5 Teenage girls strip searched at Iowa school.

[Anti Federalist]

Families: Girls were strip-searched at Iowa school

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-iowa-girlssearche,0,6571078.story

ATLANTIC, Iowa - Family members say Atlantic high school officials forced five teenage girls to remove their clothes during an investigation into a theft.

The girls' families and their lawyers say the incident at Atlantic High School amounts to a strip-search, which is illegal in Iowa schools.

But school officials say the search was "allowable" under board rules.

Dan Crozier is interim superintendent of the Atlantic school district. He confirmed that the search took place on Aug. 21 during a gym class.

The girls were searched in a locker room after a classmate reported $100 was missing from her purse.

Lawyers say the girls were forced to strip down to their undergarments, and one girl was required to take off all of her clothes.

The money wasn't found.

[sratiug]

Why do people put up with this crazy shit? These bastards need to be charged with rape every time this happens.

[devil21]

Why do people put up with this crazy shit? These bastards need to be charged with rape every time this happens.

It wouldn't fit the legal definition of rape. However, child abuse or sexual assault would probably fit well. Turn those responsible into sex offenders so they can't work in schools ever again. But of course all that will happen in this case is the taxpayers will eventually foot the bill for a large legal judgment against the school district.

[PaulaGem]

It wouldn't fit the legal definition of rape. However, child abuse or sexual assault would probably fit well. Turn those responsible into sex offenders so they can't work in schools ever again. But of course all that will happen in this case is the taxpayers will eventually foot the bill for a large legal judgment against the school district.

But don't girls usually see each other naked in locker rooms?

Where there any personnel there other than female school employees?

[Imperial]

Families: Girls were strip-searched at Iowa school

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-iowa-girlssearche,0,6571078.story

ATLANTIC, Iowa - Family members say Atlantic high school officials forced five teenage girls to remove their clothes during an investigation into a theft.

The girls' families and their lawyers say the incident at Atlantic High School amounts to a strip-search, which is illegal in Iowa schools.

But school officials say the search was "allowable" under board rules.

Dan Crozier is interim superintendent of the Atlantic school district. He confirmed that the search took place on Aug. 21 during a gym class.

The girls were searched in a locker room after a classmate reported $100 was missing from her purse.

Lawyers say the girls were forced to strip down to their undergarments, and one girl was required to take off all of her clothes.

The money wasn't found.


I remember back when Krippy had to deal with something related to this, he pulled up the SCOTUS decision that said local school rules couldnt conflict with the Constitution. Maybe someone should relay this to them...

[devil21]

But don't girls usually see each other naked in locker rooms?

Where there any personnel there other than female school employees?

The article doesn't say the gender of the school personnel involved. But does that really matter? The locker room is a voluntary situation. A forced strip search is not. Forcing anyone, especially children, to do anything regarding exposing their body is, at best, child abuse and, at worst, sexual assault and/or exploitation. Add in that the searches did NOT result in finding the supposedly stolen money (do kids really bring $100 to school these days?) and there becomes a question of motive. Nevermind that something is seriously wrong when kids are forceably strip searched solely on the word of another student. That's witch-hunt, McCarthyism, type shit. The 4th amendment doesn't apply as rigidly in school as on a highway but it doesn't disappear the moment someone walks into the school.

[PaulaGem]

If that was just after gym class and they had just put their clothes back and were told to take them back off under circumstances that they had done many times before, I really don't think it can be considered child abuse because there is no purient factor there.

There are simply not enough details given to properly analyze this situation.

[amy31416]

But don't girls usually see each other naked in locker rooms?

Where there any personnel there other than female school employees?

That's no defense. I was in track and cross-country for years and no other girl saw me naked because I didn't want to be seen naked. I go to the gym regularly, and no other women see me naked. I'm not a prude, I'm just private.

Being strip-searched would have been very traumatic for me no matter who did it, especially if I were a teenage girl.

[amy31416]

If that was just after gym class and they had just put their clothes back and were told to take them back off under circumstances that they had done many times before, I really don't think it can be considered child abuse because there is no purient factor there.

There are simply not enough details given to properly analyze this situation.

An authority figure forcing someone into a position of extreme vulnerability is wrong, even if they just came from gym class.

I don't know about your schools, but I never had to take my clothes off in front of my teachers for any reason and I think that's a good thing all around.

[PaulaGem]

There isn't enough info - I visualized it as being in the locker room after Gym class.

I am not saying it was appropriate, but it may not have seemed inappropriate to the teacher at the time.

We took gang showers after gym class - maybe that has changed.

[Fozz]

Whoever stripped those girls should be imprisoned for life or executed.

[TCE]

I remember back when Krippy had to deal with something related to this, he pulled up the SCOTUS decision that said local school rules couldnt conflict with the Constitution. Maybe someone should relay this to them...

You mean this one? Safford Unified School District v. Redding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safford_Unified_School_District_v._Redding)

[MelissaWV]

Paula,

You took gang showers after gym class at your own discretion, though. If a teacher had "caught" one of you not showering, would they have forcibly removed the clothing and shoved the girl into the shower? There's a certain degree of consent involved.

- - -

There is also no reason that, if the girls had refused a strip search, the teachers couldn't have kept the suspects apart and notified their parents of the situation. Perhaps some of those parents would have said "Sure, strip search my daughter" but perhaps not.

I agree there is not a lot of information here. Personally, I am wondering why a teen had $100 in her purse loose enough to be lost or stolen. That's not against the law, either, but it is a question mark. If some girl hated a group of girls, all she'd have to do is claim something was stolen and then have the teachers search and search. The accusation, for all we know, was false. Even if it is true, $100 is not worth what these girls likely went through.

Teachers should not be expected to act as police at school. The phrase is "in loco parentis", not "in loco [police]".

I know Wiki isn't the final authority, but I think it sums up "in loco parentis" well with this:
it allows institutions such as colleges and schools to act in the best interests of the students as they see fit, although not allowing what would be considered violations of the students' civil liberties.

In this case, as in all of these strip search cases, there seems to be an unwarranted sense of urgency. Why can't these girls just be set aside and wait for the parents? They can't very well run off with the $100 while under the watchful eye of a teacher. Their belongings can be searched under most schools' guidelines.

