Close Video

Education

'Bra case' goes to NC Supreme Court: What do you think?

The North Carolina Supreme Court now has to decide on a "bra lifting" case they heard on Monday. Wonder what I'm talking about? Let me start from the beginning.

In 2008, students at the Brunswick County Academy in Raleigh were reportedly forced to lift up their bras so school officials could search them for drugs.

One student, known only as T.A.S. to protect her identity because she was only 15 years old at the time, sued the State for invasion of privacy.

The school's legal argument is the search, which allegedly involved the female students lifting their bras away from their bodies so drugs would fall out if they had any stashed there -- was "minimally invasive" because no skin was shown. Or rather, that is what Assistant District Attorney LaToya Powell argued on the school's part in court Monday.

But Geeta Kapur, lawyer for the offended student calls the search a violation of her Rights, saying, "It is unconstitutional for our daughters to be treated this way by the public schools of North Carolina."

During the search, three school personnel were reportedly present, two of whom were men, but the principal was not there. The male students were not subjected to any "underwear" search.

Incidentally, the drug Percocet, along with other drug "items," were found on this particular student, and she pleaded guilty in 2009 to two counts of drug possession.

However, the Court of Appeals reportedly sided with the student and voted 2-1 that the search was "degrading, demeaning and highly intrusive." The State appealed.

Now the highest court in the State has to decide whether that student's search was "unreasonable" in the eyes of the law.

Brunswick County Academy is an alternate school for kids with behavioral problems and Principal Sandra Robinson said they were only acting on a tip that prescription drugs were being smuggled into the school.

What do you think: were the students Constitutional Rights violated or did the school have a "reasonable right" to do what they did?