One of the overarching themes in this course has been the need for consistency, consistency in dealing with issues, moreover, consistency in following enacted policies and procedures when dealing with issues. When an issue arises and the facts are in dispute the process of dispensing “justice” is inseparable from due process and need for unbiased decision-making and principled deliberation. Deriving from the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment, constitutional due process requires fairness, process, and procedures by which discretionary power is applied. With respect to higher education, this process is exasperated by the frequent need for universities to make discretionary decisions based on interpretations of disputed facts across multiple areas including employment, contractual obligations, and pedagogy. A violation of due process (from faculty, staff, administrators, or students) must show a deprivation of life, liberty, or property interest in connection to their actives. With respect to higher education claims involving liberty my result from admissions, discipline, academics, and employment while property claims my result from contracts, course grades, or dismissal from school. Falling into two categories: substantive and procedural, substantive due process protects against abuse and harassment from the government and includes right not explicitly named in the Constitution. These rights prevent the government from acting arbitrarily or outside of the scope of their given authority. In Lochner v. New York the question was asked whether the government’s exercise of authority is: “fair, reasonable and appropriate exercise of the police power of the State, or is it an unreasonable, unnecessary, and arbitrary interferen... ... middle of paper ... ...preme Court ruled on behalf of the students saying that “once the state provides an education for all of its citizens, it cannot deprive them of it without ensuring due process protections.” As mentioned earlier, one of the overarching themes in this course has been the need for consistency. When mitigating the possible legal implications of due process requires three steps. First, be consistent. As mentioned in class, a court will look more favorably on consistently poor judgment than inconsistent judgment. Second, follow policies. Beyond simply following established policies, polices must be regularly reviewed and should be consistent with, and rooted in the courts interpretation of due process within the context of higher education. Lastly, do not make “stupid” decisions. Training on policies and case studies can help administrators respond appropriately.
(1) Based on case law from Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, the Supreme Court held that the essentials of due process must be followed. The first holding given by the Supreme Court involved the indirect issue of due process. The Supreme Court held that in juvenile court proceedings the juvenile must be treated fairly and be given the essentials of due process.
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Does the person seeking the benefits of procedural due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution or un...
Reasonable Suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure, more relaxed than probable cause, that can justify less-intrusive searches. For example, a reasonable suspicion justifies a stop and frisk, but not a full search. A reasonable su...
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, 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 searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
...as not required to await the outcome of criminal proceedings against the students before taking their own actions against them (Goldberg v. The Regents).
Bennett, A., & Brower, A. (2001). ’THAT’S NOT WHAT FERPA SAYS!’: THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT GIVES DANGEROUS BREADTH TO FERPA IN ITS CONFUSING AND CONTRADICTORY FALVO V. OWASSO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT DECISION. Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal, 2, 327.
The Fourth Amendment provides people with the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Courts have long recognized that the Forth Amendment protected individuals from unjustified police intrusions into one’s person, home, car, or other possessions, but few practical protection mechanisms existed. To preserve these constitutional guarantees, the Supreme Court established standards by which police officers must abide. One such protection has been the probable cause — a belief that the person committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. In order to uphold an arrest or seizure, courts have required a probable cause combined with either a warrant or circumstances
However, because the Bill of Rights may be vague in its’ description of what constitutes “probable cause,” many cases have been brought before the Supreme Court to debate whether there was sufficient evidence for a search or seizure to take place, and some of these cases have dealt with searches and seizures in schools. One major Supreme Court case took place in ...
Police officers are faced each day with a vast array of situations with which they must deal. No two situations they encounter are ever the same, even when examines a large number of situations over an extended period of time. The officers are usually in the position of having to make decisions on how to handle a specific matter alone, or with little additional advice and without immediate supervision. This is the heart of police discretion. As we shall find, the exercise of discretion by police has benefits and problems associated with such exercise. The unfettered use of discretion can lead to the denial of citizen rights. Strategies that control the use of discretion are, therefore, very important. The benefits and problems of police discretion and controlling strategies are the focus of this essay.
...s due process. Due process is best defined in one word--fairness. When a person is treated unfairly by the government, including the courts, he is said to have been deprived of or denied due process.
Schoettle, F. P. (1971). The equal protection clause in public education. Columbia Law Review, 71(8), 1355-1419.
...n this practice means encouraging the abuse of power. When the abuse of power is encouraged, know that our own freedom is jeopardized. We students should keep that in mind for our future employments.