Talk:Safford Unified School District v. Redding

Correction on age (was 9; should be 13)
Hi -- The slip opinion (or at least the *.pdf version available through the SCOTUS PR office last evening) throughout identifies Savana Redding as being a 13-year-old at the time of the search. J. Ginsberg in a public speech made a reference to her puberty stage, which cannot (or at least extremely rarely) occur in a 9-year-old. 9-year-old boys worry about getting "cooties" from seeing a halfway-naked classmate; some 13-year-old boys have those sexual hormones already percolating. Savana clearly was embarassed in a way that a 9-y-o girl would not be. The news reports repeatedly note that she was 13. How can this be corrected? John, Not a Lawyer (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)John,Not a Lawyer


 * Good catch. Fixed. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 00:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Format and wording
I'd like to add in who had accused redding of having the drugs. The facts show it was a confidential informant. I also think standard headers should be placed in - facts (occurrence and procedural), issue, holding, and reasoning. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a brief mention of the precedents on Privacy law, as well as Illinois v. Gates and related informant cases (see Aguilar-Spinelli test) would be useful, if even only in a "see also" section. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. The Court specifically mentions Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, and New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325. They should be added also. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * With respect, I must disagree on both fronts. I don't think that the name of the informant is of any consequence (although it may be of consequence that the informant was in the same grade), and concision suggests that extraneous information without other redeeming value (adding color, for example) detracts. As to standard headers, they serve a valuable purpose in helping a reader navigate a lengthy or complex article, but when an article is short, I think they detract. This article may well require them if or as it grows, but as short / concise as the article is now. To be sure, the first paragraph could be the lead, and then you could have a section heading "facts" for the first main paragraph, a section heading "proceedings below" for the second main paragraph, and then "in the supreme court" for the remaining two, but I think that kind of oversegmentataion is ugly. (They will, however, be invaluable in tackling the Couer Alaska case, decided yestereday, which is unbelievably complex.) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree on adding TLO for context. Not sure about Saucier; if we talk about Saucier we have to talk about Pearson v. Callahan, and I'm not sure it's all that illuminating to do so. A link to the article on qualified immunity may be the most effective way to cover the subject, assuming that that article is any good (and if it isn't, bringing it up to scratch may be better than rewriting it in this article). On the other hand, that is an issue that divided the court, so perhaps I'm wrong and we should at least discuss Pearson? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * O.K., I see your side. I removed the name.  At some point we should have something about TLO. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have thought that it would be significant that the accuser was a fellow student who had been caught with the "drugs" in question (according to the various reports I've seen, this was Advil, intended to relieve menstrual cramps—just to prove the insanity of zero tolerance as if it needed proving), not some "anonymous report" as implied, and that Redding herself was an honour student with no previous record of any infractions. I'm not sure, and no other article I've read seems sure, how the school manages to construe this as "reasonable suspicion" but there you go. The fact that the original student who was actually in possession of the "drugs" was not strip-searched might also be relevant. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We don't need to speculate on what it was: the court's opinion tells us. The search was triggered by "four white prescription-strength ibuprofen 400-mg pills, and one over-the-counter blue naproxen 200-mg pill," found in the possession of the girl who turned her in. On the broader question, detail should be included if (1) it's relevant or (2) adds color to the article without detracting from concision. The details are only relevant to the extent they bear on the holding. So let's apply that to the kind of drugs and the identity of the accuser.


 * The detail of the kind of drug is not relevant; the relevant point is that it was against school rules. (If you doubt this, see footnote 1 of the court's opinion.) What's more, including it raises problems of WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. The former because if material is irrelevant, giving it any coverage is, ex vi termini, giving it weight that is undue. And the latter because when you see that detail in news reports, it's a form of weasel words: it's intended to imply the author's disapproval of the disproportionality of the search given the type of contraband that was suspected, a type of leading phrasing that may have a place in the media but has no place here.


 * The detail that the report was from a student in the same grade is more difficult. Had the court held that the search was okay, I think it would have done so on the basis that the source of the accusation was credible, and that the school wasn't just acting on an anonymous tip with no indicia of reliability. But that's not what they held. I'm just not sure how relevant to the court's disposition it is that the tipoff came from a fellow student, and that the tipoff was not unsolicited. On balance, I tend to think that we should be inclusionary in this case: we should say whence the school's information came. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As the article stand now however, by omission, it seems as if the medication was distributed to more than one student. That should probably be corrected. Secondly, while not "traditional" media, Wikipedia is not an official gov't publication or legal encyclopedia, the case is no longer open. The media reaction, public reaction and historical perspective is legitimate in a general information encyclopedia, even in coverage of a legal case.  Your strict requirements are more fitting to a "legal/law wikipedia," not en.wikipedia.org Tumacama (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The new case summary
I realize that I am hardly a disinterested party, but I think that the rewrite that took place overnight is unfortunate. Whereas this article was yesterday a concise summary of the facts of the case and the court's holding, it is now a needlessly lengthy hodgepodge of quotes from the various opinions tied together with bullet point bailing wire. Rather than simply revert, I will raise the issue here. While I have no objection to the case summary I originally wrote being expanded and given more detail, I think we should return to its style, which is surely more readable (to laypersons and lawyers alike) than the stilted and awkward case summary now presented to readers. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I would like to acknowledge to your criticisms, which are fair:
 * needlessly lengthy hodgepodge of quotes from the various opinions tied together with bullet point bailing wire
 * [make it] more readable (to laypersons and lawyers alike) than the stilted and awkward case summary now presented to readers.
 * First, I agree that my work can be improved upon, to make the contents more accessible. But I also think that last night's version needed significantly more exposition of the court's logical progression.
 * Now, I agree that this needs to be more accessible version. Other Supreme Court case articles do this by means of an introduction in the "lead" paragraph.  My proposal is that someone adapt the case summary you wrote into the lead; and then work to clarify the "hodgepodge of quotes tied together."
 * However, I also think the bullet point style I employed is the best way to communicating the hierarchy of reasoning, and the quotes are too. These can be modified, but if I saw those elements being deleted, I would probably intervene actively to defend them. Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 19:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Background" section
I made some edits to include more identifying information about the actors. I was confused, when first reading this article, who "wilson" was--there had been no previous mention of this person, and it wasn't made clear. It took a bit of digging to find out his whole name and title, but I put that in the text, along with full names and titles of the other 2 staff members. If there is some reason to keep their full names off the wiki page (when they are otherwise available online), there should AT LEAST be identifying adjectives, e.g., that Wilson was an asst. principal. Also, that Wilson is male and the other 2 staff involved in the strip search were female. While adding that info, I also did some minor edits (grammar, punctuation) to improve readability.

My question though--what is the "22" at the end of [what is now] the 5th paragraph of that section? It is not formatted as a source/reference, but, in the Reference section, there is a strange line at the bottom for "22." I left it alone, as I don't know what it could be. But what also made me wonder about it's inclusion, is that para.5 contains information that does not seem to be included in any other source I found online--the supposed allegations of faculty members regarding Savana's and Marissa's behavior, their "relationship," and then the assertion by the author of para.5 that SOME entity determined the info of para.5 to be "plausible grounds." The whole paragraph really strikes me as odd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colbey84 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)