Do you agree or disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court majority in your case? Why? Be sure to ID the case and be specific in your reasoning. 1/2 to 1 page.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus - The latest Supreme Court case examining your rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/washington/20scotus.html?ex=1175054400&en=8b93f1ab98e345e7&ei=5070&emc=eta1
57 comments:
The case that I read about was TLO v. New Jersey. In this case, a fourteen year old girl was suspected of smoking in the girls’ bathroom. The principal asked her to come to his office and demanded to see her school bag. He searched her bag and found a pack of cigarettes. While removing the cigarettes from TLO’s bag, the principal noticed rolling papers. After this discovery, he proceeded to search her bag, this time more thoroughly, and found marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, money, a list of students who owed her money, and letters implicating TLO in dealing marijuana. The case was heard by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County, the appellate division, the Supreme Court of New Jersey, and finally the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States ultimately ruled in favor of New Jersey. Justice Bryon White said, “The rights of children and adolescents are not the same as those of adults and school officials have a responsibility to maintain the discipline necessary for education. “The school setting,” White wrote, “…requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search.”
I definitely agree with the Supreme Court’s ruling. Upon entering school, the rights of students must be limited in order to ensure the safety of everyone else in the school. The principal’s suspicion of TLO was sufficient justification in his searching of her school bag. The principal found what he was looking for, and upon removing the cigarettes from the bag, made an accidental discovery. This serendipitous discovery justified the principal’s continued search of TLO’s possessions. In short, I believe that the principal was completely within his power in searching TLO’s bag. Because the principal discovered TLO smoking, he had probable cause for his initial search. When he accidentally found the rolling papers, he had justification to continue his search.
In the court case TLO vs. New Jersey, a young high school student claimed that her 4th and 14th amendment rights were violated when a vice principal seized and searched her schoolbag. Allegedly, the vice principal found TLO smoking in the bathroom, and took her to his office, where he uncovered cigarettes, rolling papers and other drug paraphernalia while searching her bag. She was then arrested and sent to juvenile court where it was decided that her fourth amendment rights were not violated. The case was then appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, where the school was found to have violated TLO’s rights. The school then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the decision was reversed again to state that there was no violation of her rights.
I think that the final ruling was morally correct, but that it should have been dealt with differently. While it is obviously illegal to carry drug paraphernalia around anywhere in public, the only form of authority that could search you would be the police, so I don’t see why in school it is any different. At most schools, there is an on-duty police officer, so I think that the vice principal should have reported it and let the police handle the situation. They have much higher authority, and since there was reasonable suspicion of illegal activity, getting the police involved would have been more practical. Overall, I agree with the courts decision because TLO was doing something that would have been considered illegal anywhere in the country, not just in school.
I read the case that was on Hazelwood School Dist. VS Kuhlmeier. A couple of students were writing out the school paper, including 2 articles which concerned the impact caused by teen pregnancy and parental divorce. When the students took the paper to the principal to have it reviewed before publication, he took note of the two articles. When the paper was finally released, 2 whole pages from the newspaper were left out, which offended those who were involved in working on it. The case was then taken to Supreme Court. The principal's defending statement was that the school paper is not a public forum and isn't intended to be used that way. He also explained that the topics covered in the 2 articles were inappropriate for teenagers, and that it would not only affect the school's reputation, but it would also result in criticism towards divorced parents. The students' arguement was that the principal's actions violated The First Amendment in the Constitution where it gives students the Freedom of the Press. Unfortunately, the case was given to the principal, which pretty much ended student journalists' efforts to gain press freedom.
As a matter of fact, I think it was rather ridiculous to pull out the articles from the school paper. The principal claims that it was "unfair" to the students to include articles concerning such topics, but leaving out a portion of the newspaper which the students worked hard on has made it "unfair" for them. Not only that, but the principal didn't even let the students know he was taking out the 2 pages from the paper. It would be one thing if he notified the students before-hand that he had to remove a portion of the school paper, but they weren't even consulted.
I am torn on the decision made by the Supreme Court in the case Acton vs. The Vernonia School District. The school had required athletes to be tested for drugs, and when Acton refused, the no longer allowed him to play football. The District Court initially ruled in favor of the school. The case was then appealed and sided with the student. Finally in the end, the Supreme Court ruled that the school had the right to drug test students involved in extra curricular activities. While I slightly agree, I also slightly disagree. I understand the position of the school. The children attending the school are the school’s responsibility and the school must do whatever it can to keep them safe. Students are required to have a physical examination, and in this case, the school argued that the drug tests are just part of that examination. It is also the school’s responsibility to ensure that all sporting events are fair. The use of performance enhancing drugs can alter the outcome of a game. This is in no way just for those who play by the rules. Performance enhancing drugs are also very dangerous and can have consequences resulting in injury, health conditions, and even death. The school was just trying to protect their students. However, I do understand the case made by Acton. The means for obtaining these drugs samples is both intrusive and embarrassing. It doesn’t see fair for those who do follow the rules to have to endure this humiliation. I think that drug testing may be in order if there is reasonable suspicion. I do not feel as though the time, money are being used in the best way. While there may be many students who do use steroids, there are also many more that do not. I also feel that it is not necessary to test those students involved in activities where performance enhancing drugs would really not be useful. Just because the knitting club is a school activity does not mean that the testing resources should be used on them. The humiliation is certainly not needed. Being a student myself, I understand how ridiculous this is. My conclusion about the case is that I agree with both sides, however, instead of fully siding with the school, the court should have ruled that school’s should only drug test if there is a strong suspicion involved.
The case that I read was Goss v. Lopez, in which 10 students claimed that their due process rights were violated when the principal of the school they were attending gave them each 10 days of out of school suspension without a hearing. They argued that the school did not have the right to suspend them without allowing them a chance to defend themselves at a hearing. A federal court ruled that the school needed to give the students a proper hearing and that the suspensions were unconstitutional. The school appealed the ruling and the case made it to the Supreme Court where the ruling of the lower court was upheld saying that “students facing temporary suspension from school have property and liberty interests that qualify for protection under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.” The court did say, however, that the hearing did not have to be before the beginning of the suspension if the situation required that the student(s) be immediately removed from the school environment.
I feel that the ruling of the court was correct and that students should be allowed a hearing if they face possible suspension from school. This way, the suspension would have to be thought out properly, and a reasonable length could be determined, based on what exactly the student(s) did. If administrators could simply give out suspensions when they want to and for whatever number of days they decide on the spot, there is a good chance that some students would be treated unfairly. If the situations would be treated more like they are in the legal system decisions would be fairer, and not as many issues would result.
In the court case Goss vs. Lopez, nine students from three different schools in Columbus, Ohio were suspended from school for ten days. The school principals did not hold hearings for the students before ordering these suspensions, because Ohio state law did not require them to do so. The principals’ action was challenged because the students believed that their constitutional right to due process was violated. A federal court found that the students’ rights had been violated. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed with the federal court, and determined that under the Due Process clause in the 14th Amendment, the students should have been given oral or written notice of the charges against him, and an explanation of the evidence if the student should deny these charges. If this happens, the student should also have an opportunity to present his version of what happened. The court also ruled that if the circumstances were severe enough, the student could be removed from school before being given a hearing. However, if this occurs, the student must be given a hearing in a timely manner.
