FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1569284388> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1569284388 startingPage "339" @default.
• W1569284388 abstract "IntroductionIn August 1999, sixteen-year-old Jodi Smook was arrested and brought to a juvenile detention facility (a JDC) for violating local curfew laws.1 A JDC official asked Smook to strip down to her undergarments in order to search her for drugs and weapons.2 In 2006, in Smook v. Minnehaha County, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld this strip search as reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.3 The court reasoned that the search of Smook was less intrusive than a full strip search-analogizing her nudity to wearing a bathing suit at the beach-and was necessary in light of the state's responsibility to act as a guardian of juveniles in state custody.4In October 2003, four years after Smook's strip search, a middle school assistant principal called thirteen-year-old Savana Redding into his office due to a report that she had distributed common painkiller pills to other students.5 School officials asked Redding to strip down to her undergarments in order to search her for pills.6 In 2009, in Safford Unified School District No. 1 v. Redding, the U.S. Supreme Court held this strip search to be impermissible.7 Justice Souter, writing his final opinion for the Court, emphasized the humiliating nature of the search and refused to equate Redding's nudity with the exposure involved in changing for gym class.8Schools and JDCs, as represented by Safford and Smook, are two significant contexts in which courts have applied the Fourth Amendment to juveniles.9 Yet it is difficult to reconcile the opinions in Safford and Smook because both cases involved intrusive strip searches of juveniles accused of minor offenses.10 On one hand, Smook is a disappointment to civil liberties advocates because it exposed a wide gap between the Fourth Amendment protections afforded to adults as compared with children.11 On the other hand, Safford is a victory for civil liberties advocates, and for schoolchildren and parents.12 In the last several decades, juveniles' constitutional rights have been curtailed, with youths held to adult standards of accountability yet denied the constitutional protections received by adults.13 Thus, the Court's decision in Safford may suggest signs of renewed compassion and empathy for juveniles.14The difficulty of reconciling Safford with Smook results, in part, from the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has never considered the constitutionality of strip searches of juveniles in JDCs.15 By contrast, the Court has ruled on two major school search cases-including Safford- in the last twenty-five years, establishing a balancing test that weighs a student's privacy rights against the school's security interests.16 Although this balancing test will not always present a clear-cut resolution to school search cases, the Court has established at least modest Fourth Amendment boundaries for school officials.17Given that the Supreme Court has never established a framework for considering strip searches of juveniles in JDCs,18 lower courts appear uncertain about what standard and precedent to apply when considering such searches.19 Moreover, state officials are given substantial deference to determine when to conduct a juvenile search, and such deference can lead to unbridled discretion and serious privacy invasions. 20 The need for a clear standard is further illuminated by the disparity in the way some courts address strip searches of juveniles as opposed to adults.21 Some courts will find the search of an adult detained for a minor offense to be impermissible without reasonable suspicion that he or she possessed contraband, but will uphold the strip search of a juvenile detained for a minor offense as constitutional, even in the absence of individualized suspicion.22 Although youth strip searches are a serious issue in any context, strip searches in JDCs can be particularly damaging because of their potential to exacerbate the already detrimental impact of detention and incarceration on vulnerable youth: even absent the trauma of a strip search, incarceration in crowded juvenile facilities can lead to psychiatric problems, suicidal tendencies, aggressive adult behavior, and poor development of social skills. …" @default.
• W1569284388 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1569284388 creator A5021922460 @default.
• W1569284388 date "2011-01-01" @default.
• W1569284388 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W1569284388 title "Custodial Strip Searches of Juveniles: How Safford Informs a New Two-Tiered Standard of Review" @default.
• W1569284388 hasPublicationYear "2011" @default.
• W1569284388 type Work @default.
• W1569284388 sameAs 1569284388 @default.
• W1569284388 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W1569284388 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1569284388 hasAuthorship W1569284388A5021922460 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C139621336 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C2779134260 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C2779422693 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C3008058167 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C524204448 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C69775031 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C11413529 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C139621336 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C142724271 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C144024400 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C17744445 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C199539241 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C2778272461 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C2779134260 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C2779422693 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C3008058167 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C41008148 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C48103436 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C524204448 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C69775031 @default.
• W1569284388 hasConceptScore W1569284388C71924100 @default.
• W1569284388 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W1569284388 hasLocation W15692843881 @default.
• W1569284388 hasOpenAccess W1569284388 @default.
• W1569284388 hasPrimaryLocation W15692843881 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W114185247 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W1509232982 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W1556410079 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W2030883811 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W210838112 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W243435163 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W259897642 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W2744925951 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W2800277194 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W2905351406 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W306721146 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W3111504574 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W3122092762 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W3124252777 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W3124263827 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W327871561 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W569751700 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W638753746 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W762485897 @default.
• W1569284388 hasRelatedWork W2606626362 @default.
• W1569284388 hasVolume "52" @default.
• W1569284388 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1569284388 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1569284388 magId "1569284388" @default.
• W1569284388 workType "article" @default.