Do you feel that the majority opinion in your Supreme Court court case was correctly decided? Explain your answer referring to the constitution, using evidence from the case documents and examples from your personal experiences as a student.
Due Friday Morning
CT Bullying Law
Cyber-bullying Laws in CT
State Cyberbullying Laws
CT Cyberbullying Info
Landmark Supreme Court Cases Involving Students
Free Speech Rights of Students
Supreme Court Strip Search Ruling
Bong Hits For Jesus
36 comments:
I feel that student rights are limited but aren't limited so much that a student has no rights. If there is suspicion of something its the administrators job to fix what ever is wrong and keep the rest of the school safe. I also feel that the new cyber bullying policy is borderline unconstitutional. I feel that things that are done outside of school should be dealt with outside of school. If a student bully's another student via cyber space then the person should be punished by someone other than there school.
I don't think that the majority opinion in the case Bethel v Fraser was correctly decided. I think it was too harsh. I understand that most laws in school are subject to the phrase "disruptive of the learning process". In Tinker's case, she was allowed to wear the armband because it was not directly disrupting the learning process. I don't believe there was enough evidence in this case that his speech disrupted any learning. Students most likely found it funny, then continued about their day as normal. His speech was not graphic or explicit, no authority figure told him that he could or should not give the speech, and he did not defame the school in any way. I have heard much worse in the hallways at CHS but never seen anyone punished as harshly as Fraser was. I understand that his speech may have been inappropriate for some of the younger or more naive kids in the school to listen to, but I don't think it warranted his 1st amendment rights to be limited.
I believe that my court case was correctly resided. The principal was looking through her bag, fair enough. However he did NOT have a right after he had found cigarettes to keep searching through her bag. I think the idea that teachers can search through things with probable cause is a good choice. If teachers had to get a warrent by the time it went through chances are the student wouldn't have what the warrant said they could look for anymore. On the other hand if teachers were allowed to just search through anything at any given time that would be a huge violation of privacy to many students who have done nothing wrong. Therefore the fact that we are not protected against unwarranted search and seizure but there must be probable cause seams like a fair trade off in the end
My case was the Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier. After reading and evaluating the case several times, i came to the conclusion that the supreme court's decision was not correctly decided. Student rights are in fact limited when you're in school, however, even the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the judgement of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri which was that none of the students First Amendment's were violated. The court of appeals stated that the newspaper "the spectrum" was a "public forum," which would allow the students the freedom of press. The deletion the the two pages took away the students freedom of speech and press. Not only did the principal delete the articles, he deleted two full pages that the students who were dedicated to the spectrum spent a lot of time on. The principle did not think before his actions. He didn't know that the students name was deleted on the final copy so that no one would know whose father the person was talking about. Also, if there are 3 students in the school that dealt with pregnancy, the kids were smart to mention birth control. The supreme court shouldn't have reversed the court of appeals judgement. As a student, i am offended to know that simple things like freedom of speech and press are basically taken away from me and/or are highly limited.
I believe that the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Acton v Vernonia School District was fairly and justly decided. Students do not have to submit to drug testing, but when the student participates in extra curricular activities they are going beyond the "education" they are guaranteed in the constitution. Especially while participating in athletics, drugs are especially dangerous. Sports on there own can be dangerous, but adding drugs to the mix can only make things worse. For the safety of students in school athletics, I agree that drug testing is very justified. As far as the embarrassment of submitting to drug testing, they change with other students and shower with other students already. If they are not embarrassed by that, then why be embarrassed by having to take a drug test?
My case, New Jersey v TLO, involved TLO being accused of smoking in the bathroom. When the principle searched for the cigarettes, she also found marijuana paraphernalia. This caused her to get in trouble for not only smoking, but also possessing the paraphernalia. The reason this is a landmark case is because TLO claimed that her 4th Amendment rights, which stated that a warrant with a probable cause would be needed, were violated. The Supreme Court, however, ruled public schools do not need warrants or a probable cause, just a “reasonable suspicion.” This essentially means that the schools can conduct searches without much evidence.
While this does seem to be a large violation of the Constitution, I believe that it just. One of the most important things a school must do is to protect its students. If a school does not have enough power, dangerous substances and weapons may go unchecked, which could disrupt the learning environment. I personally don’t think it’s hard to keep personal belongings off school grounds, so this ruling will mostly only target students who purposely bring risky things to school.
