MAE-EL 5020 School Law
Unit 3 Quiz
Joshua Shelton
Please answer True and False questions with a supporting statement.
1. True or False – In a “pat-down” search, the administration should be conducted by either male or female and does not need a witness.
False – the administration of the “pat down” should be conducted by a person of the same sex of the individual being searched. There should always be a witness when a search is being conducted. Having the witness protects both the student and the individual conducting the “pat down.”
2. True or False – Searches involving law enforcement must be accompanied by probable cause and a search warrant.
If law enforcement officials enter the school to conduct a search, the search must be preceded by a warrant. If a
…show more content…
The teacher will also need to act swiftly to complaints filed by students so that everyone knows that the institution takes harassment very seriously. The teacher will need to create an environment where students will feel safe and comfortable when reporting harassment complaints and the teacher should protect the confidentiality of students filing harassment complaints.
8. Are school personnel responsible for reporting suspected cases of child abuse to the appropriate agency? If so what person is responsible for doing the reporting?
Yes, school personnel are responsible for reporting suspected child abuse to the appropriate agency. The person responsible for doing the reporting is the person that sees or suspects the child abuse. The person that sees or suspects the child abuse should report it immediately to the appropriate agency and never assume someone else will do it. If it turns out that there has been no child abuse but the teacher made the report in good faith, then they will be granted immunity.
9. What do courts in the mean by the term
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
A warranted search is per say reasonable. Officers may then employ various reasonable means of obtaining the information, e.g. search the content of U.S. mail, one’s house or office, or deploy an undercover agent as in Lewis v. United States (1966). They may, without need for physical intrusion as under the archaic trespass doctrine, utilize modern surveillance methods, such as electronic eavesdropping as in Lopez v. United States (1963) or heat signatures. (Solove and Schwartz 83) Under the third party doctrine, officers may obtain information that you voluntarily provide to your bank, accountant, ISP or e-mail provider as per United States v. Forrester (2008). (Ibid 197; 199) Conversely, “a warrantless search is generally considered to be per se unreasonable.” (Ibid 99) As noted in Katz v. United States (1967), “‘the mandate of the [Fourth] Amendment requires adherence to judicial processes,’ and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable…” (Ibid 99) Fail to meet any of the four elements and the warrant does not meet constitutional muster (see Berger v. New York (1967) wherein officers failed to stop surveillance at
Participating in the Mandated Reporter Training is a helpful tool for understanding the role of a social worker as a professional if and when one learns information concerning abuse of a minor. The goal of a social worker is to improve the quality of life for all individuals and if one learns about any type of abuse-physical, sexual, emotional, and/or neglect- it is their responsibility to bring this information to the proper authorities. The training stated that, “Research has shown that when multidisciplinary protocols are followed arrest and prosecution rates increase and trauma to the child decreases” (Arizona Child Abuse Info Center).
... 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.
Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining legality of searches conducted by public school officials.
That being said, the government can still conduct searches and seizures if the government follows certain steps correctly. Searches and seizures require a specific warrant written by a detached and neutral magistrate based on probable cause. This warrant requirement can be waived, depending on the circumstances of the incident. Some examples of this include the automobile exception, emergencies, searches incident prior to arrest, and exigent circumstances. Police may also make warrantless arrests provided they have probable cause prior to the arrest.
One of the Legal Rights the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects is: The right to be free of imprisonment, search, and seizure without reasons backed by the law. “In a undisclosed school in Canada, there was a sudden police checking, in which police dogs roamed around the hallway of the school to see if there was any suspicious substance or object. During the checking, the police fo...
Law enforcement officers need a reason to stop you. Remember, it cannot be just a hunch the police officer had. Their action has to be backed up with facts that led him to believe you, or someone else had committed a crime. Like the Supreme Court cases we went over, all dealt with reasonable suspicion in some way. Reasonable suspicion is the standard police officers need to stop and frisk someone. They will need probable cause, a higher standard, to search and arrest a person. Remember, officers need reasonable suspicion to stop, question, and
Search and seizures is supposed to be carried out by law enforcement officers that get a court ordered warrant from a judge. There are two causes of search warrants. The first clause lawyers usually call it the "re...