I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court in this case. A ten day suspension that would be included in the students’ permanent school record would have a significant effect on getting into college or obtaining a career in the future. Because of this, I feel that the students should have a right to know why they are being suspended. A student should have the opportunity to share what he believed happen with the school administration. There is always the possibility that the student is being unfairly charged, and due process could potentially prevent this from happening. I also agree with the court’s ruling that if the situation is extreme, the student can removed from school immediately without a hearing first. This is in order to protect other students. In this situation, I agree that the student can have a hearing shortly after the suspension occurs. I definitely agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Goss vs. Lopez. Everyone should have the right to due process, whether it is out of school or in school.
First things first, to all you students who are in favor of them taking away your rights, SHAME! Now, on to the assignment:
The Court Case, Hazelwood Vs. Kuhlmeier, came to a disastrous end when the judges voted 5 to 3 in the favor of the principle. May those just and wonderful 3 judges who voted against be forever a stand for the rights of myself and my peers (note: I don’t use and will not use the word ‘minors’, because it’s demeaning, anti-American, and unfairly unjust. We are Citizens, and just as much so as anyone else). All of the citizens of the United States have been given a series of rights and freedoms practically unheard of anywhere else in the world through the constant sacrifice of good men and women. Those who founded our country died for an ideal, knowing that there was no hope for them to enjoy it, and only hoping that future generations would be able to have what they lacked. They were willing to die so that we could have freedoms, and now we slander their good names and lives by denying these hard-won rights to some people simply because of their age. There were kids our age that died in the Revolutionary war. Hell, there were kids our age who died in every war America has been in. We are still American Citizens, despite our age. Being under 18 doesn’t make us political enemies. Why are they treating us like Anti-Americans, when there are those of us helping to fight the people who really are against America? I’ll give you a hint: It’s not because we are organizing in rallies to overthrow the government (we’re not), It’s not because we are strapping bombs to ourselves and killing our fellow Americans (we’re not!), and it’s certainly not that we are kidnapping, torturing, or murdering our fellow Americans (We Most Certainly are not!). It’s simply because we are under 18. But, they deny us the basic rights that we have fought for and died for so that those above 19 could enjoy those freedoms denied to us! This court case, which I can hardly define as a true court case as that would mean that the right decision had been made, denies us any form of “freedom of the press”. What did our forefathers die for? When they were ruled by the Imperialistic Britain, they made and distributed underground and contraband newspapers to pass information and rally the people. This was a key factor in our independence, and if the people involved in that learned that the government was not letting the kids do the same, they would jump out of their graves and start all over again. And it’s not like we are all getting together to overthrow the American government in our school newspapers. Hell, we have our Blogs and Rants and Slams to do that if we want to. All we want to do is write about the issues we feel are important to our school. Let’s look at this “court case” a bit further, shall we? The mistreated students involved were trying to get two pieces out, one on divorce and one on teen pregnancy. And what did the principal say? “It’s not good for the freshman to read this, it’s not fair to the other parties, it’s not proper” Blah Blah Blah. Shut up. First of all, statistics show that he’s being stupid in his first point. Since 1960, the divorce rate has more than doubled in America, and one out of every 3 families end in a divorce. About 16.7 million in the year 1996 along experienced divorce. Not only that, we have the highest percentage of single-parent families in the world and the highest teenage birth rate in the industrialized world (by far). Not to mention that the percentage of births out of wedlock have increased by over 500 percent since 1960 (the percentage of white babies born out of wedlock is now at 25.8 percent of all white baby births!). And in 1996, 3 million kids were born out of wedlock and experienced the divorce of their parents! So, incase it hasn’t become clear from the numbers, the Principal is WRONG. High school kids need to know about this, as probability shows that they will most likely deal with it themselves, and it’s always better to get help before hand than after. As far as not being fair to the other parties, the point of the articles were to inform the students that others like them were going through the same thing, and to include the opinions of those on the other side would have been pointless. Which would you rather hear, the opinion of the father who left his family for another woman, or the opinion of the girl whose father left her? Hell, high school is tough on us, which most people above 19 forget, and it’s important to have people to talk to and relate with to survive. As far as not being proper, yes, the articles mention birth control (gasp) and sex (gasp again!). Guess what? We have to learn about all that junk in Health class anyways, and better to hear the opinion of a fellow student than a teacher. Oh, and in case I forgot to mention this, the school is the one teaching students about birth control (gasp) and sex (gasp again!) anyways! So, does a student who mentions using birth control deserve to be punished or should the teacher who teaches you how to put on a condom be the one getting yelled at? So, now that I’ve managed to finally come back to the subject at hand, The Principal Was Wrong. We Have Our Rights. Our Fathers Died For These Rights. We’ve Died For These Rights. We Deserve The Rights We Died For. The Government Can NOT Deny Us Our Rights As Americans. We Are All Still American Citizens No Matter The Age. The Supreme Court Sucks (except for the 3 good people, more power to them). That is all. If I keep going, I’ll start swearing. To summarize, the Court decision was wrong. And any kid who disagrees should be denied all of his rights as Americans and taken to Cuba or something to see how they like not being American.
I do agree with the decision of the Supreme court. In my particular case, the Court ruled in favor of the students, and I think that was the right thing to do. The school suspended multiple students for “misconduct” for ten days. That is two school weeks, without having a trial. Now that is not fair to the students. Getting OSS is something that goes on your permanent record, which can affect which colleges you get into, and basically your entire future. It was not fair at all for the school to give these students such harsh punishments without giving them a fair trial. It does not matter what they did, but if you are going to give a ten day suspension, you need to have a trial. Not giving the students a trial violates their constitutional right as a citizen of the United States. Giving students a punishment that can harshly mess up their future is not only not fair, but unconstitutional as well. This case went from the district court to the federal court to finally the supreme court, which ruled, in my opinion, the right way. In favor of the students.
My group's court case was TLO v. New Jersey. A young girl, found smoking in her school's bathroom, was brought to the principals office, where her bag was searched. After the principal had already found the pack of cigarettes she had been smoking along with rolling papers, he continued on, finding a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. TLO was suspended by the school and tried for drug possession by the district juvenile court, where she was sentenced to a year of detainment. Appealing the case to the State Court, TLO believed it was unconstitutional for the principal to continue searching her bag after he found evidence to her original infraction, thereby making the other illegal substances she was carrying void in court. Though the State court sided with her, the Supreme Court overruled the verdict, stating that the principal continued his search due to reasonable suspicion.
I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling. In this case, the principal was not overstepping his bounds by searching the bag, as he was looking for evidence against the student. If she hadn't been explicitly caught smoking, it wouldn't have been right to simply search its contents. However, because it was pretty evident that there was going to be drugs in the bag (because of the presence of the rolling papers) it was reasonable to assume that further illegal conduct was taking place.
Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987)
I personally believe that the school has a right and a need to uphold the ideals of proper education and order within a school building. This means maintaining stability by banning activities that could seriously disrupt the school and the process of teaching. If a student gives a sexually suggestive speech that disrupts the learning process, the school has a right to punish the student. Even if the students do hear lewd speech outside the school, it is the schools responsibility to keep a stable learning environment within the confines of the school. So, if there is a disruption, the school should have the power to first warn, then restrict, then punish any student that creates a disruption.
Though I do hold that disruptive speech should be punished, I also feel that the school could have done more to prevent and properly censure the situation. The school did have the right to protect against disruptions, but it went about it in the wrong way. In this case, the student asked for three teacher’s approval before giving the speech. Though the teachers did not approve of it, they did not stop the student from giving it. They only said that the speech would “raise some eyebrows”. This is where the school is at fault. If the student was properly warned and gave the speech anyway, there would be grounds for suspension. Because, the student did create a disturbance, and the school did what it could to avoid it. But in the real situation, the school failed in its responsibility to avoid or censure disruptive speech. They allowed the speech to be given, and only after it was given did the school try and stop the disruption. This is unfair to the student involved.
