Editing Strip search (section)

==Notable lawsuits==
The [[Supreme Court of Canada]] ruled in ''[[R v Golden]]'' (2001)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://scc.lexum.org/en/2001/2001scc83/2001scc83.html |title=R. v. Golden trial decision |publisher=Scc.lexum.org |date=2001-12-06 |access-date=2012-08-01}}</ref> that "strip-searches may only be done out of clear necessity with the permission of a supervisor and by members of the same sex."<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/episode/2010/12/13/strip-searches/ | work=CBC News|title=Strip-Searches}}</ref>

In ''[[Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders]]'' (2012), the [[United States Supreme Court]] ruled that strip-searches are permitted for all arrests, including [[Indictment|non-indictable]], minor offenses.

Four male teenage students were strip searched at [[Ansonia High School (Ansonia, Connecticut)|Ansonia High School]] in [[Ansonia, Connecticut|Ansonia]], [[Connecticut]],<ref>{{cite news| title=Teachers seek to clear names after strip searches| url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/states/connecticut/2009-03-06-3059576907_x.htm| work=[[USA Today]]| date=2009-03-06| access-date=2009-03-26}}</ref> and sued the two teachers and principal who allegedly violated their rights.<ref>{{cite news| title=Ansonia school officials sued over strip searches| url=https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/states/connecticut/2009-03-24-3059576907_x.htm| work=[[USA Today]]| date=2009-03-25 | access-date=2010-05-24}}</ref>

The ''Beard v. Whitmore Lake School District'' (2005) case arose in [[Michigan]] when a student reported that $364 had been stolen from her gym bag during a physical education class. In response to the alleged theft, teachers searched the entire class of 20 boys and five girls in their respective locker rooms. Boys were required to undress down to their underwear. Similarly, girls were required to do so as well in front of each other. The alleged theft was reported to the local police who sent an officer who arrived midway through the search. Based on court records, the officer encouraged school personnel to continue the search. At the conclusion of the search, no money was found. A suit was filed by the [[American Civil Liberties Union]] of Michigan on behalf of students impacted by the search claiming Fourth Amendment rights violations against unreasonable search and seizure and the Fourteenth Amendment rights violation involving an equal protection violation. The case was ultimately ruled on by the [[Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals]]. The Sixth Circuit Court focused on several factors that made the strip search unreasonable. One, recovery of money was the primary basis for conducting the search, which did not, in the court's opinion, pose a health or safety threat. Secondly, the search did not involve one or two students but rather a large number of students who did not consent to the search. While the search was held to be unreasonable, the court stopped short of ruling that it was entirely unconstitutional based on prior law involving strip searches of students. Thirdly, school personnel had no reason to suspect any of the students individually. The court emphasized that school leaders have a real interest in maintaining an atmosphere free of theft but a search undertaken to find money serves a less weighty governmental interest than a search undertaken for items that pose a threat to the health and safety of students. Based on the court's position, clearly a search to recover money will not meet the court's expectation regarding the standards associated with a strip search.<sup>1</sup>

In ''[[Safford Unified School District v. Redding]]'' (2009), the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for school employees to strip search minor students, in this case students in the [[Safford, Arizona]] [[Safford Unified School District|Unified School District]].<ref>Safford Unified School District v. Redding,  557 U.S. 364 (2009)</ref>