Is it getting to the point that a parent should come to the school at the start of every year, meet with the principal and/or school resource officer, and draw up a paper that says the child is not to be strip-searched, given any medication (including vaccinations), or questioned on criminal matters without explicit, documented parental consent? Am I the only one who thinks it's very sad this isn't common sense? :mad:

[jmdrake]

Another reason to get your kids out of, and defund, public schools. Yep. I said it. It can't kill my political viability any more than my position on 9/11. This is insane and there's no justification for it and yes I have "enough information" to make this statement. First schools strip search girls over alleged aspirin and now this? Even if one girl wasn't forced to strip search naked it STILL would not be permissible. What part of "no search and seizure of person or effects without warrant or probable cause" do people not understand? I hope the adults involved, be they male or female, are fired and held civilly liable. Who cares if they were all female? I wouldn't want some lesbian gawking at my daughter either.

[PaulaGem]

Paula,

You took gang showers after gym class at your own discretion, though. If a teacher had "caught" one of you not showering, would they have forcibly removed the clothing and shoved the girl into the shower? There's a certain degree of consent involved.


NO, but they would have flunked gym. There was no option. Of course that was the late '60s and it affects my perception of this incident. I still say more information is needed.



Is it getting to the point that a parent should come to the school at the start of every year, meet with the principal and/or school resource officer, and draw up a paper that says the child is not to be strip-searched, given any medication (including vaccinations), or questioned on criminal matters without explicit, documented parental consent? Am I the only one who thinks it's very sad this isn't common sense? :mad:

You may be right, there may be something very wrong here - but from my perspective I see unique circumstances here that might not qualify this as the usual thing you think of as a "strip search". I also believe that there is a strong possiblilty that given the circumstances the actual events would be less traumatic than what is usually thought of as a "strip search".

[andrewh817]

It's not her fault she brought that amount of money to school! The classmates are guilty until proven innocent.

[jmdrake]

NO, but they would have flunked gym. There was no option. Of course that was the late '60s and it affects my perception of this incident. I still say more information is needed.




You may be right, there may be something very wrong here - but from my perspective I see unique circumstances here that might not qualify this as the usual thing you think of as a "strip search". I also believe that there is a strong possiblilty that given the circumstances the actual events would be less traumatic than what is usually thought of as a "strip search".

Ok. Help me out here. What would make this "strip search" ok in your eyes? Typically strip searches are done by people of the same sex so if that's your only criteria all strip searches are ok. In the case of the aspirin at least the girl was able to keep her undies on, although she had to pull down her bra and "shake it". You say you don't have enough facts. Well give a hypothetical set of facts based on a girl being forced to strip naked over $100 based solely on the word of another student that is somehow ok. And it's not just that she was forced to be naked (bad enough). This was also a direct violation of her 4th amendment rights. If this is allowable then what violation of the 4th amendment would you be against?

[FreeTraveler]

YouTube or it didn't happen. :p

[pcosmar]

It is clearly a violation.
Aside from that, this was an unwarranted fishing expedition.
If someone is suspected, confront that person. To strip 5people hoping one of them is guilty makes no common sense.

This is wrong on so many levels. I can not understand how anyone could attempt to justify or excuse this. :confused: :(

[Sandman33]

If that was just after gym class and they had just put their clothes back and were told to take them back off under circumstances that they had done many times before, I really don't think it can be considered child abuse because there is no purient factor there.

There are simply not enough details given to properly analyze this situation.

I agree.

For one the person missing the 100 fraud notes should have taken better precautions.

Secondly I can remember a time not too long ago when men and women had showers in school and everyone showered together. Hell most high school sports are like that. You just follow the rule of don't look at anyone's junk or you're getting smacked.

If it's a teacher of the same gender ordering them to simply strip to their underwear it's not THAT big of a deal. Certainly not rape status. People shouldnt throw that word around so lightly. It's not a joke.

[sratiug]

I agree.

For one the person missing the 100 fraud notes should have taken better precautions.

Secondly I can remember a time not too long ago when men and women had showers in school and everyone showered together. Hell most high school sports are like that. You just follow the rule of don't look at anyone's junk or you're getting smacked.

If it's a teacher of the same gender ordering them to simply strip to their underwear it's not THAT big of a deal. Certainly not rape status. People shouldnt throw that word around so lightly. It's not a joke.

Show me where the constitution says it does not apply to students, or underage people, or leprechauns, or anything else.

[haaaylee]

But don't girls usually see each other naked in locker rooms?

Where there any personnel there other than female school employees?



for girls to agree to let other girls see them naked is one thing, they make that decision, to have someone (an adult) force to you take off your clothes is a whole other disgusting thing. female adult or not. . .

[jmdrake]

I agree.

For one the person missing the 100 fraud notes should have taken better precautions.

Secondly I can remember a time not too long ago when men and women had showers in school and everyone showered together. Hell most high school sports are like that. You just follow the rule of don't look at anyone's junk or you're getting smacked.

If it's a teacher of the same gender ordering them to simply strip to their underwear[b] it's not THAT big of a deal. Certainly not rape status. People shouldnt throw that word around so lightly. It's not a joke.

Did you miss this part?

Lawyers say the girls were forced to strip down to their undergarments, and [b]one girl was required to take off all of her clothes.

[MelissaWV]

It still isn't rape.

The force here was unnecessary, though, and there were alternatives. I have no idea why the school felt this was so very pressing that it required an instant strip search. I doubt I'll ever get a satisfactory answer to that one.

[sratiug]

If these girls went to a private residence, stripped, had a group photo taken, and then took copies to school to sell to raise money to donate to the girl that lost her hundred dollars, would they get in trouble?

[haaaylee]

I agree.

For one the person missing the 100 fraud notes should have taken better precautions.

Secondly I can remember a time not too long ago when men and women had showers in school and everyone showered together. Hell most high school sports are like that. You just follow the rule of don't look at anyone's junk or you're getting smacked.

