Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 64 views

    Tims Part of Part 4

    Uploaded by

    api-250473581

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tims Part of Part 4

    Uploaded by

    api-250473581
    64 views4 pages

    Original Title

    tims part of part 4

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    64 views4 pages

    Tims Part of Part 4

    Uploaded by

    api-250473581

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    Court Cases Used as References Goss v.

    Lopez
    Constitutional Question: Does due process get cancelled out depending on the crime committed? Background: Nine Students including Dwight Lopez got suspended from Central High School for 10 days for destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment. Lopez testified that 75 students have in the same day. Ohio law states you can suspend students up to 10 days. It has to be notified to the parents within the 24 hours. Courts Decision: The Court Split 5-4 held that the state had violated due process by suspending the students without a hearing. Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. Concurring or Dissenting Opinion: Justice Powell invite that dissent, the graved that the Ohio statute had granted the right to education but not the right to education with description he challenged the courts finding that the suspension was severe enough to bring the due process clause into play. Powell also argued that the safeguards provide by Ohio were sufficient. Explanation of Case: This case relates to Alexs and Mikes because they were suspended and expelled without due process. Alex and Mike were given an unnecessary punishment without getting a hearing and then punishment wasnt even needed at the time.

    New Jersey v. T.L.O.


    Constitutional Question: How far can search and seizure go in an investigation of a student? Background: Two Freshmen were caught smoking in the bathrooms. Smoking at school wasnt prohibited but students were only supposed to smoke in designated areas. Vice principal asked to see TLOs purse and he found the stuff but also found rolling paper which tied into Mary J. Then he went on and found drugs and money and was expelled from the district. Courts Decision: The Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision issued by Justice White, between the individuals even a childs, legitimate expectations of privacy and the schools interest in maintaining order and discipline with that being said New Jersey ended up winning the case. Concurring or Dissenting Opinion: In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Powell stated that students in primary and secondary educational settings shouldnt be afforded the same level of protection for search and seizures as adults. Explanation of the Case: This case was a lot similar to ours when it comes to searches. The principal searched her bag for the cigarettes but in plain view he also found rolling paper for Mary J, which gave him reason to continue searching.

    Safford v. Redding Background: reports that drug dealing was happening. Prescription strength drugs were identified and the dealer was named. 13 year old Sarenna Redding, the suspect, was them strip searched and nothing was found.

    Courts Decision: the court decided the search was unconstitutional. The facts may have been too elaborate and could have been false. The facts themselves even demonstrate a violation of Reddings rights.

    Dissenting opinion: justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissented as to the qualified immunity. They explained to her the laws clearly, which stated whether the search has gone too far and these officials knew it and did it anyway. They had no reason to strip search Redding.

    Explanation: this case blew me away. It shows just how far schools will push their limits, and almost like cops, abuse their power.

    Board of Education v. Earls Constitutional Question: Amendment IV of the constitution.

    Background: the families of Lindsay Earls and Daniel James believed random drug testing for extracurricular activities was unconstitutional.

    Courts Decision: the courts decided that the school had no right to random srug tests as to there were no issues that would need it.

    Summary: drug testing Alex was not legal because it was stated that the testing was random when it was actually targeted.

    You might also like