Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abstract on teenagers smoking
Abstract on teenagers smoking
Abstract on teenagers smoking
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Abstract on teenagers smoking
Abstract on teenagers smoking
Abstract on teenagers smoking
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Abstract on teenagers smoking
: Joseph Frederick a high school student filed suit in District Court under 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging violation of his First Amendment rights by the school board and Deborah Morse, the principal of his high school. The District Court granted summary judgment for the school board and Morse. Frederick appealed to the Ninth Circuit and the District Court’s decision was reversed. Morse appealed and Certiorari was granted. Facts: On January 24, 2002 the Olympic Torch Relay passed through Juneau, Alaska while school was in session.
Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the
The Supreme Court specifically held that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable to discipline imposed in the schools.” “The prisoner and the school child stand in wholly different circumstances, separated by the harsh facts of criminal conviction and incarceration.... The school-child has little need for the protection of the Eighth Amendment.” (“DICKENS BY DICKENS v. JOHNSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. (n.d.)”)
As seen in previous cases like Tinker vs. Des Moines, students have the right to political say, unless it causes disruption at school of students are promoting something that goes against the law. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines the students were not promoting anything illegal but showed their thought on the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands (Tinker). Argued in court by Kenneth W. Starr in the Morse v. Frederick case, he gave the idea that the foundation for school censorship was the case of Tinker v. Des Moines (Morse). The Justices responded back saying, that case was a different scenario as the students weren 't doing anything against the law while Frederick was encouraging the use of marijuana which was illegal (Morse).
Peter Crumans 4th amendments were not violated when he was compelled to show his Facebook page. School officials were trying to protect the wellbeing of their students, therefore trying to get to the bottom of what this tip was about and needed to search the suspected student who after a little persistence began to cooperate. Principal Lyons received an anonymous tip that Peter Curman had posted that he would be conducting a few sales of illegal drugs on school property giving him reasonable suspicion to search the student. In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O school officials were able to search a student due to reasonable suspicion for violations on school property, therefore giving principal Lyons justification because he not only received
The Tinker V. Des Moines had a huge impact on history and school districts. Des Moines was community school district. The Tinker’s were a family that attended it. There were two children from the Tinker family that attended Des Moines and they are John F. Tinker and his sister Mary B. Tinker. They were suspended for protesting.
The District Court held Central High School accountable for its violation of the 14th Amendment, it stated that
School officials can conduct a warrantless search if a student has evidence of illegal activity or is doing an activity that interferes with school order and discipline. The court changed the ruling on T.L.O. because they said that just having the cigarettes didn’t violate school rules, so they didn’t have a justifiable reason to search her purse. When the Case went to the Supreme Court, they were supposed to decide if evidence that is unlawfully taken by a school official can be allowed as evidence in a Juvenile Court proceeding. It was argued on March 28, 1984 and on October 2, 1984. They ruled on January 15, 1985.
The issue in this case was whether school-sponsored nondenominational prayer in public schools violates the Establishment clause of the first amendment (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This case dealt with a New York state law that had required public schools to open each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a nondenominational prayer in which the students recognized their dependence upon God (Facts and Case Summary - Engel v. Vitale, n.d.). This law had also allowed students to absent themselves from this activity if they found that it was objectionable. There was a parent that sued the school on behalf of their child. Their argument was that the law violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as made applicable
Again, all students claimed their rights to the due process clause of the 14th amendment were violated. The major purpose of the due process clause is for a person to be heard. It basically gives a person the chance to defend accusations that are being made against them. It clearly states that students must be given some type of prior notice, and they must be given some type of arena to hear and defend those accusations.
In the article “At some schools, ‘Big Brother’ is watching”, by Kelly Wallace, the story of a school district is presented. This district has decided to pay $40,500 to a tech firm to monitor the students social media. This plan is controversial for obvious reasons, it contradicts the first amendment and just shows a lack of respects for the students and their privacy. For the reasons of the First Amendment and not virtually stalking students, Wallace feels that monitoring what students post is not justified. Tom Gayda emailed CNN and shared his opinion that “schools need to respect boundaries and the First Amendment… my concern is if a kid goes home and writes ‘the school lunch sucks,’ and the next day they’re brought in and in trouble for
Jackson’s First Amendment right against school’s disruption, court should consider the nature of Mr. Jackson’s speech, by evaluating “manner, time, and place” in which speech occurred. Melzer v. Board of Education, 336 F.3d 185, 199 (2003). In Mr. Jackson’s case, it would be hard to argue that school had an interest in controlling Mr. Jackson’s freedom of speech. This is because the speech was held outside of school on a topic that was not related to Middleton High School. CT 4.
The Verdict discussed how both cases were attempting to suppress evidence from their cell phones which now contain much more information than they once did. Cases like this continue to shape our rights. The fourth amendment is here to protect ourselves from being incriminated. In modern day the fourth amendment is in question due to new technology.
Jackson wrote the majority opinion, the Supreme Court held that unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the First Amendment, the government cannot enforce laws on an individual’s will regarding of religious liberty. As long as the actions do not present a clear and present danger. The school district had clearly violated the student rights by forcing the student to salute the flag and pledge of allegiances. Jackson reasoned that by forcing the student to salute the flag it was a sign of communicated an expression of set idea.
It may seem a little invasive, but schools are permitted to use drug dogs to sniff out contraband during unannounced, random searches and it becomes a controversial problem for all. The use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools is permitted because students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the school and school search did not go against the Fourth Amendment, which is the right of people to be secure in their personal spaces houses and papers. While drug dogs are becoming more and more commonplace in our public schools and to maintaining a drug-dog program can cost district estimates $12,000 and $36,000 every year. Drug dog must go through a long period of time of training and drug dogs are not dangerous to people, but instead it protects people. Without reservation, we must know the history background, advantages, and disadvantages of having a drug dog searches.