What is a 'respectful' strip search of a 15-year old?

Why you’d have to strip search anyone at a school is beyond me. Maybe they mean that there will be at least two teachers (one female) conducting the search so that there is never a time when the student is alone with one teacher being stripped. That’s my guess.

If someone did this to my daughter, other than a cop for a legitimate reason, there’d be a lawsuit.

I keep forgetting. Canada may not have the same crazy thing where there are cops in all the buildings. I just assumed a cop would be there presiding—but still shouldn’t be alone with a minor.

The article doesn’t state anything about a cop being present. I don’t see anything in the article that to me, justifies being strip searched.

Again, if it were my daughter and there was a justified reason (drugs or weapons), I’d think a pat down would be sufficient like it is with any criminal, handcuffs and then brought to the station house for further investigation. At school, the way it was described in the article, it seems definitely inappropriate and again, a lawsuit as far as I’m concerned.

I’m not condoning it. I’m just trying to guess what they mean by respectful. Like I said in my first post, why kids would have to be strip searched at school is beyond me.

@keobooks: I know. I didn’t think you were condoning it.

If someone strip searched my kid*, boy or girl, at school, no matter the reason, someone would then be losing their job at the very least. I would raise nine kinds of hell until I saw that through.

*Hypothetically speaking, as I do not have, and will not have, any children.

I don’t think there’s any such thing. Lots of Canadians outraged at this as well, I assure you.

And no, @keobooks, we don’t generally have a police presence anywhere but in police stations, patrolling the streets, and in the odd doughnut store.

Canadian Police frequent donut shops too?!?!?!?

I do not condone strip searches “for drugs” by any person, under any circumstances, for any reason, at any time or in any place.

However, I do live in the real world where many drugs are illegal (and schools have even more ridiculous notions that “zero tolerance” to drugs includes aspirin and candies that someone may mistake for drugs). And I recognize that “strip searches” are a part of our modern “civilized” lexicon.

In that case, if a school official thinks that there is a criminal activity to be investigated, which I grant may be generally felt to be a legitimate concern of theirs, then they can call the police and request an appropriate investigation according to department norms, and the police can be – should be! – responsible for the conduct of the search, including determining whether it is even appropriate to begin with. (For example, a strip search because “I think she was giving her friend aspirin!” would never be appropriate. Not. Ever.)

I cannot imagine an “Education Minister” attempting to justify such a search “by school officials”. That’s insane.

And face it, adult or minor, there’s simply no way you respectfully strip search someone. The very act itself is demeaning.

@rojo Yep, it’s a defining trait of the species.

In a comminique linked by the article there is a statement concerning the propriety of a strip search. The communique states:

Les autorités scolaires et les enseignants peuvent procéder à la fouille d’un élève. C’est ce qu’a établi la Cour suprême du Canada…
Ansi, ils peuvent fouiller un élève et saisir des articles interdits, des stupéfiants ou tout instrument pouvant servir d’arme. Cependant, certaines conditions doivent être satisfaites pour éviter qu’une fouille ne soit jugée abusive.
Dans un établissement d’enseignement, les élèves ne peuvent s’attendre à une protection complète de leur vie privée. Les enseignants et les autorités scolaires ont l’obligation de leur procurer un environnement sûr et de maintenir l’ordre et la discipline. Cela peut exiger la fouille d’élèves et de leurs effets personnels. Toutefois, cette fouille doit être faite de façon raisonnable et préférablement avec un autre membre du personnel ou de la direction du même sexe que l’élève. Les responsables de l’établissement d’enseignement ne peuvent effectuer une fouille sans avoir des motifs raisonnables de croire qu’une règle de l’établissement a été violée et que la preuve de cette violation peut être découverte sur les lieux ou sur l’élève.
La fouille elle-même doit être faite de façon raisonnable et appropriée en tenant compte des circonstances et de la nature du manquement au règlement de l’école. L’âge et le sexe de l’élève doivent notamment être considérés. La fouille doit s’effectuer de manière respectueuse et être la moins envahissante possible

