession of one of Redding’s classmates. That student, facing punishment, accused Redding of providing her with the 400-milligram pills.

The school has a zero-tolerance policy for all prescription and over-the-counter medication, including the ibuprofen, without prior written permission.

Redding was pulled from class by a male vice principal, Kerry Wilson, escorted to an office and confronted with the evidence. She denied the accusations.

A search of Redding’s backpack found nothing. Then, although she had never had prior disciplinary problems, a strip-search was conducted with the help of a school nurse and Wilson’s assistant, both females. According to court records, she was ordered to strip to her underwear and her bra was pulled out. Again, no drugs were found.

In an affidavit, Redding said, “The strip-search was the most humiliating experience I have ever had. I held my head down so that they could not see that I was about to cry.”

Okay: Yuck! Talk about taking the “war on drugs” to a criminal extreme. Anyone ever heard of pedophilia? The principal that ordered the strip search was probably bizarrely titillated. No one really cares that much over 400 mg of Ibuprofen (the equivalent of 2 pills, 1 dose of over-the-counter Ibuprofen) … unless it’s just a poor excuse for some nasty fun.

RTFA: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_frie…

The defendant would only be justified in killing the deceased when you should find that the circumstances showed that the deceased had so far forgotten his duties as an officer, and had gone beyoud the force necessary to arrest defendant, and was about to kill him or to inflict great bodily injury upon him, which was not necessary for the purpose of making the arrest.’
This charge was duly excepted to.
We think the court clearly erred in charging that the policemen had the right to arrest the plaintiff in error, and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff in error had no right to resist it.
The evidence as to the facts immediately preceding the killing was contradictory; the prosecution showing a killing when no active effort was at that very moment made to arrest, and the defendant showing an intended arrest and a determination to take him at that time at all events, and a move made by the deceased towards him with his pistol in sight, and a seeming intention to use it against the defendant for the purpose of overcoming all resistance. Under these circumstances the error of the charge was material and prejudicial.
At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence.

This is a Supreme Court ruling in which the defendant killed a cop who was illegally attempting an arrest. The ruling states that if the police aren’t acting legally, then the act of killing the arresting officer is not murder, but is rather reduced to manslaughter. Of course, this particular case is very nuanced, so RTFA. This ruling makes it clear that the police are still subject to the law. An illegal arrest is still illegal. The police do not have special protection from the law. If the police action is not predicated on the law, then the police are NOT free to act as they choose.

Applying this ruling to the “UF Taser” case, we find that a citizen may reasonably resist illegal arrest, even to the point of slaughtering the arresting officer. The police must tell you they are arresting you, they must have good reason to arrest you, and if they don’t, then your actions to resist arrest are legally defensible. By resisting, the police may (illegally) brutalize you, but at least YOUR actions are legal. Be warned that the the modern police will probably murder you if you defend yourself, irrespect of the SCOTUS ruling. Just know that, from the grave, you can smile because you were morally right. Hmph.

To hilight the key opinion of the Supreme Court:

We think the court clearly erred in charging that the policemen had the right to arrest the plaintiff in error, and to use such force as was necessary to accomplish the arrest, and that the plaintiff in error had no right to resist it.

Say it with me: the officer did NOT have the right to erroneously arrest the plaintiff, so the officer did NOT have the authority to use force to accomplish the arrest, and the plaintiff DID have the right to resist.

Although you might temporarily lose your freedoms, so long as justice is alive, those officers will be dismissed, and you will have sacrificed for the advancement of US justice. Of course, if justice were completely healthy, then there would be no reason to get beaten up and imprisoned by the police, but that’s the essence of the “security versus freedom” dilemma.

In the UF Taser situation, this kid was charged with resisting arrest. Well, that charge clearly needs to be dropped.

Once again: RTFA. This stuff is edgy.