Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining legality of searches conducted by public school officials. On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier of 1987-1988 Background: At Hazel East High School, the school has a sponsored newspaper called “The Spectrum” that is written and edited by the students. In May of 1983, the high school principal, Robert E. Reynolds, received the edited version of the May 13th edition. Upon inspecting the paper, he found two articles that he found “inappropriate.” The two articles contained stories about divorce and teen pregnancy. An article on divorce featured a student who blamed her father’s actions for her parents’ divorce.
Facts: On November 2006 the Miami-Dade police department received an anonymous tip that the home of Joelis Jardines was been used to grow marihuana. On December 2006 two detectives along with a trained drug sniffing dog approached Jardines home. At the front door the dog signaled for drugs, as well as the detective who smelled the marihuana coming from inside. Detectives then wrote an affidavit and obtained a search warrant that confirmed the growth of marihuana in Jardine’s home. Jardines was then charged for drug trafficking. Jardines then tried to suppress all evidence and say that in theory during the drug sniffing dog was an illegal search under the 4th amendment. The trial courts then ruled to suppress all evidence, the state appellate courts then appealed and reversed, the standing concluding that there was no illegal search and the dog’s presence did not require a warrant. The Florida supreme court then reverse the appellate court’s decision and concluded that a dog sniffing a home for investigativ...
(Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The judges in this case needed to determine of Elmwood Park Board of Education was at all responsible for this act due to lack of supervision of Bracigliano (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The facts of the case explain that Bracigliano obstructed views into his office as soon as he became the principal in 1982, which was against a New Jersey law that required every room used by school staff to have a view into it (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). During his tenure as principal a state inspector ordered that the covering be removed, which it was, but only temporarily (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). The School Board was aware that the covering was ordered to be removed by the state inspector, but they never verified that it had in fact been removed (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). Staff members were also aware that students frequently visited Bracigliano’s office, the door was locked, and pictures were taken when the students were in there (Frugis v. Bracigliano, 2003). Several staff members also witnessed Bracigliano doing inappropriate things to students, but they were unaware of the procedure to report these acts and, therefore, the acts went unreported to Bracigliano’s superiors (Frugis v.
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
Robert Duffley, a high school senior at Trinity High School, had withdrawn from his sophomore year early in the first semester after falling ill. Anticipating problems with his eligibility to participate in high-school sports during his senior year under certain NHIAA rules, Duffley’s principal sought a ruling from the NHIAA granting such eligibility. The NHIAA decided to allow Duffley to participate only during the first semester of his senior year. No reason was given for denying Duffley eligibility for the second semester. After unsuccessful appeals to the NHIAA executive council, Duffley filed a petition in the Superior Court, seeking equitable and injunctive relief. Duffley alleged "violation of his due process rights” and that the defendant had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in arriving at its decision, which was “unreasonable and unlawful."
While both the people of the New England region and of the Chesapeake region descended from the same English origin, by 1700 both regions had traveled in two diverse directions. Since both of these groups were beset with issues that were unique to their regions and due to their exposure to different circumstances, each was forced to rethink and reconstruct their societies. As a result, the differences in the motivation, geography, and government in the New England and Chesapeake regions caused great divergence in the development of each.
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.
In the fall of 1991, respondent James Acton, then a seventh-grader, signed up to play football at one of the District's grade schools. He was denied participation because he and his parents refused to sign the testing consent forms. The Actons filled suit on the grounds that it violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The federal district court ruled in the school district's favor, but the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that although the district had laid the foundation for a drug policy, the interest was not so compelling as to justify a random testing program. The time between the 1980's and 1990's America saw a dramatic increase in drug use which spread through nearly every community in the nation. Drugs had not previously been a major problem in Vernonia schools. In the mid-to-late 1980's, however, teachers and administrators observed an increase in drug use. Students began to speak out about their attraction to the drug culture, and boasted that there was nothing the school could do about it.
In the twenty century, the U.S society was in the period of tending to be a human base society. The laws in America were introduced to create a fair and regulated society for its citizens. The First and Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution granted that the U.S citizens have the freedom of speech. And the New York State had its law of Criminal Anarchy Act since 1902 for “organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means (n.p).” The citizen in the any state of the U.S should always both obey the state law and follow the national constitution. Otherwise, the citizen would get corresponding punishment for jail, community service or even death for most states. However, the case of Gitlow vs New York happened in 1925 that majorly argued about the U.S citizens’ guaranteed freedom of speech in the First Amendment of Constitution and the New York State’s Criminal Anarchy Act.
Reasonableness Standard. The Supreme Court established a standard to the Fourth Amendment called objective reasonableness. Objective reasonableness assesses an officer’s use of force when making an arrest or any other seizure of a person. Since this case the Supreme Court has hel...
In document D the court sided with the students, but the students must serve ten days, but the ten day suspension will not be shown on their records. It must pose a threat, there was no threat so they sided with the students.In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension.J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language.J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.This evidence helps explain why schools should not limit students’ online speech because it didn 't cause a substantial disruption.
Occasionally, certain instances have occurred in which school administrators or staff members have been allowed or instructed to search through the personal belongings of students, sometimes without the