In the case of Veronia v. Acton, I feel that the majority opinion was correctly decided. The Supreme Court ruled that random drug tests of school athletes is Constitutional. The student he refused to take the drug test, Acton, claimed that the test was a violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments; protection from illegal search and seizure and due process.
The court said that because the tests are to increase and ensure the safety of the athletes, that they are in no way harmful. The court claimed that because the school and faculty are acting as "temporary gaurdians" they do not need a reason to search you and therefore, the fourth amendment isn't violated.
Acton tried to strengthen his arguement by claiming be watch while taking that test would be embarassing, but the court was right in its response of saying that he's already changing in front of players and coaches in the locker room anyway and therefore it's no more exposing and embarrassing.
The court claimed that playing a school sport is a privilage, not a right and therefore isn't protected under the Constitution and therefore doesn't violate the fourth or fourteenth amendments.
Based upon the Supreme Courts reasoning, I have to agree with them that random drug testing of athletes is Constitutional.
I believe the Supreme Court of the case Acton verus Vernonia School District decided correctly. Even though I feel that student athletes should not have to submit to a drug test there is no excuse in this situation. Drugs and sports do not mix well together at all and in the long run hurts your body. I do not feel it was fair of them to band the boy for the entire year. But on the other hand if there is nothing to hide then the boy should have just submitted to the drug test. Everyone knows what happens in a locker room so there is no reason for this boy to be embarassed.
My case was the Hazelwood vs Kuhlmeier, in this case kids wrote in their school newspaper about pregnant teens and birth control, and with that, cut out the two pages with the articles on them. Now I see why they took the articles out, but the school could have waited the extra day, so that the other students wouldn't be exempt from the paper as well. I feel that the school does have a right to decide on what is being put into a school newspaper for the students to read. They are there to make the students have a good education and some things that are put into a newspaper that include the pregnant teens may make students not pay attention in class and spark up debate. In this debate though it would not be so much as a healthy debate because some of these are beliefs which can cause more debates. So having the schools see what is in the papers and online newsletters is constitutional and keeping us in line with keeping students learning in school without too many distractions. So I would agree with the Supreme Court on this ruling that the checking and editing of a school newspaper is constitutional.
in the case of TLO vs. New Jersey i agree with the outcome of the case. TLO claimed that her 4th Amendment rights were violated. she was searched by the principal of her school because she was believed to have been smoking in the bathroom. While getting searched the principal found marijuana. TLO now fought for her rights that the principal needed a warrent to search her. the outcome of the case stated that public schools dont need a warrent to search students, they just need to have reasonable susspition. i agree that if school autorities believe a student is suspitious of dangerous activity they can be searched, as long as they dont take advantage of the searches.
I believe that the Supreme Court Acton vs Vernonia case made the right choice with their descion. Although there was an argument that the submission of drug test would be embarasing to the boy the Supreme Court makes a valid point that he changes comfortably in the locker room every other day, and this drug test would not be violating anymore privacy than what is exposed in the locker rooms. Although being an athlete I do not believe drug testing should be allowed, in this certain situation I believe the circumstances were an exception.The school had reasonable suspision to conduct this test and participating a sports team is not mandatory. Therefore, the school has a right to ask for a test and if the boy really does not feel the want to submit it, he could have simply just quit the sport. Drugs can hurt or cause injuries easier if being used during sports therefore, the school had the right to test to ensure the safety of his body and the reassurance that the school could be sued for those possible injuries.
In my case, Vernonia School District versus Acton, a boy (Acton) was not allowed to join the football team because he would not pee in a cup for a drug test. He said that his fourth and fourteenth amendments were violated. The Supreme Court ruled that his rights were not violated for several reasons. I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling because they are not taking away any of his rights by not allowing him to play football since football is an extra curricular. Also, he does not have privacy in the athlete locker room, so peeing in a cup should not have been an issue. I believe if the drug test was put in order to keep the student athletes safe, everyone should participate, no exceptions. There was reasonable suspicion in Acton's case because he was an athlete. I'm a student athlete myself and I believe that if there was a drug test implemented at CHS, it wouldn't be violating my rights. The school is suppose to protect their students and getting drug tested before you get on the field, court, or pool should be allowed.