My final opinion is such: the school has a right to first warn, then restrict, then punish any student that creates a disruption to the learning process. But it is the schools responsibility to stop disruptions at the first opportunity.
The case that I read about was TLO v. New Jersey. This case was about a 14 year old girl who was accused of smoking in the girls bathroom of her high school. The girl was questioned by her principle, and he also searched her bag. While searching he found the pack of cigarettes that he was looking for, but also felt the need to look further and caused him to find drug paraphanilia. The 4th amendment states; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I feel that the principle violated the 4th amendment by going further into the girls bag, when he found the cigarettes he was looking for right on top of the bag. It's hard to say where I stand in this case becaase I feel that the girls 4th amendment rights were violated, but I also agree with the supreme court when they say that the students rights must be limited in order to ensure the saftey of the students and teachers in the school.
The case I read about was Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which dealt with freedom of press. Students wrote several controversial articles for the school newspaper, which the principal did not approve. The students went to court stating that their first amendment rights had been violated. The case eventually got to the Supreme Court and they ruled against the students, saying that the school had the right to limit what they allowed to be printed and distributed in the school. I agree with the final decision of the courts. The school should be able to censor what is written in the school newspaper because it directly reflects the well-being of the students who read it and the school’s reputation. In this case, the school is not a public forum in which anyone is allowed to say anything they want. It would have been a different story if the students had written the articles outside of school and distributed them around. In that case, the school wouldn’t be involved. But since the articles were written for an extra-curricular through the school, the school has every right to limit what goes in it. It may not seem fair to some, but if the school finds something obscene or inappropriate, they make the decision whether or not to approve it.
Bethel School District vs. Fraser
This court case was about a student who gave a nomination speech that contained sexual innuendos. “He is firm in his pants.” When he first created the speech he got the opinions from three different teachers and the teachers did not stop him from giving the speech which surprises me very much. When the student gave the speech it was in the presence of fourteen year olds. After the speech was given several teacher complaints were filed, he was suspended for three days and the school took away his chance of speaking at the graduation ceremony. Although Matt Fraser only served two days of suspension and returned to school on the third day and was later granted the opportunity to speak at graduation, the school still had the right to punish him. When this case was brought to the lower courts the judges sided with the student and rewarded him about $13,000 for lawyer fees. But when the case reached the Supreme Court, the decision was in favor of the school with a majority of 7 to 2. There was a Descending Order from Justice Stevens who said that times were changing and to conform to the generation such as of movies containing sexual references.
I agree with the Supreme Court to an extent. I do believe that the court needs to conform to changing ways of America, and at the same time I think that the school made the right decision because of the type of audience that was present when the speech was given. If the speech was given to an older more mature audience and the school suspended him I don’t think that would have been right, but given the circumstances of the situation I think the Supreme Court was right to make the ruling that it did.
Melissa Tuohy
In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O. a 14 year old girl was accused of smoking cigarettes in the bathroom at school. When sent to the principal’s office he searched her bag and found a pack of cigarettes right at the top. While looking for the pack of cigarettes he found rolling papers and continued his search where he proceeded to find marijuana and drug paraphernalia. The case eventually went to the Supreme Court where they decided that it was not unconstitutional to search her bag as long as they had some sort of probable cause. I believe that in a way the principal had the right to search her bag, but at the same time he did not. When he opened the bag and saw the pack of cigarettes he should have stopped his search unless he saw the rolling papers at the same time. I feel that he continued his search through her bag just because he could. He didn’t have any other reason to believe that she was doing or selling drugs, but after he completed his search he did. Because we do have different rights in school than out of school, she was right in letting him search her bag but I believe that he went too far in this case.
The case that my group was assigned to was the Acton vs. The Vernonia School District. In this case, the school required that all athletes submitted to drug testing.When one student refused, he was suspended from playing football. When the case was taken to the District Court, they ruled in favor of the school but the case was appealed and sided with the student. Once it reached the Supreme Court,they ruled that the school had the right to drug test any students that were involved in extra curricular activities. It is the school's priority to keep their students safe, and they believe that these tests will help them do that. Whenever you are involved in a sport, they require you to have a physical and the school wanted to make these tests part of that. So I do agree with this part of their decesion, because they just wanted to keep them safe and make sure the sporting events were purely fair and entertaining. However,I can also respect Acton's decesion because the tests intrude on students privacy, and being a student myself I wouldn't feel comfortable with the way that the tests would be given, and I wouldn't want to be put through the embarassment. The testing isn't fair to the people who follow the rules and don't use performance enhancing drugs. Therefore, I think that the only way that the school should be able to administer the tests is if they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the student is using the drug. Students who are clean should not have to be punished, and the few that break the rules should not be the cause for the intrusion on everyone else. Plus, it's expensive for the school to spend money on all the tests that they would need to buy in order to test every student involved in out of school activites. Also, not every extracurriculer activity would have a suspicion for drug use, such as future business leaders of america. There is no reason for these other activites to have to go through this just because one person may be using steroids. So, I can see how the Supreme Court can rule in favor of the school because they want to protect the safety of their students and the reputation of their institution. However, I also don't believe all the students should be subjected to these humiliating and intrusive drug tests.
The court case I had was Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. In this case the principal at a high school took out two articles from the school newspaper without any notice. One of the articles was about a girl who was pregnant at the school. The second case was about a student who dislikes her stepdad. The court ruled that the principal had the right to do this because the newspaper was produced from a class that was part of the school. Because this newspaper was part of school the school had all control. I agree with the court’s ruling to judge it was acceptable for the principal to take out the articles without notice. This is because everything about the publishing of the newspaper is connected to the school. Because of this the newspaper represents the school and the school has the right to determine how the school is represented. If this newspaper was produced by students and the school was not involved then the principals action wouldn’t of been acceptable. For example if the students met out of school and payed for all the publishing then it would be acceptable to say that the principal has no control. Though we have freedom of speech it’s only to a certain extent. I think this case is a good example of this idea because freedom of speech is relative to it’s situation.
In the case I read, it was a fourteen year-old girl referred to as T.L.O. verses the state of New Jersey. She was foudn smoking cigarettes in the school bathroom, and had a pack of them on her. When she got caught, the teacher saw the cigarettes on the top of her bag and decided to go through with a more thorough search of ehr purse, coming across many other things such as marijuana and rolling papers. The supreme court ruled that it was a constitutional search and did not violate any of her rights. For certain reasons I agree and for others I disagree. I agree with the ruling because she did give probable cause to search her bag because of her being in the bathroom and then the visable pack of cigarettes on the top of her bag, but at the same time, if the teacher was only trying to prove she smoking cigarettes in the bathroom, why would he have to further search her bag if he found all the evidence he was looking for. I think that only the priciple of a school should be able to further a search such as this one because of the seriousness that could come from the case. Overall, I do agree with the decision, I just feel as if it could have been handled differently.
In the case Acton vs. the Vernonia School District, it is hard to pick just one side. I agree with both sides. As a student athlete, I can understand why Acton didn’t want to take the drug test. Not only is it embarrassing, but insulting to those who follow the rules and don’t take any kind of drugs. I also agree with the Supreme Court in saying the school has a right to have random drug tests on students that participate in school athletics. In professional sports today the use of performance enhancing drugs is a big problem. If a student athlete sees professionals getting away with using drugs, then they’ll think “why can’t I?” The use of performance enhancing is dangerous to your health and it is cheating. It is the school’s responsibility to make sure the athletes are safe and healthy, and to make sure they do not cheat at whatever sports they participate in. As you can see, it is hard to choose just one side.