If it's a teacher of the same gender ordering them to simply strip to their underwear it's not THAT big of a deal. Certainly not rape status. People shouldnt throw that word around so lightly. It's not a joke.


a: when showering in schools you make that decision, and teachers (also known as adults) are not allowed. you are under 18, for one.

b: that didnt get to make that decision, they were forced.

c: no adult should ever be allowed to see someone under the age of 18 naked. pretty sure that is against the law.

d: seriously? you're justifying this? doesn't matter if the teacher was of the same gender.


so, to conclude. this is a big deal. a very big deal...

[sratiug]

It still isn't rape.

The force here was unnecessary, though, and there were alternatives. I have no idea why the school felt this was so very pressing that it required an instant strip search. I doubt I'll ever get a satisfactory answer to that one.

If I rip a random woman's clothes off in public, what would I be charged with?

[heavenlyboy34]

Why do people put up with this crazy shit? These bastards need to be charged with rape every time this happens.

I prefer the peaceful solution-parents withdraw students from school in favor of homeschooling. :cool::D Let the government schools continue their slide into mediocrity without us! ;)

[jmdrake]

It still isn't rape.

The force here was unnecessary, though, and there were alternatives. I have no idea why the school felt this was so very pressing that it required an instant strip search. I doubt I'll ever get a satisfactory answer to that one.

True. Because rape requires penetration. A body cavity search would be rape. This is sexual assault.

[Sandman33]

Show me where the constitution says it does not apply to students, or underage people, or leprechauns, or anything else.

I never said people don't have rights under the constitution. I was just saying that at ONE time both genders got naked in gym class to shower and change DAILY. It wasn't a big deal.

And that the girls being told to strip to their undies was not anything close to rape.

The girl that was naked however, that crossed the line. But it's nothing even remotely close to rape.

[Sandman33]

a: when showering in schools you make that decision, and teachers (also known as adults) are not allowed. you are under 18, for one.
I agree. Im not saying what went on was ok. I'm saying it's nowhere near rape.



b: that didnt get to make that decision, they were forced.

Ordered, not forced. They could have refused. Waited untill parents or police were involved.



c: no adult should ever be allowed to see someone under the age of 18 naked. pretty sure that is against the law.

No girls under 18 ever see a gynecologist? And PLENTY of H.S. and JR. high coaches see those kids naked at times. Not a big deal. Usually the coach is of the same sex and is straight. In FACT. Many young men and women having issues "down there" ask coaches for advice. It's not sexual.

And not that I agree with it, but lets see what happens if a 17 year old girl goes to the airport and claims to have a snuke in her snizz...



d: seriously? you're justifying this? doesn't matter if the teacher was of the same gender.


so, to conclude. this is a big deal. a very big deal...

No, I didnt justify it. In fact I stated that the person missing the hundred bucks should have taken better care of her belongings. I simply said that its nowhere NEAR rape. And it isnt.

[John of Des Moines]

I never said people don't have rights under the constitution. I was just saying that at ONE time both genders got naked in gym class to shower and change DAILY. It wasn't a big deal.

And that the girls being told to strip to their undies was not anything close to rape.

The girl that was naked however, that crossed the line. But it's nothing even remotely close to rape.

What school did you go to?


I was just saying that at ONE time both genders got naked in gym class to shower and change DAILY.

We never showered with the girls. Although it was the beginning of the Title 9 stuff when I was in high school and we had mostly coed gym classes we NEVER showered with the girls Again, what school did you go to? And do you have pictures?

[Sandman33]

What school did you go to?



We never showered with the girls. Although it was the beginning of the Title 9 stuff when I was in high school and we had mostly coed gym classes we NEVER showered with the girls Again, what school did you go to? And do you have pictures?

What does it matter what school I went to?

Of course gym was co-ed. I said that they showered. Not that both genders showered together...thats insane. Can you imagine all the REAL rape that might happen? :eek:

[jmdrake]

I agree. Im not saying what went on was ok. I'm saying it's nowhere near rape.


If a peeping Tom had installed a camera in the shower that wouldn't be rape either. So let's all agree that at worst this is some crime other than rape.



Ordered, not forced. They could have refused. Waited untill parents or police were involved.


And if a teacher ordered, but not forced, a girl to masturbate in front of her? Extreme example I admit, but the point is that in cases with extreme disproportionate power relationships an "order" is considered under the law to be the equivalent of "force". So yes, they were forced. That said I have told my own kids that if any adult, teacher or otherwise, tells them to submit to a strip search or anything else that makes them that uncomfortable to tell that "authority figure" where to go. (Ok. I didn't say use those exact words. But you get the point.)




No girls under 18 ever see a gynecologist?


If a school ordered a girl to see a gynecologist without her parents consent that would be a crime too.



And PLENTY of H.S. and JR. high coaches see those kids naked at times. Not a big deal. Usually the coach is of the same sex and is straight. In FACT. Many young men and women having issues "down there" ask coaches for advice. It's not sexual.


And sometimes the coaches weren't straight. And sometimes this led to child sexual abuse. Anyway "The times, they are a changing". I was never comfortable with the "open showers" as a kid. As a parent I wouldn't let my child attend such a school considering today's world.



And not that I agree with it, but lets see what happens if a 17 year old girl goes to the airport and claims to have a snuke in her snizz...


Probable cause. That's a whole different ball of wax.



No, I didnt justify it. In fact I stated that the person missing the hundred bucks should have taken better care of her belongings. I simply said that its nowhere NEAR rape. And it isnt.

You're right. It isn't. We should use the same crime that a stranger would be charged with for ordering some girls to strip for him.

[ghengis86]

keep your children out of government schools

keep your children out of government schools

keep your children out of governmnet schools

keep your children out of government schools

[John of Des Moines]

What does it matter what school I went to?

Of course gym was co-ed. I said that they showered. Not that both genders showered together...thats insane. Can you imagine all the REAL rape that might happen? :eek:

Okay, so what happened at your school was:
both genders got naked in gym class to shower and change.

So as I understand you, at your school towards the end of each gym time period "both genders got naked in gym class" then headed to their respective gender locker rooms "to shower and change." So what school did you attend?


Now on to the issue of the thread:

Look at Iowa law.