I believe that the majority opinion in the cases that reached the Supreme Court were appropriate rulings. During the hours of 7:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m. when we are attending school, we become the schools responsibility. It is their duty to keep us safe at all costs and ensure that our constitutional right to education is not being disrupted in any ways. In addition, each student must sign their student handbook at the beginning of every school year to ensure that we know our rights and restrictions in school. Due to these factors, any inappropriate speeches, clothing, articles, or banners that are not consistent which the education requirements that every student is entitled to should not be allowed. During my high school career, i've never felt as if my freedoms are being restricted. As long as i do not put myself or others in harms way or interfere with the learning of others, I still have all rights guaranteed in the constitution.
I do not think that the majority opinion in the case Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir was correctly decided. Though the articles may be deemed inappropriate for some younger students, I think that, nonetheless, the First Amendment rights of the students were violated. I understand why the school may want to censor certain articles if they feel they will cause debate, but the school newspaper should be a platform for students to express their opinions and share their ideas with their peers; as the Court of Appeals stated in their decision, the newspaper should be a “public forum”. Yes, some of the opinions in the paper may be graphic for younger audiences, but who hasn’t heard worse merely walking down the hallways of Cheshire High School or listening in to a conversation in class? Even in class, students are exposed to “inappropriate” writing or concepts through novels and literature, so why shouldn’t they be allowed to read about these same ideas in the school newspaper? As a student in high school, I want to be able to share my own opinions, as well as hear the opinions of my peers. After the Supreme Court ruling in Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir, however, a precedent has been set to limit our freedom of the press in high school, something that should be guaranteed to every American.
Even though it was a close 5 to 4 decision I agree with the majority vote, on the Goss v Lopez case. Nine High school students had been suspended without being presented their due process rights, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. This is unconstitutional; you can’t just take away a student’s right to an education by suspension. If I were ever suspended I would be extremely upset if it was without a notice. A Ten-day suspension would be very on fair to my education. Missing over a week of school would come with a lot of make up work and catching up to do. As a student it’s hard to keep your grades up once you have fallen behind. It is good to see that the students are supported by the constitution and are given the necessary freedoms they deserve.
In my case the majority opinion ruled in the favor of the school. The student was penalized for his speech because it offended the administrators in the school. Even though he had three teachers read it he was never told that he would definitely be penalized for his actions which I think leaves room for argument. I feel as if he was not clearly told to write a new speech then he should not be penalized. We discussed in class that in the hallways there are worse things said than what was given in the speech which would mean that all the other kids should be penalized as well. The point this case made to me is that society has changed and those types of things are accepted by our generation. I feel as if my rights are protected in school. As soon as I walk into school I understand that I become their responsibility and I must abide by the rules set to keep everything in the perimeter of a learning environment. All 12 years that I have been in school I have not had my constitutional rights violated or taken away.
In the case Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser agree with the ruling of the supreme court.Fraser was suspended and taken off the graduation speakers panel after giving a speech to the school filled with elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphors. Fraser claimed he had his first amendment rights violated when he was suspended and taken off the graduation speakers panel because of his speech. when the case reached the supreme court they sided with the school because There were specific warning by the teachers, the speech was obviously inappropriate, and the speech broke a disciplinary rule "'Disruptive Conduct. Conduct which materially and substantially interferes with the educational process is prohibited, including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures.'" all these reasons is why I agree with the ruling of the supreme court for this case.
The majority opinion of the case Goss Vs. Lopez was a correctly decided court case. The due process rights guaranteed by the 14th were in clear violation. The students in this case were suspended from their education without being given a hearing. The school has the right to suspend any student as long as the student is given a hearing for the violation they committed, which was the outcome of this case. Personally, I feel as though no student should ever be suspended with out clear purpose of the suspension. The 14th amendment states that students can not be denied rights without a proper due process of court. In conclusion no student or felan should be punished without proper due process rights.
I believe that students rights can reach to an extent. If they have reasonable suspicion of something bad happening or going on, or proof then they are able to search them and find something. Now if they have suspicion and no proof i believe that they wouldn't and are not allowed to search you. I think that u have rights to privacy and more. But I believe you have them to an extent, if the school administrator or any adult knows, herd, or has seen something that isn't safe for kids in school, i think that they have the right to search only what is on you and your locker. We are in school for the first part of the day and while were there were in the hands of the school witch allows them search or do what they need to do with proof or reasonable suspicion. Its there duty to keeps us from harm and keep us safe. In addition it is their job to keep us from being distracted by our education and the rights of it.