In the case of Bethel vs. Frasier the courts ruled in favor of the schools saying that the student did not have a right to speak is such a vulgar manner.
When I read the speech, I could understand why the school was upset towards what the student said, but it is all in the interpretation of the speech. The student didn’t come right out and say anything wrong, but the manner in which he expressed his speech and how it was worded made it sound as if he was making sexual inferences.
I can see where the court in coming from and saying that the student should not have presented his speech, but the school should have not even allowed it to happen. In the case there were a few teachers that suggested to the student that he not read his speech because it was inappropriate. If any staff member said that it was inappropriate to read, it should have never been allowed in the first place, which would have stopped the situation from going any further than that.
I found it hard to understand why the case went as far as it did, and I had an even harder time understanding why the student’s father made such a big deal about everything since his son was the one who created the problem; however, since this case did go to the court I would have to agree with the courts decision. Students have the right to freedom of speech, but when in school the range of that right is skewed. The school basically has the right to act a “parent” during school hours, and if they say that something is inappropriate, then there really isn’t much a student can do about it.
In the case of Vernonia School District vs. Acton i would have to agree with the Supreme courts decision. This case dealt with drug testing the football team because they found that some athletes had been using steroids. Acton refused to be tested therefore was not allowed to play. His parents then filed a motion against the school. This went to a district court who ruled in favor of the school then it was appealed and made its way to the supreme court. The supreme court had a 6-3 decision ruling in favor of the school. As an athlete i can relate to Acton as to why he wouldn't want to take the drug test, it is embarrassing, but if you really love the sport you would do anything to play. Obviously Acton didn't care if he got to play or not, steroids are something that could potentially be harmful to him or the other players. The only reason i see to avoid a drug test is if you have something to hide and when you do refuse it points a finger at you saying you do have something to hide. Acton said this drug test was violating his fourth and fourteenth right. Although the school didn't have cause against this exact student, they had reasonable suspicion against the team and once you are apart of a team anything anyone does affects you. The fourteenth amendment is involving do process. I dont agree with this because the school made it clear if you didnt take the drug test you would be off the team. The school took the proper precautions in making sure all the athletes were safe and not doing things to inhance their performance. I think that the supreme court definitely made the right decision in ruling in favor of the school.
The case I read about was Bethel School District vs. Fraser. In this case a student gave an unappropiate speech in front of the whole school nominating a friend for a class officer. This student was suspened for three days. Therefore his free speech was taken away from him. The supreme court sided with the school.
I do not agree with the supreme court ruling. In the student handbook it said obscene language was not tolerated. But the word obscene is incredibly vague. The school did not outsine what obscene was. Obscenity also changes with time. As one of the judges who disagreed said, damn used to be incredibly obscene, now it's hardly seen as inappropiate.
The students speech wasn't even that obscene. He made sexual innendos that wouldn't even have a problem getting on t.v. He did not swear. The student also gave this speech at an assembly specific to letting kids speak in order to nominate their peers. His speech did not interfere or distract other students from their academics. Overall, I disagree witht the final ruling of the supreme court in this case.
The case that I had was TLO vs. New Jersey. In the case, TLO was accused of smoking in the school bathrooms. The principal searched her purse to find the cigarettes and rolling papers causing him to continue searching her bag to find marijuana. TLo was then suspended and had to be tried for drug possession. TLO claimed that the search was a violation of her four and fourteen Amendment rights. The Supreme Court said that the search did not violate any of her rights do to probable cause. Since TLO was thought to be smoking in school then they had a right to search her purse. After they found the cigarettes, they were allowed to continue searching her bag because they found rolling papers which lead them to believe that she may have something else in her bag such as marijuana.
I agree with the Supreme Court, the school did have a right to search her bag without violating any of her amendment rights. The fact that she already lied to the school about smoking on school ground got her in even more trouble. If she admitted to smoking they probably would not have search her. The principal had a right to search her because of probable cause. They thought that she was smoking in school which is agents school rules. When they found the cigarettes they also found rolling papers, which more times then not are used for smoking marijuana. So the school continued there search because they had probable cause that she was in possession of something illegal.
Hazelwood and Kuhlmeier is an interesting case. According to the judges said that a student has different rights in public schools then they do outside of the school grounds. The judges stated that inside the school any thing published is linked to them and they have the right to censor or change what ever they want. I am torn on this subject. I understand what the school is saying but I understand were students are saying that there rights were being taken away from them. I side more on the side of the students then on the side of the principle. The principle had the right to censor the paper but had no right to not tell the students that it was being removed. I also believe that the other students should have been informed that the page was being removed. I think that the paper should have delayed printing and reformatted the paper to fit the criteria that the principle set up. Once again I also see were the principle wants to censor things that have the schools name on it. If I were a Supreme Court judge I would vote towards the students and against the school.
The Court case I had was Vernonia school district vs Acton. The case was about random drug tests for athletes in the school. The school was giving athletes random drug tests because they believed that drugs/ steroids were the reason behind players getting hurt so frequently. this one athlete, Acton and his parents refused to take the drug test and started a court case saying that this was against his rights. Acton ended up losing the court case because the courts ruled that it was okay for the school to test students as long as they are under their property. For the most part i agree with the school system but not with their statement. I do not believe that steroids are the reason for more likely injuries. If for any reason there is any other suspicion of steroids though, i think that the school should have the right to drug test the students. This should not just go for the athletes this should be for any of the students. If the students have nothing to hide than they should pass the test with flying colors.
In the case TLO vs. New Jersey a female student was caught smoking in the bathroom. Upon being brought into the office her bag was searched by the assistant principal and he found a pack of cigarettes. After another look the assistant principal found rolling papers so he continued to search the bag and found a bag of weed and a list of names with money owed to her on a piece of paper. This court case found itself in the Supreme Court and they rued in favor of the school.
In my opinion, once the assistant principal found the pack of cigarettes that should have been the end of the search. If the guy was just looking through the bag for other incriminating evidence other than cigarettes that could be viewed as stereotyping. It is saying that because a person smokes cigarettes they will be just as likely to smoke enormous amounts of dope or crack rocks, which is not always the case. If the principal opened the bag and the rolling papers were hanging out right next to the cigarettes then I feel that a search is warranted, but if the principal is just searching and came across them then the search was unconstitutional. It is a grey area because no one knows for sure other than the assistant principal how hard he had to search in the purse to find the girl’s zigzags. I feel that because the girl actually had illicit substances in her purse that he rights were slightly bent in the schools favor. That is another grey area, because the school wants that scumbag out of their system, so you cant blame supreme court for ruling against the plaintive.
The case that I did was Acton vs. The Veronia School District. This case dealt with a student he felt that his rights were violated when he was asked to take a drug test. The school said that if you were an athlete at Veronia you must take a drug test. Acton refused to take the test and the school said that he couldn’t play his sport then. Acton then took the school district to court on the terms that the school had violated Acton’s 4th and 14th amendment rights. The District Court ruled in favor with the school and said that drug testing was constitutional. The case was then appealed and then sided with the student. The case reached the Supreme Court and they sided with the school saying that drug testing is a form of search and seizure and the amendment doesn’t specify how far search and seizure can go and when someone’s privacy is violated. As part of school policy along with sports or after school activities, students say that they won’t use drugs, alcohol, etc. I think the school had a right to ask the student to take a drug test. The students’ rights weren’t violated because he is in school and the school is responsible for him and anything that he does. The same goes for any other student that is participating in an after school activity. When students use drugs such as steroids not only are they endangering themselves but also it means that the games that are played won’t be fair. Before a new sports season all players are asked to have a physical, which is basically the same thing as asking for a drug test. In conclusion, I think the student’s rights weren’t violated and the school had a right to ask the students for a drug test.
