transport order from the lee county youth court prior to her detainment status being determined upon intake because she had gotten into a fight despite the absence of any weapons despite the fact that she had already been patted down prior to being transported despite the fact that she had been sitting in the nurse's office in no way restrain despite the fact that lee county itself mit's that there was absolutely no reasonable bring the twelve year old girl who had never so much as been naked in front of her own doctor without her mother being present was asked to strip naked ass to squat down so that her genitals could be observed as to bend over and as to spread her cheeks at this point no determination had been made that nicol should have been put in the general population the only thing that existed at that time was transporting her according to leak county policy in the absence of receiving notification that a child is supposed to be put into the general population cells that's what we're talking about charlotte you have enough for juveniles in lee county there are six beds i would say that's probably smaller than what a holding facility would be in most large municipalities and places them in and you s were the general population was for juvenile i don't know the exact number of children that were there ms mayberry's daughter was there with the young lady that she had gotten into the fight with and i believe there might have been two or other three children there there's also a holding area that ms mayberry's daughter was put in and held down while they were conducting the strip search of the other child and upon conducting that strip search both girls were then just taken back and placed in the common area shown their cells and taken back to the common area and the reason they were even put back there was because the youth court if the youth court doesn't say hold them as a non detainees in a holding cell then they're just automatically processed and put into it would help me is to know exactly what your legal argument is your honor the legal argument is that the court's wholesale application of florence through th third circus division decision and fast not is reversible error ok so my question to you is below in the district court in the record did you ever argue that the summary judgment should be denied to lee county even applying florence did you ever argue that below i did not i well we argued basically that the standard applied by the district court wasn't appropriate they should have applied a reasonable suspicion to a special needs test you argued what it's a five four decision the district court made an error can you can you tell me where in your brief you said that applying florence there would be reversible error your honor looking back at my brief as i recall i mentioned to the district court that this was a young lady who was hale i'm asking you did you argue to us that we should apply florence and you would still win did you argue that in your that specific point i did not argue that's a pretty important point it is your honor i agree but i thought the district court was so completely wrong in applying florence to juveniles in making that step to apply a decision a political i mean fell or it's was controversial it reversed our law it's a five four decision but as i read it it is still a bouncing test so if you'd done your work below and you'd shown with substantial evidence that the search here cavity arguably suspicion this was exaggerated or unnecessary you could have won but your honor i think we win regardless blubbered you haven't argued it you didn't argue below you haven't argued it here so so let's say we apply the balancing test for the following facts correct or would you dispute them if you had the opportunity to brief it one did  judicial officer a designee find that this young lady committed simple assault the charges were dismissed you're on a good age you dish officer responding to officer bramble yes make it to that looked at the video and then he called the judicial officer designee and then therefore the policy that we're looking at is one that it's not clear to me it's a suspicion this one because they only stripped this youth because there was a probable cause finding of simple assault so there leak out he is only doing these suspicion a strips if there's a predicate judicial finding and charge of violence they're there applying strip searches to children before they even know what the status of the children i know but do you disagree that this child was stripped only after a judicial officer found probable cause of a violent offense yes or no that finding was made by david anthony and that's why she was transported and that could be mistaken they could the school could have made a mistake calling bramble maybe there's some due process issue none of that's in front of us  children that the leak county juvenile detention center in the admitted absence of reasonable suspicion that they harbor contraband there would rather not just reasonable suspicion probable cause that this individual had committed a violence a violen of drugs or weapons being introduced into general pythonic there was evidence here that this center had had a youth shooting where they killed a correctional officer at that very center it was not at that center actually i was fifty yards away from where it happened because it was right behind me is that in the record here that at a juvenile center in tupelo there i don't think that they have any record evidence there's just discussion of something having taken place in david anthony's deposition twenty years ago that child was never even patted down ok where the weapon what the child had a weapon that winded up being a gun which the kid used to shoot him yes your honor he shot casey harman stephen ferris i know what your room what's your fourth amendment rule if a child is brought after judicial officer confirms probable cause of violence it is unreasonable under the fourth amendment for them to do what finish the sentence what you want to write it is on reason for them to strip search  child reflexive lee well no i saod any spree disha officer said this child has committed a violent offense right or wrong you say they can't did they look in the shoes they can look in the shoes they can probably ask the child to go down to but in the absence of any reasonable suspicion subjecting children to a practice which is markedly and in and harmful i wish that you had applied florence i wish you had urged us that this could be reversible applying florence i think it is you have to give substantial evidence right isn't that what justice kennedy wrote i think in order to do a balancing the state has got to come forward with something to demonstrate that this standard is needed in lee county particularly when they don't apply the float the floor in standard to here please the court my name is jessica fireman and i represent amicus curiae of juvenile law center i appreciate