Not wanting tot spend half the night writing a doctoral dissection regarding what happened there are two sections that may apply:

Invasion of Privacy (http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/ic/2009code/1/26554/26555/26772/26794?f=templates$fn=document-frameset.htm$q=[field%20folio-destination-name:%27sec_709_21%27]$x=Advanced#0-0-0-111179)

and, (part 4):

709.8 Lascivious acts with a child (http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/ic/2009code/1/26554/26555/26772/26794?f=templates$fn=document-frameset.htm$q=[field%20folio-destination-name:%27sec_709_21%27]$x=Advanced#0-0-0-111179).

Carry on.

[PaulaGem]

Ok. Help me out here. What would make this "strip search" ok in your eyes? Typically strip searches are done by people of the same sex so if that's your only criteria all strip searches are ok. In the case of the aspirin at least the girl was able to keep her undies on, although she had to pull down her bra and "shake it". You say you don't have enough facts. Well give a hypothetical set of facts based on a girl being forced to strip naked over $100 based solely on the word of another student that is somehow ok. And it's not just that she was forced to be naked (bad enough). This was also a direct violation of her 4th amendment rights. If this is allowable then what violation of the 4th amendment would you be against?


I am saying when I was a kid we routinely saw each other naked in the shower and we occasionally saw the gym teachers semi-naked or in their underwear. If this is the context, that nudity was routine then the strip search is not such an issue. ONE MORE TIME - we don't know enough about this issue to be getting so bloody opinionated about it.

[PaulaGem]

Did you miss this part?

Lawyers say the girls were forced to strip down to their undergarments, and one girl was required to take off all of her clothes.

Yeah, and I don't trust a word a lawyer says. He'll make a big deal out of nothing if the parents can pay. Even if he thinks he has a lousy case, he might say something like this.

Do you believe it's TRUE and a COMPLETE and UNBIASED assessment of the situation just because a lawyer says it?

[PaulaGem]

a: when showering in schools you make that decision, and teachers (also known as adults) are not allowed. you are under 18, for one.

b: that didnt get to make that decision, they were forced.

c: no adult should ever be allowed to see someone under the age of 18 naked. pretty sure that is against the law.

d: seriously? you're justifying this? doesn't matter if the teacher was of the same gender.


so, to conclude. this is a big deal. a very big deal...

Since I haven't been in gym class for over 40 years I don't know how it is now, but it wasn't a big deal when I was in high school, and there may be places where it still isn't a big deal.

Teachers are supposed to be trustworthy, and nudity is not that big of a deal.

I'm starting to think that folks on this board need to get a REAL life and worry about REAL problems and people whose lives they can impact for good. This is a tiny story and we know very few details.

On the other hand, the very REAL kid from Georgia who REALLY had the cops steal his computer didn't get near as much attention here.

[PaulaGem]

True. Because rape requires penetration. A body cavity search would be rape. This is sexual assault.


If a doctor sees you naked in the normal course of an exam it is not sexual assault.

If a doctor checks for lumps in your breast it is not sexual assault.

If a doctor leaves his hand on your boob while he makes social chit chat it is sexual assault. (you also never go back to that doctor again - this really happened to me once)

We do not know enough about this incident to play judge and jury here.

[MyLibertyStuff]

I cant believe people are trying to argue in favor of this lol

[jmdrake]

I am saying when I was a kid we routinely saw each other naked in the shower and we occasionally saw the gym teachers semi-naked or in their underwear. If this is the context, that nudity was routine then the strip search is not such an issue. ONE MORE TIME - we don't know enough about this issue to be getting so bloody opinionated about it.

We already have enough information to make an opinion of whether the search was constitutional or not. It wasn't. And just because you were comfortable seeing other kids naked does not mean a school official has a right to force someone to strip search. What's next? Okaying body cavity searches because some girls have had a pap smear by that age?

[jmdrake]

Yeah, and I don't trust a word a lawyer says. He'll make a big deal out of nothing if the parents can pay. Even if he thinks he has a lousy case, he might say something like this.

Do you believe it's TRUE and a COMPLETE and UNBIASED assessment of the situation just because a lawyer says it?

Under these circumstances I'd be more inclined to believe the lawyer. There are witnesses that can confirm or deny the testimony (the other girls). And the school hasn't released any statement denying any of this. It's highly unlikely a lawyer would risk hurting his own case by making such a statement if he hadn't at least talked to the other girls first.

[PaulaGem]

If a peeping Tom had installed a camera in the shower that wouldn't be rape either. So let's all agree that at worst this is some crime other than rape.



And if a teacher ordered, but not forced, a girl to masturbate in front of her? Extreme example I admit, but the point is that in cases with extreme disproportionate power relationships an "order" is considered under the law to be the equivalent of "force". So yes, they were forced. That said I have told my own kids that if any adult, teacher or otherwise, tells them to submit to a strip search or anything else that makes them that uncomfortable to tell that "authority figure" where to go. (Ok. I didn't say use those exact words. But you get the point.)

You just hit the nail on the head - if they were uncomfortable they should have said no and their parents should have trained them to do so. I am saying that it is quite likely that they were not uncomfortable because it was a routine experience with no purient intent.

Still possibly out of line - but not purient and not sexual.



And sometimes the coaches weren't straight. And sometimes this led to child sexual abuse. Anyway "The times, they are a changing". I was never comfortable with the "open showers" as a kid. As a parent I wouldn't let my child attend such a school considering today's world.


In "today's world" things are really screwed up. Children are usually molested by someone they know, very rarely is it a teacher. More often it is a family member or a friend of their parents. The Sex Offender laws and mainstream media have made the S.O. boogey man another domestic terrorism poly. If a coach wasn't straight and children were uncomfortable something should have been done about it.



I really don't believe children are any more at risk of being sexually exploited by teachers than they were 20 years ago.

[jmdrake]

I cant believe people are trying to argue in favor of this lol

I'm not surprised. Right after the 7/7 bombings when the London police pinned an innocent man down and shot him 8 times in the face I had a lot of arguments (not here) with people who said "we don't have enough facts". Well the "facts" only confirmed what I already knew. People make opinions all of the time, but for some odd reason most people become overly deferential in some cases.

[jmdrake]

You just hit the nail on the head - if they were uncomfortable they should have said no and their parents should have trained them to do so. I am saying that it is quite likely that they were not uncomfortable because it was a routine experience with no purient intent.