Alex Myjak
Civics Period 6
In the case of Acton vs. The Vernonia School District the school required that all athletes must be tested for drugs. One of the football players refused, and therefore he was suspended. When the case was at the District Court, the school won, but the case was appealed and then the student won. Eventually the case reached the Supreme Court and ruled that the school has the right to drug test anyone for that matter, involved in athletics. I don’t think that the school has the right to make you submit to drug testing. Although a physical for making sure your healthy and may engage in sports is acceptable. Obviously some kids do drugs, but to penalize athletes and make them urinate into a cup in front of spectators is just a little humiliating. If there is reasonable doubt and it is more than likely that the student does in fact do drugs, then maybe a test should be required. I feel though, that this drug testing is a waste of time and money, it testing for one particular drug in ALL those athletes can get pretty costly and I am sure there are other school needs where the money should be spent.
Goss VS Lopez
In the Goss v. Lopez court case, 10 teens were given ten day suspensions for misconduct without a hearing or due process. The 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students and i feel the same way. The students should of had the right to a hearing regarding their ten day suspension. Misconduct doesnt seem like the type of offense that deserves a ten day suspension. it is not as severe as other crimes and actions that the students could have done that could have resulted in a ten day suspension. i believe that if an appeals hearing was held, the students could have dropped a few days and have a shorter suspension. Amendment 14 is the right to due process and i believe that Ohio should extend that right to the students considering they are forced to have an education there. The Supreme Court was completely justified and fully agree with their ruling in favor of the ten students.
The case that I dealt with was Goss vs. Lopez. In the case 10 students had claimed that their right to due process was violated. This case pretty much stated and argued that the students were suspended from school without a hearing which they have the right to have. The students brought this hearing to federal courts where the courts agreed with the students and said that they should have had a right to due process and have a hearing before being immediately suspended. The school appealed this decision and took the case to the Supreme courts. They Supreme Court stated and agreed with the lower courts, saying that the “students facing temporary suspension from school have property and liberty interests that qualify for protection under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.” This case was one case that the Supreme Courts actually agreed with the students. In many other trials the students did not win the trial when it was brought to the Supreme Courts.
I agree with the courts decision in the case I read about. This is because we students are protected under the fourteenth amendment, and have the right to due process. If school administrators were able to give out suspensions whenever they pleased, without a proper hearing, then students could be treated unfairly. I believe that suspensions from school are a very serious topic because it goes on a student’s permanent record. I am glad that the courts give us this right because students need some way to fight a suspension because the reasoning for the suspension could be unfair or inaccurate. That is why I am glad that the courts made this decision and why I agree with their decision under the right to due process.
The court case of Goss v. Lopez is a very famous case and has echoed a reminder to all enforcers of law of our constitutional right. This court case was all about a citizens right to Due Process.
In the mid 1970's nine students from the Columbus Ohio Public School system nine students from two high schools and a Junior high school were given a ten day school suspension from school. The School adiministration did not hold hearings for any of the students. This is due to the fact that Ohio law did not require them to do so. As a result of this the Actions were Challenged by the students who were punished because they felt that this act violated their Fourteenth Ammendment right to Due Process. The Fourteenth Amendment gives a right The Fourteenth Amendment forbids the State to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
The Students then Sued the school system for violating their fourteenth amendment right. When the case was brought to the federal court system the judge ruled in favor of the students. They said that the suspensions were unconstitutional and that the school should have given all the students a chance to defend themselves and that their falure to do was a violation of the students Fourteenth Amendment rights. The School system then appealed the ruling and the case made it all way the way to the Supreme Court. Within the Supreme court the ruling of the lower courts was upheld on a a 5 to 4 Decision.
I personaly agree with the Supreme courts decsion. You can't just take away some ones rights when ever you feel like it. Also you can't not give anyone the right to expleain for their actions or defend themselfs that seems like something that we all learned in elementatry school. In the end thanks to this case reviewed by the Supreme court our fourteenth amendment right is safe and is enforced.
The case of TLO
A 14 year old found with drugs
Seize and Search
Ruling: Rights were not violated.
I agree both with the ruling of the Supreme Court, but mostly the dissenting portion. I believe that since drugs were found on TLO’s person that it was a good thing that the principal searched. However, I don’t believe that the principal had the right to go beyond just finding the cigarettes. The principal has probable cause that the girl had cigarettes on her, and that’s what the search was for, finding the cigarettes. Nevertheless, after finding what he was looking for, he kept on searching and found the drug paraphernalia. He had neither probable cause nor reasonable suspicion to continue looking.
Saying that she had cigarettes is reasonable suspicion enough to look for the drugs isn’t right. That’s saying that everybody that smokes also does drugs. He should have stopped after finding the cigarettes. If she didn’t have drugs on her, then I believe that the Supreme Court would have ruled the search differently. The principal then would have been accused of searching through a students bag with out any reason or cause; which he did anyways. The ruling was different because something was found despite that there was no reason for those items to be looked for. The principal was just looking through her bag and found them in his search; he wasn’t looking for drugs or drug paraphernalia.
Bethel vs. Frasier
In this case, a student got in trouble for using sexual innuendo in a speech electing a fellow student for a class office. I read the speech and understand why the school would be upset with what was said, but it really is all the way that you would explain it. Some might say it was all in a sexual tone, some might just say he was very persuasive with his words. Its not as if the student in trouble straight out said, "SEX SEX SEX, nominate him." I know that is extreme but still, thats how they are portraying it.
Another underlying topic that seemed to be overlooked is that the student who presented the speech told teachers about it and showed them prior to delivery day. None said that the speech should not be read, they just said it wouldn't be a good idea. With no clear cut answer, how can he think hes going to get in trouble. I think the case should have been dropped at the high school court level, instead of going to the supreme court. I think its dumb that this is what were using our tax money for, to figure out if some kids sexual innuendo speech is free speech. We all know the rules, he wasn't told them, and that should have been the end. The school should finally step up and say it was there faults that they didn't say he couldn't present the speech instead of trying to find other ways to pin it on a student. For people who are trying to teach us the ways to live in the future, blaming it on other people i don't think is what gets us farther in life.
But i drift from my point. I think the courts were wrong in there verdict because i think it is the schools fault for not telling the student that his speech was wrong and that they easily could have told everyone that the speeches must be read by a school official before to the student body. Isn't that just common sense. These are high school kids who are looking for a laugh. I think schools should start taking responsibility of students instead of blaming them for there short comings.
Bethel School District v. Fraser
In the case Bethel School District v. Fraser, a young man was punished for making a speech with many sexual references and innuendos. After appealing the decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the violations of the First Amendment’s protections cited by Fraser were not legitimate. The majority of the Supreme Court felt that Fraser was properly punished for his actions.
I agree with the Supreme Court in the decision that Fraser’s first amendment rights were not violated. It is common knowledge that all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not available to everyone until they are 18. In addition, a minor’s rights at school are again severely limited. You cannot say anything you want in school. It also should be common knowledge that you cannot make sexual references without consequences to an extent. Such comments, whether in class or at a school function, interfere with the educational process required to be provided.