the court's willingness to hear arguments this morning we urge the court to reverse the trial court's decision below to uphold the suspicion that this strip search policy for three reasons first the court incorrectly applied the florence standard which was fashioned for adults in the criminal justice system and that flies in the face of the supreme court's recent  exceptions and we did not at all point that out and you and i right when i read lawrence that the burden is on the plate have to still support with substantial evidence that the type of search was unnecessary or exaggerated or applying alito and justice roberts that according to the supreme court in that case right i believe so yes no where in this record has the plaintive offered evidence specifically is there any expert testimony that juveniles twelve or under are to threat don't bring in weapons don't commit suicide do we have anything of that nature in this record that record shows that it's an exaggerated response to security concerns because there's no record of a specific security concern of contraband being introduced into the all of this is the balancing test of velvety yes your honor it's a balancing test and in this case the balancing test is between the severe intrusion on a young person which the court has supreme court has recognized in reading and the lesser appeal a logical interests early there are facility there were no more than six in that facility at any time that court in florence wanted to stablish the kid i wanted to go interests looks to a record of a facility that was processing twenty more than twenty five thousand individuals per year and a record of contraband being introduced into the facility a record of over a thousand gang members in the facility per day in contrast we have here to cam neighboring place with just five other girls after a school fight in which she pulled another young person's hair without record that the children were smuggling contraband into the facility and it's also worth noting that the reasonable suspicion test allows for a balancing that still allows the facility to pet protect the safety of the of the young people in the facility so that the test set forth for example in reading allows our consideration  apply a different standard in the united states supreme court has been very consistent in recognizing that the standard that applies to young people in the juvenile justice or adult justice system must be different from from the standard applied i see my time as a thank you thank you may be right but this may not be the right factual situation i think  to keep contraband out of the seventy is there any evidence that in this particular facility any contraband was found that couldn't have been found with a with a pat down search or with a  children are equivalent to adults and at the same fear that animated florence would animate that concern if in fact there's no evidence anywhere to suggest that kids twelve or under put razorblades between their butt cheeks then that would be exaggerated it would be an unnecessary step as to minors if that if there were they had right and my point is my concern with your brief is the same as with theirs you seem to think as long as you've established lawrence applies you win but that's not how i read florence at all florence still says well in these narrow adult circumstances with this volume of adults coming in yes it's reasonable to do a suspicion a search but that doesn't answer your predicament where you've got to  that one minor it's a minor two it's a minor offense those are indisputable three this minor of the clarinet player that had never had any prior incident she was patted down and want so and then third she's put into a much smaller setting so given all those why wouldn't justice kennedy have said this is do invasive exactly as he said he wouldn't then say florence control's well a correction selves down there i understand that we may all know that she's clarinet player and that she's never been in trouble before but that the corrections officer the intake didn't know that he didn't know anything about her and they have kids from all over already have come in there well the correctional officer was a woman in this case gray was she did know that it was a minor offense she did know there was a minor affair and she patted her down and she wanted her she patterdale and wanted put the wand around her for a metal razor would have caught a razor is you're describing i don't know whether or not ok so i'm just asking you do you agree that if we look at florence justice kennedy said the rule and he didn't even have vied votes we've got to find alito or roberts he said that if things are too invasive the affirm and in florence wouldn't apply and he gave a specific example if touching for example right right so if in fact this woman had been touched then you would agree that would be a violation of the fourth amendment it could be ok so when i look at your policy it says visual strip search where does the record show that a visual strip search includes cavities where in the record would we know that in fact lee county followed when it asked context of minors who have committed only a minor offense it may be florence would say it's unreasonable as i said you are it seems to us that the focus i means under foot your interpretation of florence you could always do suspicion this searches all the way down to any age you always win i don't know about any age but i think when it comes to juveniles yes ok so why not touching the way they do this and i you you read our brains they have a they have a with a female they have a little know how they do it i'm asking for your rule the brule your extracting from florence let me ask you another question let's say a judicial officer hadn't said there's probable cause for officer brambles arrest would you still be defending this is reasonable no if you didn't if you had said that if there were no intervening judicial officer then you're saying it would be improper i think that's and he would have called and said look let her out ok as long as the record reflect whether mr anthony is a judicial officer is he a designee he did designate as the record reflect whether he even went to law school you know even though i was going ok so why would that qualify under we're asking right now whether what mississippi has done here is constitutional and if justice alito said that would be an exception that creates yet another contextual problem that might make this not suitable for s perhaps a well then you loose but we think that he is in the sea in this situation acting as a judicial officer pursued arlo and that he is the one that that could make that analysis the first and then and then it all for bramble based on that contacted mr anthony who made the decision that there was probable cause they don't mean to get in the fence just if you have a record cite as to who it was unclear to me who it is the charge bramble said school did but the