Total nonsense! People go along with things they are uncomfortable all of the time either because they are SCARED or they don't realize they have the RIGHT to refuse or some combination of BOTH!



Still possibly out of line - but not purient and not sexual.


Something doesn't have to be "purient" or "sexual" to be inappropriate. When the prisoners were stacked naked in Abu Grahib it wasn't for "purient" or "sexual" reasons. It was for the purpose of causing embarrassment and humiliation. The girls in this case were likely embarrassed and humiliated regardless of the motive of the adults involved.




In "today's world" things are really screwed up. Children are usually molested by someone they know, very rarely is it a teacher.


Wrong! It's not "rarely" a teacher. It's often a teacher. It's more often a family member only because they have more access. But looked at the ratio of teacher complaints to the amount of time they have alone with the kids (MUCH less than what a parent has) it's a lot higher then you are making it out to be.




I really don't believe children are any more at risk of being sexually exploited by teachers than they were 20 years ago.

You are entitled to your opinion as uninformed as it is. But 20 years ago schools weren't strip searching kids over some missing money. No school I ever heard of anyway.

[PaulaGem]

I'm not surprised. Right after the 7/7 bombings when the London police pinned an innocent man down and shot him 8 times in the face I had a lot of arguments (not here) with people who said "we don't have enough facts". Well the "facts" only confirmed what I already knew. People make opinions all of the time, but for some odd reason most people become overly deferential in some cases.

And some people have a tendency to jump to conclusions and make broad generalizations.

No one has ever accused me of being "overly deferential" LOL!

I just think it's silly for people to get their virtual underwear in a bundle of such a brief and undetailed news article.

There is a lot going on in this world that is more important.

The only reason I've been posting on this thread is that the reaction to that piddly little article seemed extreme -


Why do people put up with this crazy shit? These bastards need to be charged with rape every time this happens.


Turn those responsible into sex offenders so they can't work in schools ever again. But of course all that will happen in this case is the taxpayers will eventually foot the bill for a large legal judgment against the school district.



Whoever stripped those girls should be imprisoned for life or executed.

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I'm sorry, but such extreme statements in the face of such a tiny bit of evidence seem very wrong to me.

[jmdrake]

And some people have a tendency to jump to conclusions and make broad generalizations.

Yes. You're one of them. You jumped to the conclusion that the girls in this case must have been ok with this because they "allowed it to happen".



No one has ever accused me of being "overly deferential" LOL!


See above. Claiming the victim must have been ok with the conduct because they "allowed it to happen" is overly deferential.



I just think it's silly for people to get their virtual underwear in a bundle of such a brief and undetailed news article.


No more silly than someone claiming that it must be "no big deal" just because you saw your fellow students in their undies.



There is a lot going on in this world that is more important.


I think protecting the privacy and 4th amendment rights of our kids is top priority. You are free to have different priorities.



The only reason I've been posting on this thread is that the reaction to that piddly little article seemed extreme -


What happened to innocent until proven guilty?


Note that I didn't make any of those statements. Can people overreact? Sure. But to somehow claim that the girls in this case must have been "ok" with this because they "allowed" it to happen to them is (to me) beyond the pale.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[PaulaGem]

Yes. You're one of them. You jumped to the conclusion that the girls in this case must have been ok with this because they "allowed it to happen".

I said "might not have been uncomfortable", and repeatedly "we don't know".


Under the law, "child sexual abuse" is an umbrella term describing criminal and civil offenses in which an adult engages in sexual activity with a minor or exploits a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification. The American Psychiatric Association states that "children cannot consent to sexual activity with adults", and condemns any such action: "An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which never can be considered normal or socially acceptable behavior."

http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Childhood_sexual_abuse

Under the law ther must be "mens rea", the intent to commit a crime. If the teacher saw the kids nude on a routine basis and there was no "purpose of sexual gratification" there was no sexual crime.

This kind of stuff gets played up in the media all of the time in order to distract people from the really important issues and the things going on in their own back yard that they can actually do something about.

Talk about screwy - you jumped to the conclusion that I jumped to a conclusion. Perhaps you should work on your reading skills.

[Andrew-Austin]

Families: Girls were strip-searched at Iowa school

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ia-iowa-girlssearche,0,6571078.story

ATLANTIC, Iowa - Family members say Atlantic high school officials forced five teenage girls to remove their clothes during an investigation into a theft.

The girls' families and their lawyers say the incident at Atlantic High School amounts to a strip-search, which is illegal in Iowa schools.

But school officials say the search was "allowable" under board rules.

Dan Crozier is interim superintendent of the Atlantic school district. He confirmed that the search took place on Aug. 21 during a gym class.

The girls were searched in a locker room after a classmate reported $100 was missing from her purse.

Lawyers say the girls were forced to strip down to their undergarments, and one girl was required to take off all of her clothes.

The money wasn't found.

Sounds like this was an athletics class. In which case all of the girls change in the locker room anyways.

And when I played sports in Junior High and Highschool it wasn't exactly considered weird if the coach walked through the locker room to see a bunch of naked and almost naked boys... Not sure what the norm is over there for a girls athletic class...



I said "might not have been uncomfortable", and repeatedly "we don't know".

I agree with Paula, they merely might have been pissed off /annoyed that they were accused of theft. But we don't know.

[jmdrake]

I said "might not have been uncomfortable", and repeatedly "we don't know".


:rolleyes:

No. What you actually said was I am saying that it is quite likely that they were not uncomfortable because it was a routine experience with no purient intent.

How you jumped from "quite likely" down to "might not have been" only you can say. Imagine your reaction if someone on the other side had said:

"It was quite likely that this was done so some perverts could get their jollies"

as opposed to simply:

"This might have been done so some perverts could get their jollies".

Two totally different sentiments.




http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Childhood_sexual_abuse

Under the law ther must be "mens rea", the intent to commit a crime. If the teacher saw the kids nude on a routine basis and there was no "purpose of sexual gratification" there was no sexual crime.


I've repeatedly said that this should be handled in civil rather than criminal court. The civil definition of assault has no intent requirement.