In the New Jersey vs. TLO case, I believe the Supreme Court's ruling was correctly decided. TLO was caught smoking in the bathroom during the school day. This caused an administrator to search her purse to find evidence of her actions. Once the administrator discovered cigarettes in her bag, that was enough evidence to prove she had in fact been smoking. However, he continued to rummage through her bag and also came across marijuana paraphernalia, such as rolling papers. TLO faced not only charges for smoking on school grounds, but also for possessing marijuana and paraphernalia.
This case became highly controversial, because by ruling that the administrator had "reasonable suspicion" to continue looking through her bag, they set a precedent that it is constitutional to search through students belongings without a warrant. In this situation, TLO claimed that her 4th amendment rights were violated because the administrator did not have any reason to continue searching. However, as a student myself I feel that it was necessary for the search to continue. If TLO had the guts to try and get away with smoking in school, there is a high probability that she may also have been carrying other substances with her that were not allowed on school grounds. Although this precedent virtually eliminates my fourth amendment rights in school, it also creates a safer and healthier school for its students, which is necessary for a learning environment.
I cannot help but agree with the decision handed down in the case of New Jersey v. TLO. While it is true that "reasonable suspicion" is a pretty nebulous term, which leaves administrators with what some might consider excessive amounts of power to search bags, I ultimately see this sacrifice of rights as necessary for ensuring safety in school. TLO argued in the case that her principal had gone beyond the scope of the search in rummaging through her purse; however, one could argue that the drug paraphernalia uncovered beneath the cigarettes was in plain view, thus allowing for further search. On top of this, it is implausible to expect a school administration to obtain a warrant if they want to search a student's bag or locker for drugs, weaponry, or anything else that could potentially cause harm or disruption to others. As a student myself, I go to school trusting that I am in a safe, relatively sheltered environment. If I knew that anyone could be carrying anything around the school, with little or no way of acting on that information, my state of mind would without a doubt be altered enough so as to impair my ability to perform well in class. Therefore, I see New Jersey v. TLO as an important precedent, allowing school officials to intervene when they see enough of a situation so as to deduce where it might be leading, and intervene before anything tragic, illegal, or otherwise irreversible is done. To put it bluntly, students planning on doing something illegal should do so out of school, away from their classmates; once they step into the halls of their school, the rights of other students to have a safe, stable learning environment trumps any right they might have to complete privacy and concealment.
I believe that the rulings in the Supreme Court are usually correct. When we enter the building to Cheshire High School we are the schools responsibility. They need to make sure that we are in a safe environment at all times.I think that the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir case ruling was decided correctly. I think the First Amendment rights were violated. The school newspaper should be a place where students can write about whatever they want and share it with their school and peers. Although I do agree that some of the articles, such as the birth control article are inappropriate for younger students. When you walk in the halls of CHS or probably any high school, I am sure you hear worse than what was said in ths school newspaper. At Cheshire High School I have not felt like I was being restricted from my freedom of speech in any of my four years, although I do know people who have felt this way. Therefore with this case, I do agree with the Supreme Court that schools can edit and look for the paper before it gets released to the students.
In my opinion, although it may initially seem unfair, the Supreme court has correctly ruled. It is true that the Supreme Court has limited student's rights severely, prohibiting the freedom of speech, press and letting us be searched freely. However, it is also true that all students deserve a safe environment that is conducive to learning, and some sacrifices must be made to that end. Censorships in speech and press must be made on behalf of those students too young or too immature to be exposed to such things, for example. If a sixth grader was going to write a news article about how Santa Claus wasn't real, I'm sure people wouldn't object to that article being censored for the sake of some young naive first graders. Restrictions must be placed on what students can do, even if it limits fourth and fourteenth amendments rights for the greater good of society. The ends justify the means after all. However, I do feel that the Supreme Court should have ruled more strongly against the case of a student who was strip searched. To me I can envision no scenario where a student would need to be stripped naked. Even if they were hiding something that could endanger others, like a gun say, that'd be plainly visible without stripping them down. Overall though, I do feel that they have been reasonable judgements.
