In another case, Hunt v. State (2013), Delaware State Trooper David Pritchett was asked by the Vice Principal of Richard A. Shields Elementary School to talk to a small group of fifth graders who were in "in-school suspension" about bullying on January 30, 2008. Pritchett was completing a four month SRO (School Resource Officer) assignment for the School District. The day after Pritchett's presentation, one of the students informed an administrator that another fifth grade student had taken money from an autistic student on the bus. The vice principal contacted the mother of the student who had taken the money, asking permission to have the SRO come to school and talk to the student, the student's mother gave consent. Both the vice principal and the SRO pulled the student into the reading lab for questioning. During this time, the vice …show more content…
. . took a dollar. I know that you didn’t do that. You're not in any trouble. I just need you to be brave and come in here. When I tell you -- when I tell the story of what’s happened and I look at you, you just say no, you didn’t do it . . . ." (Hunt v. State, 2013). During the questioning, the door was closed, and Hunt was told that if he was lying he could be arrested among other things. Hunt claimed that Pritchett used a harsh voice and made the threat of arresting him 11-12 times. After Pritchett looked at the other student and told that student to look at Hunt who was about to cry. The student admitted that he, not Hunt, was the one who took the money. Pritchett praised and complimented Hunt and asked if he wanted him to call his parents, but Hunt declined. When he got home, he informed his mother of what happened and was then withdrawn from school for 18 months. Because the questioning in this case was unreasonably seized and intentionally used to frightened Hunt, in order to teach another student a lesson, this was considered a violation of his Fourth Amendment
Facts: Rex Marshall testified that the deceased came into his store intoxicated, and started whispering things to his wife. The defendant stated that he ordered the deceased out of the store immediately, however the deceased refused to leave and started acting in an aggressive manner; by slamming his hate down on the counter. He then reached for the hammer, the defendant states he had reason to believe the deceased was going to hit him with the hammer attempting to kill him. Once the deceased reached for the hammer the defendant shot him almost immediately.
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
This decision makes it clear the most important thing for a school to do is to protect the students. It also states that the board of education, whose role is to oversee the schools, must make sure that the staff of the schools is protecting those children. This case highlights that long-term abuse can happen in schools if there are not clear policies or, if there are, that there is no one ensuring that those policies are
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
According to the Justice Kagan, in the case of Florida vs. Harris, “we considered how a court should determine if the “alert” of drug-detention during a traffic stop provides probable cause to search a vehicle” (Kagan).
I. Facts: 15-year-old delinquent, Gerald Gault and a friend were arrested after being accused of making a lewd phone call to a neighbor. Gerald’s parents were not notified of the situation. After a hearing, the juvenile court judge ordered Gerald to surrender to the State Industrial School until he reached the age of minority (21). Gerald's attorney petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the state of Arizona for violating the juvenile’s 14th Amendment due process rights. The Superior Court of Arizona and the Arizona State Supreme Court both dismissed the writ affirmatively deciding that the juvenile’s due process rights were not violated.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
The case of the State of Florida vs. Chad Heins happened in 1994 in Mayport, Florida. It was on April 17, 1994 that Tina Heins, who was pregnant at the time, was found stabbed to death in her apartment. She shared an apartment with her husband Jeremy Heins and Jeremy’s brother Chad Heins. At the time of the incident Jeremy Heins was on a ship because he worked in the navy but Chad Heins was at the apartment. Before the incident happened Chad Heins, the defendant, who was nineteen at the time, used his brothers license to buy alcohol at a strip club near the apartment. After that Chad Heins had went to another bar where his brothers license got confiscated. He left the bar around 12:45 a.m. and went back to the apartment. He then washed his
With tensions at an all time high and the nation at a potential breaking point, the decision in the Dred Scott Case came as a surprise to both the North and the South. The decision had drastic consequences, southern principles were validated while northern liberties were threatened. Therefore it is not surprising that The New York Herald and The Charleston Mercury had very different view points and reporting styles. The northern newspaper viewed the decision’s impact as having “tremendous consequences,” the article included how the Supreme Court’s ruling dismantled northern states’ rights, threatened their liberty and state constitutions. While the southern newspaper saw the decision as a “triumph” for southern rights, likely because it granted and validated property rights, and limited Congress’ political debates over slavery. The Federal government could no longer meddle in state affairs and ended the need for compromises between anti and pro-slavery states. Although the North and the South had very different opinions on the decision’s impact, one thing was clear this decision was not the end of the agitation between anti and pro-slavery states. Political agitations prior to the Dred Scott case influenced how this dynamic decision was viewed and reported in The New York Herald, “The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott Case, and Its Tremendous Consequences” and in The Charleston Mercury, “The Dred Scott Case-The Supreme Court on the Rights of the South”.
Studies have shown that schools with an SRO have more arrests and charges against students compared to schools which have not employed an SRO program. Some studies have shown the presence of an SRO in the school system showed a 197% increase in the rate of arrests per one hundred students (Theriot, 2009). This is a tremendous increase in arrests of students, which majority of the arrests are for disorderly conduct or simple assaults (fighting with other students). By arresting
In the late 1940s Dr. Julius Wolf was arrested and charged with conspiracy of performing illegal abortions. A Colorado woman named Gertrude Martin had a back- alley abortion which, at the time, was illegal in the state of Colorado. She later had medical complications, therefore landing her in the hospital where she was then questioned by the police.