Beyond that your rationale that just because a teacher might see kids nude on a routine basis means that there could not be a possible purpose of sexual gratification in this case is laughable. That would mean that a doctor could never be charged with sexually assaulting a patient because he sees patients nude on a routine basis.



Talk about screwy - you jumped to the conclusion that I jumped to a conclusion. Perhaps you should work on your reading skills.

My reading skills are fine. It's your own recollection of what you actually said that needs help. See above.

Regards,

John M. Drake

[haaaylee]

No girls under 18 ever see a gynecologist? And PLENTY of H.S. and JR. high coaches see those kids naked at times. Not a big deal. Usually the coach is of the same sex and is straight. In FACT. Many young men and women having issues "down there" ask coaches for advice. It's not sexual.



wow, seeing a gynecologist (also your decision) and being forced by authority (as the article said - and keep in mind young girls don't have as much nerve as us to say "hell no') are two different things. one is for health reasons. the other is just pure assault. that you would compare the two is disgusting.

these girls didn't go ask their coaches for advice, their coach asked them to take off their clothes.

that you can't see the difference is sad. and scary.

[KCIndy]

An update on the topic under discussion:


http://www.radioiowa.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=96AA879A-5056-B82A-37B6ABA3E61FA0D6



Monday, September 7, 2009, 5:39 PM
by Ric Hanson, KJAN, Atlantic

An administrator at a western Iowa school has been placed on leave pending the outcome of an investigation into the August 21st strip-search of five-students. Dan Crozier, interim superintendent with the Atlantic Community School District, says because it is a personnel matter, the individual's name is not being release.

He says the issue will be discussed in a closed session during Tuesday evening's regularly scheduled school board meeting. The Des Moines Register reported in Saturday's edition, the incident in question occurred after a female student at the high school reported $100 was missing from her purse.

Lawyers representing the teens say the classmate who reported the incident and a female counselor stood watch in the girls' locker room at Atlantic High School, as the five girls removed their clothing, and lifted up their underwear.

One of the teens was asked to remove her clothes twice. The allegedly missing money, was never found. The matter has sparked a great deal of public comment, ranging from criticism of the teen for bring so much money to school, to calls for administrators and school board to resign. Crozier says no additional action will be taken until the investigation is complete.

Crozier says they've investigated and it takes a lot of time to do that, and they want to treat the students and personnel correctly and they believe following board policy let them do that. Crozier says it's not that unusual for kids to bring money to school, but there is always a risk it can be stolen. When that happens, he says it's up to the school to look into it. He says some kids have money and he is sometimes surprised that kids bring money to school.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that no school official has free rein to do intimate searches of students. The court said making a girl pull the waistband of her underwear away from her body constituted a strip-search. In addition, strip-searching is illegal in Iowa schools. Crozier says the district's lawyer however, seems to feel the board's policy on search and seizures were within the scope of the law.

Crozier says the lawyer has certain aspects of the incident that he has looked at documentation on and explained to the board. He says the policies the Atlantic School district came up are based on a state template. He says the state has sample policies and the board has followed those sample policies and tried to do what the state suggests. Crozier says also, he hopes the matter can be resolved without having to go to court.

Crozier says they want everyone to be able to work with each other and to be able to find answers. Three of the five girls' parents hired lawyers, and a fourth family said they intend to do so.

[PaulaGem]

wow, seeing a gynecologist (also your decision) and being forced by authority (as the article said - and keep in mind young girls don't have as much nerve as us to say "hell no') are two different things. one is for health reasons. the other is just pure assault. that you would compare the two is disgusting.

these girls didn't go ask their coaches for advice, their coach asked them to take off their clothes.

that you can't see the difference is sad. and scary.

If Sandman and I are on the same side you can bet that it's not a clear cut issue.

giggle....... snort...... LOL!!!!

[haaaylee]

Since I haven't been in gym class for over 40 years I don't know how it is now, but it wasn't a big deal when I was in high school, and there may be places where it still isn't a big deal.

Teachers are supposed to be trustworthy, and nudity is not that big of a deal.

I'm starting to think that folks on this board need to get a REAL life and worry about REAL problems and people whose lives they can impact for good. This is a tiny story and we know very few details.

On the other hand, the very REAL kid from Georgia who REALLY had the cops steal his computer didn't get near as much attention here.


Nudity is a big deal , it is called privacy. And i don't care what kind of backwards life style you were raised on but this is a big deal. This is honestly sick, and the fact that when you were a child you showered with your classmates doesn't make this ok. You're reasoning is insane. I have a real life. And in my real life i make sure i protect young children from things that make them feel uncomfortable, that they dont' agree to do, that adults make them do. And if you you think these things aren't a big deal, shame on you.

Cos i'm starting to think you may be one to do these things . .

[PaulaGem]

How you jumped from "quite likely" down to "might not have been" only you can say.

so we are talking 40% vs 60%, I didn't bother to go back to look for a quote.

The fact is that the standard for criminal convction in this country is 100% of the jury and beyond a reasonable doubt.

So 40% vs 60 % is irrrelevant.

20% vs. 80% is irrelevant.

I believe it is just plain Un-American to make the comments that were made on this thread in the context of virtual ignorance of the facts of the case.

[haaaylee]

As a woman this is pissing me off. One girl was asked to be completely naked !! It doesn't matter that she previously agreed to that when showering in gym (if so be the case in this school). If this was a math class, and they were accused of theft and asked to do this -- would you still say it was ok?? That the teacher has a right to say "Take off your clothes"


Separate the gym aspect of this and realize this is horrid.

& Despicable.

I'm ashamed of those that say this isn't a big deal.

[jmdrake]

so we are talking 40% vs 60%, I didn't bother to go back to look for a quote.

I will accept that as an apology for you questioning my reading skills.



The fact is that the standard for criminal convction in this country is 100% of the jury and beyond a reasonable doubt.


Again I said they should be held civilly liable! You do understand the difference right? Civil cases only have a preponderance of the evidence requirement and there is no jury requirement in cases under a certain amount.



So 40% vs 60 % is irrrelevant.

20% vs. 80% is irrelevant.


Not sure how we got into percentages, but whatever.



I believe it is just plain Un-American to make the comments that were made on this thread in the context of virtual ignorance of the facts of the case.