My knowledge of French is somewhat lacking, so I used Google Translate, and cleaned it up for readability:

School authorities and teachers can conduct a search of a student. This was established by the Supreme Court of Canada
Thus, they may search a student and seize prohibited items, narcotics or any instrument that can be used as a weapon. However, certain conditions must be met to prevent the search from being considered abusive.
In an educational institution, students have an expectation of full protection of their privacy. Teachers and School authorities have the obligation to provide a safe environment and to maintain order and discipline. This may require a search of the student and the student’s belongings. However, the search must be done in a reasonable way and preferably with another member of staff or administration of the same sex as the student. The Administration of the school nay not conduct a search without reasonable grounds of suspicion that a rule of property was violated and that the evidence of this violation can be discovered on the premises or on the student.
The search itself must be made reasonably and appropriately, taking into account the circumstances and the nature of the breach of school regulations. The age and gender of the student in particular must be considered. The search must be conducted in a respectful manner and be minimally intrusive.

“Reasonable grounds of suspicion” – Uh-huh. And, of course, “reasonable grounds” is a completely objective term that couldn’t possibly be misused.

The article also specifies “minimally intrusive” which I don’t think a strip search is.

“I believe it is ok if you start out by stating something along the lines of “I respectfully request that you strip naked and allow me to probe your various orifices for illegal contraband”

Surely a police drug sniffing dog would be more effective and a lot less traumatic.

The girl could have refused. She could have required a parent to be present. I cannot believe a strip search of a minor without parental consent, outside of being arrested, is legal. Funny thing about rules and the law…you do not HAVE to follow them, but you must accept the consequences.

I am definitely not in favor of any type of strip-search.

According to the “communique” I cited above, what makes it “respectful” is that is only the clothing that is searched, not bodily cavities or crevices.

Thanks, Yet, but now I wonder if someone who is fluent in French could comment on that translation. I’m thinking that “les élèves ne peuvent s’attendre à une protection complète de leur vie privée” means “the students cannot expect complete protection of their private lives”, but the translation says the opposite. So I’m wondering if that “ne” is in fact pleonastic or if Google simply misread it as such when it is not. I think sometimes in formal writing the “ne” stands alone without the usual “pas” to indicate negation, but I may well be mistaken.

I don’t undersatand why they are calling it “strip search”, doesn’t strip search have to be looking at the person and touching the person?

I think I found an answer to my previous question:
http://french.about.com/od/grammar/a/negation_form_3.htm

So students cannot expect etc.

To answer the OP, the communique gives 4 criteria:
*Un écran est mis en place pour assurer la protection de la nudité de l’individu
(a screen is put in place to assure the protection of the nudity of the individual)
*Ce sont les vêtements qui sont fouillés et non l’individu;
(Clothing is searched and not the individual)
*La fouille se déroule en présence de deux personnes, préférablement avec un autre membre du personnel ou de la direction du même sexe que l’élève
(The search takes place in the presence of two persons, preferably with another member of the personnel [faculty?] or the administration of the same sex as the student)
*Il n’y a aucun contact direct avec l’élève pour le palper
(There is no direct with the student to feel him/her)

I guess it could still be called a strip search because the student has to disrobe.

1)There must be a term to differentiate searching body with the eyes and hands and the one in this case. The strip part is there but not the search part.

2) Would it not be inadmissible even they found drugs? It is the police who should be searcing anything, to my knowledge. And by the way not calling the parents?

3) Don’t they need to avoid being (falsely or not) accused of seeing/watching a student naked? I don’t get it.

I saw. Lawsuit!

@CugelTheClueless “ne peuvent s’attendre” indeed means “cannot expect”. So,

In an educational institution, students cannot expect full protection of their privacy.

Which is crap, in my opinion. But you’re right, clearly the student must not be searched – only the clothing can be searched.

I would guess that this event will result in a change in the law. The mother is suing.

