Case Study: Honig V. California

Honig vs. Doe is a court case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in January 20, 1988 (6-2) the California School Board had violated the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA), (Steketee). After the school board suspended a student indefinitely for violent and disruptive behavior which was caused by his disability. Doe was a 17-year-old student who was taunted by his peers due to his physical abnormalities, speech difficulties, and poor grooming habits, (FreedomKentucky). Doe’s Individual Education Program (IEP) goal set was to improve his ability to relate to peers and control his impulses and anger. In November of 1980 Doe was overcome with anger and lashed out in an explosive manner where he choked a student with such force the student had abrasions on his neck, after the altercation he was being escorted to the principal’s office and during this process he also kicked out a school window in a moment of angry. Doe was suspended initially for 5 days the school board began the process of expulsion proceedings and informed the student’s family Doe would not be able to return to school until the proceedings were finalized. Doe qualified for special education services under the EAHCA and the suit was filed regarding “stay-put” act. The “stay-put” act allows children with disabilities to stay in their school environment while proceedings are under way unless teachers and the parents agree otherwise. Once the injunction was

In 2004 the case of Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education was coming to a close after reaching the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Ohio. Within this essay, detailed examination of this case, along with issues that developed the case, disagreement points, parties involved, and final outcome will be explored. This case was initiated in 1999 and reached the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2004. The Individuals with Disabilities Act has given parents and caregivers to student’s unparalleled

MILLERSBURG — With allegations he made threats against a Holmes County probation officer previously dismissed, an Orrville man on Monday admitted to an underlying drug charge.

Even If This Court Was To Find That Ms. Brie’s Authority to Consent Was Ambiguous, This Court Must Still Find that the District Court Properly Denied the Defendant-Appellant’s Motion.

ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA (1947) FACTS: Like the federal constitution, the California constitution affords a criminal defendant protection against self-incrimination, However, a California law permits the prosecutor to comment on the failure of a criminal defendant to testify in his own defense. California law also forbids the prosecutor to comment on a criminal defendant’s previous convictions unless they come up on cross examination of the defendant. A result Adamson was placed in the position of taking the stand in his own defense and having his previous convictions revealed to the jury or refusing to take the stand and letting the prosecutor draw negative inferences from his failure to do so. Adamson argues that the Fifth Amendment’s privilege

The United States Constitution sets forth that the Sixth Amendment assures that “in all criminal tribunals, the defendant shall enjoy the right to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. In addition to the right to counsel, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to waive assistance of counsel and the right to conduct one’s own defense. The Faretta v. California case set aside a conviction because Faretta was convicted after the trial court proceedings which forced him to accept a public defender. Now that an overview of the Sixth Amendments’ Right to Counsel has been briefed, the next section will focus on problems with the sixth amendment of right to counsel as it pertains to defendants with disabilities or indignities.

It is unlikely for Computin to be able to successfully suppress the evidence against him considering any avenue he could take would all be invalidated under the FISA Amendments act, specifically Section 702. One such avenue is claiming his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. Under the Fourth Amendment one can expect a “reasonable expectation of privacy” that is both subjective and objective. If Computin expected his laptop to be private and if society would also agree that such privacy is reasonable, he can claim that the court violated his Fourth Amendment Rights. Many cases have seen people try but fail to invoke their Fourth Amendment rights. In the legal case of Riley v. California, Riley moved to suppress evidence that was obtained without a warrant, citing his Fourth Amendment rights that prevented warrantless searches. Even though this was a physical procedure that is different from the manner in which

While reviewing this case I found it beneficial to refer to La Morte’s definition, which states that in education “substantive due process essentially deals with the question of fair treatment of persons by those acting under the color of the state” (p.5). I was previously familiar with the concept of due process, but have limited experience applying my knowledge in a professional setting. i feel the most valuable thing I took away from this reading is the importance of formal observations and documentation. Ultimately, the court ruled against the district because they did not have a Certified Behavior Analyst complete a functional behavior assessment of the child (Broder, 2010,

Rule - The court had ruled the school district in favor and held the defendant to the sanctions imposed by the high school. The student had engaged in off-campus cyberbullying of two teacher-coaches but he did not violate his school freedom of speech rights considering that harassment satisfies “substantial disruption” standard for restricting student speech established by the U.S.

Officer A will represent the wrongdoing partner and Officer B will represent the officer who follows the Code of Ethics. In the scenario provided, Officer A along with Officer B stopped a motor vehicle for no tail lights. Upon running a check of the motorist’s driver license, vehicle registration, and vehicle insurance, all returned a valid check. Officer A informed Officer B that he had a bad feeling about the driver of the motor vehicle; therefore, Officer A ordered the motorist out of the vehicle. After the motorist exited the vehicle, Officer A searched the vehicle and discovered a gun under the front seat. Officer A placed the motorist under arrest and took him to the police station. Officer A runs the serial number of the gun through the system and it came back a positive hit as being used in a homicide. Officer A confronts the motorist with the discovery, resulting in the motorist confessing to the crime of murder. Officer B is fully aware that Officer A

Significance: The verdict holds that parents can go outside the range of preapproved IDEA-adhering institutions if the education they will receive is relatively equitable. As a future principal, this precedent confirms my role in making sure every child gets the best education possible. It’s my job to make sure every student gets the best education possible despite their disability. When this is not feasible, it’s nice to know that parents have other possibilities available for educating their

A child who violates a school code is protected under IDEA’s discipline laws only if the school knows the child has a disability. The school can only know this if the mother has previously expressed concerns in writing, or the teacher talked about it and or made a referral prior to the incident. This is a very unfair determination.

The Supreme Court, located in Brisbane, was the original court which heard this matter. This was due to that it was a civil matter that dealt with an inheritance over $750,000. This $750,000 was made up of the deceased estate as well as passbook and shares.

The question in Honig was whether the school could expel for more than 10 days two students who were classified as emotionally disturbed and who engaged in various safetyrelated offenses that were a manifestation of their disability. The U.S. Department of Education interprets an exclusion for more than 10 consecutive days as a change in the student’s placement in special education, but according to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), special education students can be removed from their placement only through an agreement between the school and the student’s parents or by a preliminary injunction from a court that finds the student substantially likely to injure self or others. In the turbulent wake of Honig, the lower courts

While individual school districts across the United States are autonomous entities granted with the legal authority to establish policy guidelines and sanctions for violation of these rules, each district must also comply with federal education mandates. One of these national programs, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), is designed to preserve the rights of disabled children by extending them additional protections and services within the public education sector. The local Greene County School District is no exception and its official policies regarding the discipline of disabled children are heavily influenced by the directives of the IDEA act, which states unequivocally that "if the local education agency (LEA), the parent, and members of the child's individualized education program (IEP) Team determine that the child's behavior was the direct result of the LEA's failure to implement the child's IEP, the LEA must take immediate steps to remedy those deficiencies" (U.S. Department of Education). The spirit of the disciplinary measures enacted by the IDEA legislation intends to protect qualified students suffering from a physical, mental or emotional disability from undue punishments or penalties which may result from behavioral misconduct that stems directly or indirectly from their disability. As such, the Greene County High School Student Handbook expressly states that, "when considering the discipline to be imposed, administrators will take into