It's quite American. It's called exercising ones first amendment right to comment on a news story. And now you have more facts in the case. It seems they may have broken the law simply by conducting the strip search regardless of any "prurient interest". It's good to see the law on the side of common sense.

[PaulaGem]

Nudity is a big deal , it is called privacy. And i don't care what kind of backwards life style you were raised on but this is a big deal. This is honestly sick, and the fact that when you were a child you showered with your classmates doesn't make this ok. You're reasoning is insane. I have a real life. And in my real life i make sure i protect young children from things that make them feel uncomfortable, that they dont' agree to do, that adults make them do. And if you you think these things aren't a big deal, shame on you.

Cos i'm starting to think you may be one to do these things . .

It is a big deal to you. It is not a big deal to a lot of perfectly normal, well balanced people.

You are accusing me of being a pervert.

I suspect you might be a pathological introvert.

Do you know what "pathological" means? There is a lot of room for variation in human behavior and beliefs. They only become pathological when they start to screw up a person's life.

Let other people be who they are without passing judgement, you will be a lot happier.

[PaulaGem]

It seems they may have broken the law simply by conducting the strip search regardless of any "prurient interest". It's good to see the law on the side of common sense.

If you care to exercise those reading skills you will see that I objected to the extremism in the posts and the prejudgement. Several times I commented that there were other possible infrations, but I really had a problem with those people who were trying to make the gym teacher out to be a S.O.

That's the beautiful thing about the law.... When applied correctly you can't B.S. your way through it.

[PaulaGem]

Again I said they should be held civilly liable! You do understand the difference right? Civil cases only have a preponderance of the evidence requirement and there is no jury requirement in cases under a certain amount.

I was offended by the comments about sexual abuse when there was no evidence of the same. Those comments were suggesting criminal penalties, not civil.

[PaulaGem]

As a woman this is pissing me off. One girl was asked to be completely naked !! It doesn't matter that she previously agreed to that when showering in gym (if so be the case in this school). If this was a math class, and they were accused of theft and asked to do this -- would you still say it was ok?? That the teacher has a right to say "Take off your clothes"


Separate the gym aspect of this and realize this is horrid.

& Despicable.

I'm ashamed of those that say this isn't a big deal.

You are presuming that nudity is a big deal. It isn't a math class. Why aren't you content to let due process sort it out? Why do you feel compelled to turn this forum into a tabloid?

[haaaylee]

It is a big deal to you. It is not a big deal to a lot of perfectly normal, well balanced people.

You are accusing me of being a pervert.

I suspect you might be a pathological introvert.

Do you know what "pathological" means? There is a lot of room for variation in human behavior and beliefs. They only become pathological when they start to screw up a person's life.

Let other people be who they are without passing judgement, you will be a lot happier.

You are assuming this isn't a big deal to these girls, and as some one who loves to say "we don't know all the details" -- well, you don't know it isn't a big deal to these girls. but i'll tell you, on average - this is a big deal to woman. a very big deal.

ps. don't insult me. it doesn't help your case to take that route.

[jmdrake]

I was offended by the comments about sexual abuse when there was no evidence of the same. Those comments were suggesting criminal penalties, not civil.

:rolleyes: You've never heard of someone being held civilly liable for a criminal offense? You want to quote "mens rea" but you don't even know this very basic tenant of the law? Hint. Go look up the OJ Simpson case and ask yourself "How could he be held civilly liable in a wrongful death suit after being acquitted in a criminal proceeding"? Anyway it's all moot now. Strip searches themselves are illegal in the jurisdiction being discussed. And why were you offended by the comments? Are some of these teachers your relatives or something? What gives you the right to be offended any more than those who were offended by the report of what happened?

[PaulaGem]

You are assuming this isn't a big deal to these girls, and as some one who loves to say "we don't know all the details" -- well, you don't know it isn't a big deal to these girls. but i'll tell you, on average - this is a big deal to woman. a very big deal.

ps. don't insult me. it doesn't help your case to take that route.

"this is a big deal to a woman" - please cite your reference and the appropriate sociological and psychological research to support this opinion.

I have never had a problem with being nude before professionals and other women. If someone stares too long or takes advantage I will take issue. If pointing out objective reality is considered an insult by you then perhaps you should attend to your psychological reality more closely.

[PaulaGem]

:rolleyes: You've never heard of someone being held civilly liable for a criminal offense? You want to quote "mens rea" but you don't even know this very basic tenant of the law? Hint. Go look up the OJ Simpson case and ask yourself "How could he be held civilly liable in a wrongful death suit after being acquitted in a criminal proceeding"? Anyway it's all moot now. Strip searches themselves are illegal in the jurisdiction being discussed. And why were you offended by the comments? Are some of these teachers your relatives or something? What gives you the right to be offended any more than those who were offended by the report of what happened?

The penalties cited were criminal. That is what I was objecting to , the lynch mob mentality.

Why should I be offended?

My sense of justice is actually what was offended.

[jmdrake]

The penalties cited were criminal.

Again, none of the ones I cited were.



That is what I was objecting to , the lynch mob mentality.


Then you wouldn't have been too happy with the revolutionary war.



Why should I be offended?

My sense of justice is actually what was offended.

Because somebody was arrested and tried based on a forum post? :rolleyes:

[PaulaGem]

Again, none of the ones I cited were.

So why did you take it so damn personally?


Groupthink anyone?

[haaaylee]

"this is a big deal to a woman" - please cite your reference and the appropriate sociological and psychological research to support this opinion.

I have never had a problem with being nude before professionals and other women. If someone stares too long or takes advantage I will take issue. If pointing out objective reality is considered an insult by you then perhaps you should attend to your psychological reality more closely.


the point is they didn't make the decision to be nude, you seem to being viewing this from your own acceptance of being viewed nude. not everyone is ok with that. most people aren't. this isn't about being stared at too long, it is about being forced to that their clothes off.

you can keep up the psychological argument all you want, but you will morally lose it . . .


ps.
do i really have to produce evidence that women don't want to be viewed when naked??