I forgot to answer the question: Absolutely nothing respectful about it. Outrageous.

“And preferably with another member of staff or administration of the same sex as the student.”

Preferably? So there isn’t even a guarantee that someone of the same sex would be present? Completely ridiculous and unacceptable. Buy a drug sniffing dog instead. It would be a lot easier, faster, and much more acceptable.

@DrasticDreamer I’m guessing that kind of wording is meant to cover schools where there aren’t necessarily staff of a particular gender available. We’re likely talking about small, rural schools. They’re not going to have the budget to fly a drug sniffing dog from a far-away city for this purpose.

I would never be ok with a anyone but the parent or a police officer doing a strip search. There would have to be a same sex person doing the search.

I’m all ok with searching lockers at school, but a strip search? No. If they are worried about drugs then let them do random drug tests as an alternative idea, but not a strip search. Even the drug testing I would want a parent’s consent.

I’m not giving other adults who I don’t know very well permission to do anything to my kids, especially not at school. School is a place that can attract people who are obsessed with children in a pathological way. Nah uh. If they think drugs are a concern then call the parents or the police. Why would a school even want to deal with this sort of thing?

And I hear she is either kicked out of school or suspended? So horrible.

No strip searches allowed for minor children at school. This violates a child’s rights.
They can install metal detectors or close the school down if they think they need strip searches.
Protests need to be in order.

@Jewel10, please read the link to the article in the details or the OP’s question. It did indeed happen, right or wrong.

Plus the search was for drugs, not weapons or whatever a metal detector could detect.

Go read the details and then start a protest.

I read it and Strip searches Does Violate the Rights of a *Child.

If I was a parent of a Canadian teen, I would Protest!

What exactly will they do in a strip search that is to be done “respectfully”?

When they do “strip searches” in the U.S. for drugs, they shove their rubber-gloved fingers up the vagina and the anus! Is this the type of ‘respectful’ searches they want to conduct?

If there is penetration to a child, it would be likened to a violated rape for these young girls! Many girls are virgins and what of the Muslims girls do they have to comply to strip or penetrated searches? I didn’t see if these ‘drug searches’ included penetrations.

Or are they Forcing these young girls to have to humiliate themselves by Stripping for some perverted principal?

Stand up for your kids, parents. They Need to Protest this!

That principal needs to be FIRED!!

OMG

There was no strip search. They got her to take off her clothes behind a wall of blanket of something, and then they searched her clothes. Still wrong anyway. And parents weren’t called police weren’t called.

Will someone, tell me what that is called, if they didn’t look at and/or touch her it is not strip search.

They may not have been probing her orifices, but she was still forced to remove her clothing. That’s still a strip search.

@Darth_Algar Wrong, there isn’t, there is strip in private and there is search of the clothes there is no strip search. If you did that, and someone accused you having strip searched him/her you would accuse them of lying, (edit I hope.)

You know an action is indefensible when the only way to defend it is by attempting to muddy the waters by being overly pedantic.

(And still being wrong. A strip search is any search that involves the removal of clothing.)

@Darth_Algar Re. your “You know an action is indefensible when the only way to defend it…”, in my post before last it says: _“Still wrong anyway.” You’re fighting distinguishing different things from each other that is muddying the waters.

@flo Sorry but if you’re forcing someone to take off their clothes, then it’s a strip search. You don’t have to have a full blown cavity search for it to be a strip search.

As an aside, if I were the person in question and they told me to remove my underwear, I’d keep it on and insist I wasn’t wearing any. How are they going to prove I’m lying?

@gorillapaws The second paragraph is neither here nor there.

There is:
Full Blown Cavity Search, Visual Strip Search, (I don’t know if these are the actual legal terms) and then what is this one in this case?

@flo

The one in this case is a strip search. The girl was made to remove her clothing. That is a strip search. It doesn’t matter if she was touched or looked at, she was forced to strip off her clothing in order to be searched. That is a strip search.

If thei person takes their clothes off, that’s a strip search. No touching required. Stripping required.