Dustin Seal, a junior at Powell High School, Knoxville, TN drove his mom’s car to Friday-night football game with his friends who had put a knife in the glove compartment without his information. Over a suspicion of drinking alcohol, school vice principal searched Dustin’s car and found a hunting knife. Being unaware of the knife Dustin got suspended with pending expulsion from Powell high by the principal. Following with several appeal processes School board sided with the school principal on expelling Dustin. His father sued the school board for violation of Dustin’s right under fourth and fourteenth amendments to Federal court ruled in favor of Seal and the case was settled with $30,000 award to Dustin. six months after the award Unfortunately …show more content…
Although GFSA requires schools to give immediate punishment only for firearms, Knox county school board extended the scope of the policy by adding drug, drug peripheral, violence and dangerous weapons which is not clearly identified therefore school board or superintendent might not count the knife as lethal as firearms. Another legal issue with board decision of expulsion is the possession of it. Looking at Dustin’ report right after the incident and his testimony at board hearings, Dustin clearly stated that He was not aware of the knife being in the glove box. Moreover School official did not have any evidence proving Dustin’ knowledge of the knife. After all, the school board contended that It did not matter whether Dustin was aware of the knife in his car, stating that state law mandated his expulsion just for having a weapon in the car. Whereas in criminal law someone are not in possession of a weapon If you are not acquainted of it for the reason that how come you can think of harming other people. In other words, this simply means Dustin should not be considered that he is in possession of the knife so he should not be given punishment so
Case Name, Citation, Year Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding 557 U.S. 364 (2009) Facts of the Case Redding was an eighth grade student, who was suspected of having over the counter drugs on school grounds. Over the counter drugs on school grounds is a violation of school policy.
Summary of Source The editorial discloses the power that the Court adheres to and whether it should be accountable for the decision making of fugitive slaves. The writer had discussed that in no way did the verdict of the Dred Scott case follow an act of law, but was merely “nullity.” During the settlement, they decided that since Dred Scott’s master had brought him on free land in Missouri or of the United States without having a citizenship, which resulted in him having no case. It continues on to say that the jurisdiction of the case was influenced by opinion, which did not involve any legalities.
This case Tinker v. Des Moines Schools was a very interesting case argued in 1968. A lawsuit was filed against the school after three students, Two of which in high school and one in middle school were suspended from school. The school suspended the students for wearing black armbands protesting the Vietnam war. Two other students wore armbands, but were in elementary school and weren't suspended. The students were fifteen year old John Tinker, sixteen year old Christopher Eckhardt, and thirteen year old Mary Beth Tinker.
Fred reports that on April 22 at 11:00 am, he had a meeting with Kelly Washer from Kingston Property Standards due a complaint from a tenant at 131 Notch Hill, Unit 105. Kelly Washer found no merit to the tenant’s complaints and only found two minor issues that even she is unsure that these are issues at all. One missing cover plate on back of bathroom medicine cabinet and a loose electrical outlet for the stove.
The issue before the court was the question, “Was her Fourth Amendment right violated by school
Smith had been charged with assault and battery which ended in dismissal. Then he was placed on probation for school truancy, during this time Smith was found driving a stolen vehicle. Shortly, after this incident probation was continued when he was cited for riding a bicycle while under the influence of alcohol and for stealing candy bars. Again Smith’s probation was continued when he was charged with larceny and carrying a knife. Smith was also stopped for violating a curfew and threaten an officer with a knife.
Jonathan/Oliver: Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser Jonathan: Petitioners: Bethel School District Jonathan: Respondents: Matthew N. Fraser Oliver: Petitioners’ Claim: That punishing Fraser for using offensive language in high school assembly speech did not violate the freedom of speech Oliver: Bethel School District v. Fraser was a United States Supreme Court decision involving free speech in public. Parties of the Case: Bethel School District / Matthew Fraser Oliver: The Bethel School District has an estimated enrollment of over 18,000 students. Jonathan: Matthew Fraser is a 17-year-old senior who attends Bethel High School in Washington.
I pull Travis aside to ask about his hand but also confront him about the swiss army knife. Travis, who is a hard-working student, panics when I mention the knife. I ask Travis why the knife was in his book bag. Travis, who was aware of the rule that states that bringing weapons to school is illegal, starts to confess why he had brought the knife to school. He explains that during every passing time between classes two students would approach Travis and harass him.
T.L.O is relying on court president which is similar to the case of Mapp vs Ohio, that if you don’t have a warrant and you go in and find evidence that that is excluded from trial so they shouldn’t be able to use the contents of T.L.O’s purse. This case is a restraint case because it’s not going to change the rules of the school, it’s going to allow for the search. The court argues that it is correct that students do have an expectation of privacy. No student should expect to have a full scale body search. They also say that there needs to be a balancing test with schools ability to have law and order to run classes to make sure legal activities and drugs aren’t in the school to get in the way of educational objectives.
Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.
The policy states that if an individual were to be in possession of or use drugs, alcohol or potential weapons – regardless of accidents, that person will be punished accordingly. Even though the zero-tolerance policy sounds clever on paper, there has been a ton of controversy on the matter. There have been many overreactions; students have been suspended and even expelled for being in possession of nail clippers and a butter knife. Suspending a student for a butter knife in his/her lunchbox who doesn’t have a violent or troubled past is ludicrous. There is also no concrete evidence that proves this policy works at preventing school shootings and violence in general.
Skip Patterson as of now has a nearly non-existent marketing strategy in place. He even said himself he thought these homes would be able to sell themselves, and he is quickly figuring out that he was wrong. Skip needs to create awareness about his product through various forms of advertising and promotion and there are a number of ways in which he can do this. I would recommend treating these “green homes” almost like a brand name. In the sense that he is creating an image of what owning these homes would be like.
Facts of the Case: Earl versus the Board of Education was a Supreme Court case in 2002 where high school students and their parents disliked the action of The Student Activities Drug Testing Policy taking place in an Oklahoma School District. This policy required all middle and high school students who wanted to participate in any extracurricular activity like athletics, to take a mandatory urinary test for drugs before taking part in that activity. However, in this situation in Tecumseh, Oklahoma, the testing was only done for athletics. This was done by the Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (OSSAA). Specifically two Tecumseh High School students and their parents complained and brought suit, they believed this practice violated
It was required that the student's parents be informed of the suspension within 24 hours with given reason. If the student were expelled, they would allowed to appeal to the Board of Education. The principal gave the students suspension without holding a hearing, it was okay because Ohio law did not make it required to do so. But they were also later expelled without a right to have due process. The federal courts believed that the students rights were being violated.
Remove or Revise Zero-tolerance policies are policies that have been adapted in work places, communities, and, most frequently, schools. Depending on how certain schools are run and who they are run by, zero-tolerance policies could be positive and helpful or negative and harmful. Many people wonder are these policies really effective in reducing crime and creating safer environments in schools like lawmakers claim these policies are doing ; most of the opponents to zero-tolerance policies believe that the policies are just cruel punishments that add to the problems that already exist in our schools and communities. There are obviously those who feel that the policies do exactly what they say they do; advocates for zero-tolerance policies