[t0rnado]

Here's the problem: The school officials asked the girls to remove their clothing, they didn't force them to. I don't know what they could be charged with. Maybe abusing their position? If the girls refused and the officials handed down some sort of punishment, then they could be sued, but the girls complied with the request.

That's the legal aspect of it. The girls obviously didn't know the law, they thought that they had to comply with the teachers, and they thought that the teachers had authority.

[Spot the Fed]

Perhaps it wasnt rape, but if that was my daughter getting strip searched, by the time I got done with those school officials, they would be wishing they had been raped rather than the legal cornholing Id give them.

[LibertyRevolution]

Here's the problem: The school officials asked the girls to remove their clothing, they didn't force them to...
That's the legal aspect of it. The girls obviously didn't know the law, they thought that they had to comply with the teachers, and they thought that the teachers had authority.

This is my feelings on this case also.
They were not forced to do anything, they were asked.
They agreed to be searched, they could have refused.
This is no different than the kid who got his computer taken. They don't know their rights, and they volunteered to comply.
You want to charge someone, I say charge the parents with neglect for not educating their children about their right to refuse a warrant-less search.

If they had found the $100, the prosecutor would have said in court that the women waved their rights and agreed to the search, and the evidence would have been admitted.

[sratiug]

All you people defending this are making me sick. If the girls refused the strip search at school they probably figured they'd be searched by cops later on. So they would probably feel a little safer with the school search. And don't even say they could have refused a cop search, we all know that cops don't follow the law anywhere near 100% of the time.

[JeNNiF00F00]

That's no defense. I was in track and cross-country for years and no other girl saw me naked because I didn't want to be seen naked. I go to the gym regularly, and no other women see me naked. I'm not a prude, I'm just private.

Being strip-searched would have been very traumatic for me no matter who did it, especially if I were a teenage girl.

Same here.

[haaaylee]

the article said one girl was forced to strip naked. where are we getting that they were just asked? the word force was used. . .

[LibertyRevolution]

In my post above I am only speaking about the criminal aspect of this, I do not in anyway agree with, or defend the actions of the staff.
In fact, I feel that if the girls in question are traumatized by this, they should file a civil suit for damages. There they could argue about how they felt "forced" to comply with the "order" of the staff, due the "authority" they thought the staff had over them.
I just felt it necessary to post my opinion due the amount of crazy people screaming rape and sexual assault in this thread. They did not refuse, so I do not think they did anything criminal.
If I was to ask someone in a gym to take off their clothes, and they do, could they then turn around and file sexual assault charges against me?

[Dr.3D]

That's no defense. I was in track and cross-country for years and no other girl saw me naked because I didn't want to be seen naked. I go to the gym regularly, and no other women see me naked. I'm not a prude, I'm just private.

Being strip-searched would have been very traumatic for me no matter who did it, especially if I were a teenage girl.


Same here.

Must have been nice to be in a school where they had private shower stalls.

We had just one big shower room was there were a bunch of shower heads and everybody just showered together. One time one of the fellows in there was pissing on the others and laughing about it.

[fisharmor]

I was in high school 20 years ago now, and not once did anyone ever shower.

One time a friend and I got into the shower stalls while skipping class and graffiti-d them up real good.
The graffiti stayed for at least the next year and a half. Not even the teachers nor janitors nor anyone else ever went in there.

Nobody made a habit of hanging around in underwear, there was no banter and towel-snapping. The only reason anyone even changed into gym clothes was because it was required.

That was 20 years ago.

[Reason]

No pics?




























j/k calm down

[Sandman33]

Okay, so what happened at your school was:

So as I understand you, at your school towards the end of each gym time period "both genders got naked in gym class" then headed to their respective gender locker rooms "to shower and change." So what school did you attend?


Now on to the issue of the thread:

Look at Iowa law.

Not wanting tot spend half the night writing a doctoral dissection regarding what happened there are two sections that may apply:

Invasion of Privacy (http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/ic/2009code/1/26554/26555/26772/26794?f=templates$fn=document-frameset.htm$q=[field%20folio-destination-name:%27sec_709_21%27]$x=Advanced#0-0-0-111179)

and, (part 4):

709.8 Lascivious acts with a child (http://search.legis.state.ia.us/NXT/gateway.dll/ic/2009code/1/26554/26555/26772/26794?f=templates$fn=document-frameset.htm$q=[field%20folio-destination-name:%27sec_709_21%27]$x=Advanced#0-0-0-111179).

Carry on.

I cant believe you're having trouble fathoming this.

GYM class was CO-ED most of the time. And both genders reported to their assigned shower/changing area to change into gym clothes. Once P.E. was over you were allowed to shower and most people DID since you don't want to be funky all day long. Especially if P.E. was early in the day for you.

Let alone swimming. I did that in school too. Had to change plenty of times. Wasn't a big deal.

Like I said, I'm not justifying what happened at all. I'm just saying that it's not rape.

[devil21]

Here's the problem: The school officials asked the girls to remove their clothing, they didn't force them to. I don't know what they could be charged with. Maybe abusing their position? If the girls refused and the officials handed down some sort of punishment, then they could be sued, but the girls complied with the request.

That's the legal aspect of it. The girls obviously didn't know the law, they thought that they had to comply with the teachers, and they thought that the teachers had authority.

Hmm...so then please explain how it is often illegal for police to do the same thing to children during a criminal investigation but not for school administrators during an investigation? Children must have a parent or attorney present during questioning because they are not reasonably expected to know and understand their rights like an adult does. Much of that issue comes down to state by state statute and existing case law regarding juveniles and searches. Your blanket statement about the "legal aspect" is pure rubbish.

Nevermind that I don't see where you are getting the whole "request" part from.



Lawyers say the girls were forced to strip down to their undergarments, and one girl was required to take off all of her clothes.

[John of Des Moines]

I cant believe you're having trouble fathoming this.

GYM class was CO-ED most of the time. And both genders reported to their assigned shower/changing area to change into gym clothes. Once P.E. was over you were allowed to shower and most people DID since you don't want to be funky all day long. Especially if P.E. was early in the day for you.

Let alone swimming. I did that in school too. Had to change plenty of times. Wasn't a big deal.

Like I said, I'm not justifying what happened at all. I'm just saying that it's not rape.


Ha, ha , ha.