My case was Bethel v. Fraser and judging from this case I believe that the Supreme Court did not make correct decision. Fraser used sexual, obscene language during speech. The school found this action as educationally disruptive so suspended him and deprived of Fraser the opportunity to give a speech at graduation panel. Fraser appealed his own right to speak what he want and mentioned that school violated the basic rule of first amendment which guarantees the freedom of speech. The Supreme Court went in favor of school policy. I think the Supreme Court decision was not right. The school overreacted to Fraser's behavior. This matter should be done by just giving Fraser warning. Suspending him and taking away his chance to give a speech for using inappropriate forms of language was not fair. Most of students would just laugh by the way Fraiser said. Some of students would be shocked but I doubt that Fraser's sexual innuendo will have any long-lasting effect on student's education career in disruptive way. Also, in my personal experience I sometimes felt that the school unnecessarily tried to prohibit student's right such as putting hoodie on head in studyhall. I understand that we should be instructed by school rules as students but some of them are having too much control over students.
My court case was Vernonia V. Acton. The final ruling of the supreme court case was in favor of Vernonia School District, allowing random urine testing for athletes. I completely agree with the final decision of the court, it's not a violation of his 4th or 14th amendment rights. Being in school his rights are already limited in school as it is and the random urine testing of athletes can help prevent the players from injuring themselves and others. Being an athlete and having to use the communal sports locker room anyway he should have no reason to be uncomfortable or embarrassed about having to take a supervised urine test as it is. The supreme court definitely made the correct ruling on the court case of Vernonia V. Acton.
In my case, the students at Hazelwood high school were ruled against by the supreme court. They argued that when the administrators deleted two pages of their newspaper that it was a violation of their 1st right amendments. They said their freedom of press and free speech was violated. However, the supreme court did not agree because the articles deleted had content that was not appropriate for school and could have caused issues among the students. I'm split as to who I agree with. I believe that students should be able to write whatever they want to express themselves in their own newspaper regardless of if the topic is controversial or not. A newspaper is a public forum and should therefore be able to contain any information that a student wants to release to the public, which in this case is the rest of the school. On the other hand, if this information could cause disruption within the classroom or arguments amongst the students, then it seems that not allowing this to happen is a necessary course of action to keep the classroom a safe environment, technically speaking. Clearly these are conflicting views, which is why I'm glad I'm not the one making the final decision to rule with or against the students.
In my court case Bethel vs Fraser, Fraser was suspended from school and his graduation speaking privileges were taken away after a speech he gave that used several sexual innuendos. However, Fraser argued that the school's actions against him violated his first amendment rights. When the case was brought to the supreme court they ruled in favor of the school on the grounds that schools had the right to censor inappropriate and obscene language to create a conducive an effective learning environment. Fraser's explicit speech broke the schools code against disruptive conduct. Though I believe that the school overreacted to Fraser's speech, I ultimately agree with the supreme courts ruling.
I agree with the Supreme Court that students who are participating in extracurricular activities are allowed to be randomly drug tested, in the case of Vernonia School district vs. ACTON et.ux. These students are volunteering for these activities, they are not being forced to do them, and these drugs have an effect on a student’s performance, and may harm them if they overdose. It was stated in the case that these random drug tests may be against our 4th Amendment rights which I disagree with. The 4th Amendment protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. The students are well aware before they go out for a team that they may be randomly drug tested. This is not unreasonable because these test are protecting the students involved. The students and their safety is in the hands of the administration, they should be allowed to check for drugs only during the athlete’s season. If the student isn’t in season, I believe that the teachers aren’t allowed to test them randomly unless there is reasonable suspicion.
I agree with the Supreme Court in their decisions. Schools should have the right to do whatever is necessary to keep the faculty and students safe and protected. This includes being able to strip search students if it is absolutely needed. It also means restricting freedom of speech. I don't believe that schools should take this too seriously though. However, if someone gets out of line and is being disruptive, then the school has the right to punish them. Also, schools should notify students when they are being suspended since it is their right to know what they are being punished for. Finally, schools should be allowed to have random drug tests for extracurricular activities. They should not be allowed to test every student in my opinion, but students who participate in sports and clubs should be subject to drug tests.