Terry which he claimed that his Fourth Amendment which protects all citizens from unreasonable search without a warrant was violated from the moment the officer searched him. Terry appealed the case to the Supreme Court in 1967. The case came also to be known as the “stop and frisk” case. The reason why the name was given is because the officers are only allowed to frisk suspects not search them. The differences between a pat down and a search is that in a pat down, the officer can only pad the individual for hard items they may have inside their pockets. The pat down is mainly to know if the suspect is carrying any weapon that they can use to harm the officer or any other person. Searching a suspect is a little different because that includes a thorough search like checking what is inside a purse or wallet. During a search, an officer could inspect soft things in the pockets of the individual like a small bag of drugs. During a pat down, the officer is not permitted to inspect soft items inside an individual’s pocket. The case collides with the protection that the Fourth Amendment provides us from unreasonable search with no warrant and the prevention of crimes. In 1968, the Supreme Court affirmed that police officers are allowed to pat and frisk individual without probable cause for an arrest. It expands the authority of the police officer to examine crimes before they happen without reasonable basis for suspicious. This decision ensures
There are so many people who could be considered as third parties who are obligated by state laws to report any type of neglect or abuse to the proper authorities. To get to the point some of the third parties who have a commitment to report child abuse or neglect which happens to be in the professional field are doctors, dentists, teachers, police officers, day care workers, clergymen, lawyers, therapists or counselors and etc... Sometimes professionals who are considered to be third parties have the advantage to whether or not if they report child abuse or neglect to the proper authorities. Others people that can be considered as third parties are family members, friends of the family and associates, but most times these groups of people may find it difficult to do so because of family ties to the abuser (Hess & Orthmann, 2010).
Each year thousands of Americans are stopped by the police in order to be questioned and frisked. Everyone understands that each stop, question and frisk encounter violated the established constitutional rights. The legal issues which refer to the Stop, Question, and Frisk policy are associated with violation of certain rules that create a debate regarding the validity of the practices. The controversial Stop, Question, and Frisk practices require thorough investigation. It is illegal to aggressively stop and question American citizens who merely enter public places. In many cases, law enforcement personnel uses creative ways to stop, question and frisk people who have shown no evidence of being involved in criminal activity. For example, the New York Police Department’s “Operation Clean Halls” has been used since 1991 allowing local police officers to conduct the so-called “vertical patrols” by providing well-organized stop-and-frisk searches in hallways of public buildings (Mathias, 2012). Actually, the Stop, Question, and Frisk practiced in New York City by the City Police Department stands for the legal procedure, which requires stop and question thousands of people, as well as frisk them for weapons, drugs and other contraband. In fact, the Stop,
Child Abuse is something that children all around the world have to deal with every day. Child abuse can cause physical and mental effects on a child. It occurs very frequently and can happen for many different reasons. There is a law now stating that reporting child abuse is mandatory and you should report it immediately. There are thousands of child abuse victims every year.
... law enforcement and legal counsel will be involved. It may also be necessary to contact a child psychologist or other therapist to assist.
The act of search and seizure is derived from the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment is focused on privacy. Its sole purpose is to protect against unreasonable search and seizures performed by State and/or Federal authorities. Most search and seizures are performed by law enforcement officials. There are certain circumstances in which search and seizures are considered reasonable. They can include but not limited to, owner consent, an issued warrant, probable cause, reasonable suspicion and reasonable expectation of privacy. With any of these circumstances an officer has the right to conduct a search of the suspect. A search and seizure is only to be considered unlawful when an individual’s personal property i.e., their house or car is searched or breached without owner consent. Consent is the permission granted for a search to given in one’s personal property. Otherwise, a warrant must be issued for the conducted search in order for evidence to be admitted lawfully. If...