school doesn't charge the school and it would i believe the record reflects that it's an anthony but i don't have a record and i need the judicial officer charge yes no he would review the charge to ascertain if there was probable i mean chief justice roberts the final line of his concurrence says let's not embarrass the future we've adopted an ace suspicion this approach for fools strip search cavities for adults but they were very clay the supreme court even justice kennedy everyone this shouldn't be extended beyond that to a situation where it wouldn't be necessary so as i read the record in this situation is the question is is it necessary with all these much more extenuating factors twelve year old no prior record minor offense very unclear who charged very unclear if the judicial officer did it and she was wanted already and had nothing so why are we at as some why why don't we why how is this appropriate for s you are all if you go back and say he is that is and is we see it the focus should be zero on keeping contraband out of so it but everyone agrees and if the record reflects or doesn't answer then there is no forever for contraband being brought in from twelve year old girls who's already been wanted and stripped but we see through these cases that this stuff can be concealed even though they're been pat downs even though they've  wands contraband can still be concealed was there any evidence at this juvenile facility that that had happened i'm sorry you know i think any evidence of situations where a contraband had come in with these two vowels at this facility not at this have to wait until the first problem occurs before they didn't have a policy to try to prevent it but they have they have a right to be proactive everyone agrees they have to protect the security but they have to establish that it's necessary security in that we don't have the record in my mind to establish whether or not for minors that are twelve year old girls it is let me switch the concern to a larger legal one the school you would agree based on the evidence in this record wouldn't have that authority to to stafford would apply for it ok so why isn't the rule that you're asking us to announce one that allows schools to do exactly what stafford says they can't as long as they call officer bramble and say you handled this well  a court and made a distinction point do a strip strip search of the school and spencer i know they have but i'm asking you what doesn't the rule that you're asking us to announce suspicion a strip search that would be improper at school now become always proper under your theory as long as they get officer bramble involved instead of the principal ok that's a good and clear answer the position that we took was the courts the district courts wholesale adoption of the florence holding as was done by the third circuit in foss not wholly completely on critically i would suggest and up plying it to minors under the circumstances that we find ourselves in here was wholly inappropriate and that the proper standard for this court to use when dealing with juveniles informed by the reading decisions sat for school district cases when informed by the supreme court's very clear indications that juveniles are different and they are apt to be dealt with differently they're not little adults the ts vs gabbert case from the sixth circuit said we are not sure that the application of an adult standard to juvenile strip searches is appropriate or should be uncritical application a fost not to basically empowered the district court soley on the basis of the defendant suggesting generally that children can smuggle contraband will automatically result as it did in this case where the court conducted no balancing where it says foss not the plies paying a logical interest trumps everything else it's your proposition or suggestion to us that children don't bring in contraband as much as adults do that's what you're suggesting us right what i'm suggesting to the court is that they do not that the problems of juveniles and can we have any expert testimony to that effect in this record no we do not in this record john because i could see it's a debatable point i don't think it's too callous to look either way that centers got to protect people they get in and children may be more suicidal than adults they may be more prone to hurt themselves even if they're less aggressive to others we just don't know we can't guess i would suggest that there is there is a significant case law in the supreme court and also in fifth circuit that recognizes that juveniles do not posed the same problems that the courts have commented on ok what's that would be helpful what's your best to circuit case because you said in this court the juveniles do not present threats to themselves or other detainees if you say we've got it just or or should be treated i would suggest the rogue case here oh yes your honor and if i may just have a second i'll give you the side that's the fist circuits you ninety nine fed third involving a juvenile strip search of by a social worker of a juvenile at her home in that case the fifth circuit a plot of probable cause standard required a warrant exigent circumstances but before it would authorize that search i understand it is not in the correctional setting it's not in the juvenile setting it's not that i'm sorry it's not in the correctional setting of the jail setting but i do think that that case recognizes that you have to treat juveniles differently that's where wrote came down it said look we're not going to permit the searches to be done absent there being probable cause absent there being a better or worse whether there was a due process error or whether or not mr anthony's to do so after we don't have in front of us whether this girl should have been arrested for pulling here or not she arrives at the center they've got to deal with her they have no choice they can say no we would take her and so we operate in a detention center context and i'm curious if the record has anything to suggest that you've  suicidal they have to be less concerned about shoe laces or shanks or whatever we don't know you say that we should be less concerned and you cite road but that wasn't presented in if the florence decision says that's your burden that's a problem for roe we cite safir and we would also suggest that before the court can do any type of balancing under the penal logical interest test we have the burden of showing what the intrusion is and the intrusion is significant and we've put on record evidence of what the intrusion was in this case there is zero evidence from lee county as to what they're paying the logical interest is other than generally saying that these things happen they did the wanting they did a pat down search there was no reasonable suspicion and we would ask this court to apply a standard that with reasonable suspicion or the special needs test thank you your honor thank you for your argument i'll take a short