However, I do not agree with the majority’s opinion that Fraser was “properly punished”. The punishment dealt by the school was a suspension and the removal of the candidate from his class’s commencement ceremony. This punishment is, in my opinion, harsh. There are many factors that lead me to this conclusion. For example, the student gave his speech to a few teachers who did nothing but advise that he not read this speech. It was cited in the proceedings that the school had a rule against lewd speech. If teachers are not going to enforce this rule and confiscate his “lewd” speech, it tells him that there will not be harsh consequences. If the rules are not going to be enforced, those who make the rules cannot expect them to be abided by. I also feel that since the student did not directly reference sex, he should not have been punished as he was. The interpretations were up to the listener in this case.
In conclusion, the Supreme Court was correct in stating that the right to free speech was not violated. However, the punishment that was deemed proper was in no means proper. The punishment is indeed excessive seeing as he only insinuated sexual things, he did not directly say them.
Billy Colwell
Freedom of Speech.
In the case of Fraser vs. the school system, of which the name distances from my head at the moment, the Supreme Court ruled with the school system. I personally do not agree with this judgment because the student did make that sexually oriented comments during the speech. And in modern terms that is what you would hear on TV in any TV show, probably including Nickolodeon, which is made for kids. In the 1980’s the TV’s might have been a little more censored but still, any high school student would still know and use those terms.
Freedom of Speech should not be taken away from students when the enter school grounds. They do not “shed their rights” when entering the school. Though they may have to be quieter in their swearing, due to it being “vulgar.” I personally am not worried as a student to swear in class. But most of my teachers do not necessarily care. In the case that I was previously talking about before becoming divulged in my personal life, the rights and limitations of Freedom of Speech were never addressed in the school’s rulebook. And thus vulgar terms were never actually written down and not to be used in a speech. So the school didn’t really have a rule or punishment ready for the student. Instead they over reacted and caused him to be suspended for three days and not be allowed to speak at his graduation, which was then later reversed and he did get to speak, but then again that is not that relevant. But what sticks in my mind is why would the student say those things, to be funny? To be stupid? Who knows, and frankly this happened over 20 years ago, and times have changed and so has censorship, and politically correct views. So let Freedom of Speech be free in schools.
The Supreme Court case I analyzed was Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. In this case, students claimed that their first amendment rights were violated by the school’s principal. The students had been working on a school newspaper, and, as customary, the final version of the paper was given to the principal to review as usual. However, because the newspaper contained two articles that covered the issue of teen pregnancy and divorce, the principal had two pages of the newspaper deleted. The lawsuit was filed against the school and, after some appeals, brought forth before the Supreme Court. The final decision of the Court ruled in favoring of the school, concluding the school did not violate the students’ rights because the newspaper was sponsored by the school and not a public forum.
I do not agree with this ruling at all. The principal didn’t even inform the students beforehand but just had the two pages deleted which included several other non-offensive articles. If the principal had discussed the problem with the students, there could have been a chance for the students to fix it, but instead all their hard work was just deleted. Also, the articles didn’t include any names, so the students reading the newspaper would not have known exactly whom the article was referring to. The articles themselves were not very offensive either. They were only dealing with the topics of teen pregnancy and divorce, which are topics students learn about in high school and, in some places, as early as middle school. So the articles really wouldn’t have caused many problems. I feel the Supreme Court ruled wrongly in this case and that the students’ right of freedom of press was violated.
The case i read about was Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. The case was about the school's newspaper and two articles in it. The principal deleted the two articles, which were about abortion and teen pregnancy and divorce, because they had used quotes from students within the school that although anonymous contained evidence that could give away their identity. Since it was the end of the school year and if he sent it back to be reedited it might not get released he just deleted the articles. The courts ruled in favor of the school because they were acting in the best interest of the students and also the paper was a school funded thing so it was owned by the school. I think that it was wrong of the principal to not at least try to give the students a chance to reedit the articles. The changes to be made were easy enough for the students to make them very quickly. However, i do understand that he was acting in what he thought was the best way and for what he thought was the best choice of action. Also, since the paper was a school funded thing i understand that he did have the right to do what he did.
The case that I dealt with was Goss vs. Lopez. In the case 10 students had claimed that their right to due process was violated. In this case the students argued that they were suspended without a hearing. I believe that if students are to recieve some kind of punishment they should be allowed to have some kind of hearing before it is permanently handed out to them. A federal court went on to side with the students and say that they should have been given a hearing and that not giving them one was unconstitutional. The court did however include the fact that the hearing did not have to be before the suspension was to be started. In the courts decision I have to agree with them because the students obviously did something wrong that required some form of punishment but if the punishment was to go as far as being taken out of school the students should have been given the opportunity to have some kind of hearing. Without having a hearing of some sort who knows how far some administrators would go in giving out some sort of punishment. All in all I thoroughly believe that the courts made the right decision in the Goss vs. Lopez case.
The case that I read was the Goss vs. Lopez in which ten students got a ten day suspension for misconduct without a hearing. The court ruled in favor of the teens. I agree with the outcome of the case. The stupids should not have been suspended for that long without at least having a hearing first. I think the biggest punishment they could have had would be an ISS. A out of school suspension goes on their permanent reccord and would only be neccisary in an extreme case, which I dont believe this was.
The case that my group was assigned was that of Bethel vs. Frasier. In this case, the student involved made a speech campaigning another student for the school government. In the speech it was pretty obvious to see the humor that the student threw into it. Through out the entire thing, he said countless sexual innuendos that were indeed funny but probably not the most appropriate things to say at school in front of the faculty. These words and phrases were not completely out there and direct, and instead were a little more indirect. Of course it all depends on the individual and how he or she interprets what the student said. My personal opinion is that what the student said could be thoroughly understood by all adults and high school students.
This case eventually reached the Supreme Court and the ruling was in favor of the school. The school believed that the student did not have the right to speak that way and that it was very inappropriate and not suitable for school. I agree with this because it was inappropriate. I know where the student was coming from though, he probably just wanted to give some of his peers a good laugh, which I'm sure he did. But he should have probably done that outside of school. Something interesting about this case is that the student did show his speech to teachers, who said it was inappropriate and that he should not say it. They should have taken the speech and demanded him not to do so, instead of just insisting that it may be a bad idea.
Overall, though, this case was ridiculous and should not have reached the Supreme Court. The whole idea of it is pretty frivolous and I am very surprised enough people would waste their time listening to the case. The school should have just dealt with it, maybe giving the student a few after school detentions or slapping his hand with a ruler. Except if that latter part occurred, that would open up a whole new other case.
In the case Acton vs. the Vernonia School District I agree with acton. As a student athlete, I can understand why Acton didn’t want to take the drug test. Not only is it embarrassing, but insulting to those who follow the rules and don’t take any kind of drugs. Why should athletes have to take the drug test. It invades their privacy. It is not fair to the athletes. In professional sports today there are drug tests all the time, but those are for steriods. The chance of high school athletes taking some of the drugs pros take is ridiculous. I don't think the school should have the right to invade the athletes privacy and make them take a drug test. Even if the person is innocent or guilty, it is not right and I don't agree with the court but rather acton's.