I believe that the court case Bethel Vs Fraser was fair.They had over reacted and gave an unnecessary punishment to him. There are many laws today that have to do with interfering with the learning of student. Fraser only made a speech and it did not have anything to do with disrupting a student's learning.The students that heard his speech only laughed and soon after matured about it and went on with their day as if it never happened. He wasn't told to not give the speech at all by his teachers. He was only told that it would not be the best idea to give the speech. That does not mean that you can't give it anyways. There was really nothing inappropriate about the speech. There was no graphic sayings or any profanity in the speech at all. In high schools, colleges, and even at jobs like the one i have, there are things said that are much worse and yet no one gets punished for it but Fraser gets screwed for something said in his speech that was nowhere near bad. In my opinion this was a violation of his first amendment rights. There was nothing bad in his speech. Yes, there are some things that younger immature kids would take the wrong way but there isn't really anything bad about it.
For my case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O, the supreme courts decision was decided correctly. When T.L.O was caught in the bathroom, obviously smoking, it should be that there is reasonable suspicion that she had been smoking, and therefore it was reasonable to search her person. Although people believed it violated her 4th amendment rights, i disagree. In a school, there are a lot more protocols to keep children safe, and these reasonable precautions help keep this in check. As a student, if a person was accused of having a gun in school, i would want that student to be searched immediately, for me and my schools safety.
I do believe that the majority opinion in the Goss v. Lopez case was correctly decided for many reasons. Firstly, the nine students that were suspended were stripped from their education for an extended period of time without a hearing. And even though it was stated in the majority opinion’s documents and probably a precedent set by previous cases that a student can be prohibited from entering school grounds if that student poses a threat to the safety and well being of the other students. However, supposedly this case was about kids being suspended for alcohol and possibly involving drugs. Since they do not provide a clear and direct threat on other students and faculty, their 14th amendment right guarantees them due process in a hearing or court of law (including a school board). This means their 14th amendment was violated by the school and it was ruled unconstitutional. Personally as a student, even if I obviously did something wrong or committed some sort of crime, I would undoubtedly want a hearing so that I can present my case and allow the jurors to hear both sides of the story. The fact that this faculty suspended the students without due process which directly stripped them of their right to an education was startling to me. It wasn’t as if they benched them from their teams for a few games or just disallowed their right to extracurricular activities, what was being taken away was their ability to pursue knowledge and become contributing citizens, kind of sounds contradicting to what the administration is supposed to be doing right? It’s like taking away someone’s fruits and vegetables, make them do community service or something instead of having to miss class.
In the supreme court case that my group looked at student athletes were being drug tested. The majority opinion in this case was that student athletes were subject to drug test because it was not directly involved in their learning. In the constitution no one can take away your learning without due process but extra curricular activities aren't considered to be part of your learning. Also because you chose to do the sport or activity you are bringing yourself to an area where performance enhancing drugs might be used. Although most students don't use any type of enhancement there are the few that do and therefore all students in extra curricular activities are subject to these test. I think that some suspicion should be required though because it is unfair that so few students use enhancing drugs but all are forced into these drug test a completely random drug test is unconstitutional and violate your rights.
My case, Bethel vs. Fraser, concerns the First Amendment of the Constitution which is the freedom of speech. A high school student delivered a speech to the whole school to nominate a fellow student for student elective office, and the issue was that his speech was very double entendre, and his word choice was obvious to contain explicit sexual metaphor. I believe that the case should've never reached the Supreme Court, considering that two teachers had warned him beforehand of the consequences of continuing with his speech but never tried to really stop him from doing it (I'm sure they found it to be funny and never expected for it to become a great issue). They should've been punished as well. I've seen and heard worse than what Fraser did, most especially on the internet where some people go as far as create fake profiles just to bully a person. Racism is rampant and although it's not illegal, it's a lot more offensive than making sexual jokes like a normal teenager would.
collier tiffany
collier vivienne
main bracelet chanel
porte cles chanel
porte cles louis vuitton
tee shirts manche longue
tee shirts armani manche longue
tee shirts boss manche longue
tee shirts burberry manche longue
tee shirts CK manche longue
tee shirts D&G manche longue
tee shirts diesel manche longue
tee shirts g star manche longue
tee shirts gucci manche longue
tee shirts jeep manche longue
tee shirts lv manche longue
tee shirts polo manche longue
tee shirts prada manche longue
tee shirts versace manche longue
Post a Comment