The case that i read about was the Bethel School District#43 vs. Fraser. This case dealt with a student who read a speech in front of the school endorsing a candidate for a student government position. The students speech was considered provocative and contained numerous sexual inuendos which could or could not have been considered disturbing or obscene to the public. This speech was checked before it was read by numerous members of the faculty. Each member of the faculty did tell the young man that the speech was inappropriate and not suitable for school. However, not one of the teachers explicitly told the student that he could not read the speech on that particular day. Therefore, once the boy read the speech and was reprimanded for his action, he argued that the rules had not been properly laid down before him. He also based his case on the amendment of free speech. With this in mind, one could figure that if just one of the teachers had told him he could not read the explicit speech, he would not have even started the problem because he either would have changed it or not read it at all. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school stating that the schools have a right to protect the right to a safe and comfortable learning environment and hold the right to censor speeches such as this boys.
I do have to agree with the Supreme Court on this case. Unfortunately, one who heard this case very easily could have considered it very clever and humorous. I personally did take the speech like that but there is always a few people who are offended by things like this. Because of that, schools have to be regulated and monitored in order to protect against such occurrences.
The case I read was Acton vs. The Vernonia School District, Athletes in the school district were being tested for the use of steroids and one boy and his family refused to take the test. The boy got taken off of the team and they ended up bringing it to the supreme court. The boy and his family thought that the school had no right to test for drugs it was thought to be an invasion of privacy. The supreme court disagreed with the boy and family and said that it's not an invasion of privacy the school has a right to do that if you're playing for their team. The school wants a good reputation and being worried about if their kids are taking steroids or not wouldn't give them one. Therefore, testing for steroids was a neccessity. I believe that the school did have the right to drugtest the althetes. The athletes are playing FOR the school and the school makes it's rules for sports just like any other rule, if that school wants to say that the kids have to be drug tested based on suspricion of drug use they have every right to.
The case that my group was assigned was that of Bethel vs. Frasier. In the case a student was suspended for a speak he said to nominate a candidate for elections. They said his speak was inappropriate and used sexual innuendos. Before the kid said his speak he had to get it check over and no one said any thing about him not being able to say it. They teachers said that he should not say it and he could get in trouble, but they never told his specifically not to do so. This speech could be seen in the public as a perfectly fine speech. But in a school I would think it is inappropriate. Although he did not make any direct sexual comets every thing he said was easy to see what he was implying in his speech. The Supreme Court ruled against him ruled in favor of the school stating that the schools have a right to protect the right to a safe and comfortable learning environment and hold the right to censor speeches such as these boys. I would have to agree with the Supreme Court’s decision because I believe that speech was fine but it was to inappropriate for a school setting and the kid should have gotten in trouble for it. But the easiest way this could have been avoided was if the teacher who checked it said no you can not do this speech and made him write a new one. Even though it is definitely the schools fault that that speech was read they still had every right to suspend him for school so I agree with the court’s decision.
I read the the case of Veronia School District vs. Acton. In this case the school required a random drug test to be taken by all the athletes because their had been rumors that they were in the drug culture. All but one of the students agreed to the drug test, so they took it to court. The lower court ruled in favor of the student saying that it was an invasion of privacy. When you take a drug test you have to pee in a cup in front of 5 people and the court said that that was not right to do. Then the school appealed the decision and it went up to the Supreme Court who ruled in favor of the school, saying that it was their choice to take part in the after school activity and the school didn't have to have a sports team.
I total agree with the supreme court because they needed to set a precedent and if they allowed this student to get away with out taking the drug test then that would mean that no one had to take the test. Another reason that I agreed with the court is that when you take part in a sporting event (watching or playing) you are still the schools liability and if have drugs in your system then that would mean that the school has the right to suspend you or expel you because it is just like coming to school high or drunk. Finialy I also agree with the supreme court on the fact that it is not an invasion of privacy because the same sex is watching to make sure you do not contaminate it. Now if it were the opposite sex that were watching you then I can see that it would be an invasion of privacy
In the TLO V. New Jersey: A fourteen year old girl was caught by her principal Choplick of Smoking. The principal questioned her and searched her purse and found the rolled cigarettes near the top. He then continued to search and found Marijuana and drug paraphernalia. TLO said that this violate amendment four of the constitution. Which states that you have the right against unreasonable search and seizures. Also, no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. The Juvenile Court of New Jersey said that TLO on the basics of evidence from the search of her purse and her confession she sentenced to one year probation. The next court Appellate Division of New Jersey TLO appealed her conviction and finds no fourth amendment violation. The supreme court of New Jersey said that her search was a violation of the fourth amendment. The U.S. supreme court reverses the New Jersey courts ruling holding that searches by school officials are constitutional with a warrant as long as they are reasonable.
I think that the principal should of stopped searching once he saw the cigarettes. He found what he was searching for why did he need to keep searching, she was not caught with drugs. He did not have reason able cause to keep searching. He kept searching because he knew he could the court and government trusts the principal and gives them power. He abused his power by keep looking if he thought she had other things in her purse he should of let the police handle it and search it. I do not think it is his responsibility to do what he did I really don’t think he should of checked her purse at all.
In the TLO V. New Jersey: A fourteen year old girl was caught by her principal Choplick of Smoking. The principal questioned her and searched her purse and found the rolled cigarettes near the top. He then continued to search and found Marijuana and drug paraphernalia. TLO said that this violate amendment four of the constitution. Which states that you have the right against unreasonable search and seizures. Also, no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. The Juvenile Court of New Jersey said that TLO on the basics of evidence from the search of her purse and her confession she sentenced to one year probation. The next court Appellate Division of New Jersey TLO appealed her conviction and finds no fourth amendment violation. The supreme court of New Jersey said that her search was a violation of the fourth amendment. The U.S. supreme court reverses the New Jersey courts ruling holding that searches by school officials are constitutional with a warrant as long as they are reasonable.
I think that the principal should of stopped searching once he saw the cigarettes. He found what he was searching for why did he need to keep searching, she was not caught with drugs. He did not have reason able cause to keep searching. He kept searching because he knew he could the court and government trusts the principal and gives them power. He abused his power by keep looking if he thought she had other things in her purse he should of let the police handle it and search it. I do not think it is his responsibility to do what he did I really don’t think he should of checked her purse at all.
In the case Acton vs The Veronia School District, a student refused to participate in the drug tests being mandated for school athletes. As a result, he was unable to participate in his sport. The student said that his fourth and fourteenth amendment rights were being violated; as such a test would subject him to search and seizure without probable cause and also violate his privacy. He then sued the school on these terms. The student lost this case, and appealed the case to the appeals court, where he then won. In the Supreme Court however, Acton lost his case and it was ruled that the drug testing was in fact constitutional. The school was not overstepping its rights at all.
I agree with the Supreme Court in this situation. The school had every right to enforce a policy which would not only keep its students safe, but also make sure that no one was cheating. When students sign the release waivers when they join a sport stating that the parents give permission to their son or daughter to participate, the school may also mandate that drug tests may be carried out. By signing such a form, the parents give permission to the school to do just that. While the student is in school anyways, the usage of drugs is highly frowned upon, and the school acts as the students legal guardian. Because of this responsibility placed upon the school, I believe that the school was doing the correct thing in issuing drug tests, especially when statistics had shown that the likelihood of drug usage among athletes was higher. No constitutional rights were being violated in this case, and it should never have even reached the Supreme Court. As for the student, refusing to take a simple drug test could only give the school reasonable suspicion, which is all it needs, to investigate further.
The case that I read about was Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmeier. It was about students on the school newspaper committee, who got two pages of articles that they had written cut out from the school newspaper. Since it was near the end of the year, there was not time for editing the paper and the principal thought that the best idea was to completely remove the two pages with the "bad articles" from the paper entirely. The articles focused on topics such as teen pregnancy, which was supposedly obvious as to which girl was pregnant, and parents who are divorced, etc. The students who wrote the articles felt that their freedom of the press and freedom of speech rights were violated and took it to the courts. The school won the first hearing at the lower level court, and the students appealed. At the next level court, the students won and the school appealed to the Supreme Court. At the Supreme Court, the justices voted 5 to 3 in favor of the school saying that the school had the right to limit what was being said in the school newspaper.
I agree with the courts decision to rule in favor of the school because some topics are sensitive in a school setting. If the article about the pregnant teen in the school was easy to identify, then it shouldn't have been published. The school has a right to censor what its students read in the school newspaper because the school wants to be reflected on in a positive manner. There was also discrepancy as to whether or not a school newspaper is considered "press" and that the students had a right of freedom of the press to begin with because it is run through the school. If the newspaper was something that the students did on their own time and wasn't reflecting the school, then it might have been okay for the students to write and publish those articles.
The case that my group read about was The Hazelwood School Dist. Vs Kuhlmeier. It involved a couple of students from the school newspaper who wrote articles about their life situations at home, and teen pregnancy. After revising the articles, the principal felt that the topics written by the students were not appropriate for the school newspaper and that the authors’ identities could be recognized in the writings. Because this was the last newsprint of the year, the principal decided to take out the two articles entirely without asking the students for the revision. When the newspaper came out with the two pages missing entirely, it caused an up roar within the students who later brought the case to court stating that they had a right to free speech. The battle was brought up to the Supreme Court’s Decision who sided with the school saying that your freedom of speech is limited within the school.
I agree with the court’s decision for the most part. You can’t have students writing articles in newspapers about touchy topics such as teen pregnancy and divorce. There has to be some boundary of what you can and cannot do. This newspaper reflects on the school and what the school is about, so they have every right to pull these articles out. The thing I don’t agree with is how the principal handled the situation. He could have easily had enough time to ask the students for a revision on the articles. If he had done that, there would have never been an argument in the first place.
Veronia School District vs. Acton
In the case of Veronia School District vs. Acton, the Board of Education stated that all athletes were inclined to a random drug test my members of the districts athletic department. This was due to the fact that the athletes were thought to be playing a key role in the local drug culture. All students agreed except for one who refused to partake in the tests given. The case quickly rose to the Supreme Court. The local court ruled in favor of the students right of privacy even though probable cause was in effect with the ongoing drug culture. When the case escalated to the Supreme Court, the judges ruled in favor of the school saying,"With the information given, we have come to understand that the student willfully joined the given sports team and was not forced to do so. Thus by voluntarilly joining the team he is under he juristiction of the DOA and must comply to the random drug testing. Authorised by the BOE"
My personal feelings of the topic are that if you want to join a sports team for your school you have to realise that all the Athletic Department is trying to accomplish is preventing the use of psychotrophic drugs and or other mentaly and physically altering substances in our school system and on our sports teams. A "wizz quiz" is a small price to pay for the prification of a sports teams ethics and preformance. If you feel that this is wrong, ask yourself this,"If I am not doing anything wrong, then what do I have to worry about?"
If you have nothing to hide, why not take the simple test and eliminate all dout and have it over with then making a hassle for everyone. In conclusion, I believe that the school should rightfully have tested all students, if under reasonable suspition, to keep the pride and tradition of your nations teams alive.
In the case with the Vernonia school district,I diagree with drug testing of high school athletes but under certain conditions. I can see why any kind of athletes would not want to take a drug test for the school. It evades there privacy. If an athlete did take the drug test and it came out positvie for steroids everyone i the school would know cuz he would not be on the team anymore. I disagree with any right of a school drug testing an athlete. But I would clearly agree if you can tell the high school athlete was using steroids.I believe its is very easy to tell when someone is using them. There performance in there sport would be greatly better. The person would also be much bigger.Only under probabl cause I would agree for the drug testing for an athlete.
The case that my group had was TLO vs. New Jersey. The case was about a a 14 year old girl who was believed to be smoking in the girls bathroom in the high school. The girl was questioned by her principle and then he also searched her bag. While searching he found cigarettes that he was looking for, but also decided that he felt the need to look further and caused him to find drug paraphanilia. After reading through the amendments, the fourth one says that; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I feel that the girls rights were violated to some extent because i dont think that the principle had the right to suspect and continue to look through her bag when he had already found what he was looking for in the first place, yet i also feel that the court was right in saying the students rights were limited to protect the school and kids, and staff. but still to some extent i feel it was very unessisary to keep looking through her bag when he had already found what he was looking for.
In my case Bethel vs. Frasier a student was suspended from school, and lost his right to run in a school election because of some sexual innuendo's used in his speech. The student ended up suing the school for several thousands of dollars. I was happy with the way that this case turned out because i feel that it was a violation of the students rights to have his freedom of speech taken away. The speech that he had written was somewhat inappropriate in a way but was not nearly bad enough to receive the punishment that was given to him. I think that students should have the right to say what ever they want as long as it is not endangering the ones around them. The school ended up getting what they deserved and the boy who's rights were violated was re payed in a large sum of cash.
The case that I read about was about Freedom of press. Hazelwood vs. Kuhlmier. The Journalism class printed a paper and had a couple stories that the Principal did not want seen by the student body. Therefor he made the class delete the whole two pages. One story was about Teen Pregnancy and the other about Devorce and family problems. Both stories had quotes form students but no names were give.
I feel the school did not have the right to delete the articles because proper writing laws were used with not giveing names. The courts argued that the school has the right to sensor anything wither it is ethical or not. In the lower courts they ruled for the students saying the did everything right and shouldnt have been punished but the school appealed the desicion and the Suprem Court changed the decision.
The court case that I worked on was Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987). In this case a student was suspended due to sexual innuendos in his class officer speech. In all honesty, I would have to say that I side with the school on this one, at least for the most part. Though he might not have used any swears per-say, the fact of the matter is that he did use sexual innuendos which teachers stated could easily get him in trouble with the school. With all of this in mind he still went out on stage and read off the entire speech without anything edited out or "Censored". Now we all know that kids in high school swear, that is pretty much a given, but at the same time there are school policies against it, and school rule is school rule. Its just like a class cut. If you break the rule, you are going to have to pay the price.
Now with all of this said, I do not believe that a 2 day suspension was the correct punishment for his offense. I just think that is a bit harsh for what he did. An out of school suspension goes on your permanent record and follows you through whatever future education you receive. It really does hurt some chances of getting into colleges. And this kid received all of this just because of a few innuendos in his speech to a bunch of high schoolers? Seems a bit much to me. I believe that they should have given him a few detentions, and make it so that he cant win this or any other student body election. So, my view in this is that the school is right to punish him, but the severity was much too much.
in the case tlo vs. new jersey a fourteen year old girl was caught smoking in the girls bathroom by her principal. the principal took her into his office and questioned her and searched her purse. he found the cigaregettes near the top, but continued to search and he marijuana and drug paraphernalia. she said that he didnt have to right to do this, because it was violating the fourth amendment, which states that you have the right against unreasonable search and seizures and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause. this case was heard by the juvenille and domestic court of middlesex county, the appellate divison, the supreme court of new jersey, and finally the supreme court of the united states. the supreme court said that the school offical had the right to search her because he had good reason. i don't believe the principal had the right to keep searching her bag. he had found the cigrettes, which is what he was looking for. so why did he keep searching. he had no right to do so.
Post a Comment