Case Study: T. M. V. State Of Florida

2. No, I would say principal Dixon is not justified to deny use of school facilities because she is making the judgment based her beliefs and not the eye of the law’s.

FACTS: Graham, 16 years old, was sentenced to three years' probation, with the first year to be served in the county jail. Less than six months after being released, he was arrested for a home-invasion robbery with two accomplices. After that, he was sentenced to life imprison without the possibility of parole.

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Every American citizen has rights and responsibilities, regardless of whether they are major or minor. Pinellas Park has the right to pass laws that help to protect public safety, but sometimes these laws are a little bit too strict, and some people may feel that their rights are being violated by these laws. This case is a good example of that, T.M has rights that are defended by the constitution, and also his parents have those rights.

Ethics, or also referred to as moral philosophy, helps determine when things are right and when things are wrong. To kill or not to kill? To abuse or not to abuse? To hurt or not to hurt? In the nursing profession, as in all major health professional fields, nurses are bound to a certain Nurse’s Code of Ethics (Kelly, 2010). Obey the code, and a registered nurse can potentially live a long healthy career in the nursing field. Violate the nurse’s code of ethics, and one can seek penalties including but not limited to fines, fees, revocation, license suspension, probation, and even imprisonment. So what exactly happens to a Nurse who disobeys the code of ethics? The case between the State of Florida vs Mr. D.R.O. helps in getting a better understanding of what happens when a registered healthcare professional, in this case a Nurse, challenges the nursing code of ethics. Is the verdict appropriate in the defendant’s case? Were the consequences adequately applicable to the damages the defendant imposed? How can future and active registered nurses avoid situations like this in their career? Although the concept of ethics and the answers to some of these questions can seem common sense to most of us, in some cases, our minds can be clouded or disturbed

In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O., the student’s purse was searched after the principal had reasonable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse since she was caught smoking in the bathroom. The court decision in this case concluded that teachers are acting as agents for the state and are therefore allowed to search if they have reasonable suspicion. Students do have the Fourth Amendment right as all people in America have. However, student’s expectation of privacy has to be balanced with the needs of the school to maintain the educational environment. Schools do not have to obtain a warrant to search, but must have reasonable suspicion in order to search a student’s person or property.

I, The Honorable Nyla Lennon write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v. State of Florida.

The majority opinion leaned towards letting the 4 petitioning kids, seeing that in a multitude of court cases before showed similar conduct. An example of such was the case West Virginia v. Barnette, where students in the public school system are not held to salute the American flag. “The Fourteenth Amendment, as now applied to the States, protects the citizens against the State itself and all of its creatures- Boards of Education not excepted. These have, of course, important,

The majority opinion included the fact that the principle acted correctly since the rights of the other students’ in the articles were in question of being violated; moreover, they did not believe that the Tinker standard applied to this case. In the Tinker case, personal expression was by students’ rather than over a school newspaper they wrote; the unorthodox opinion, though, felt that the Tinker standard did actually apply to this case. The opposition claimed while the articles are from a school newspaper, they still reflect personal student views; then the opposition went on to express growing concern for allowing the restriction in this case, because they believed it would lead to big infringements on First Amendment

My views are a reflection of the majority opinion on this case because I felt that the censorship of the newspaper pages didn't necessarily violate student rights under the First Amendment. The majority opinion stated that the principle acted responsibly being that the rights of the students in the articles were in question. They didn'tbelieve that the Tinker standard even applied to this case at all since in the Tinker case, it was personal expression by students instead of what was in a school newspaper. The dissenting opinion felt that the Tinker standard did apply to this case as they said that even though the articles were from the school's

The state of Mississippi has not passed many laws, which are named in honor of crime victims. A check of the state legislature’s web site, which shows the status of bills passed during each legislative session, shows that, since 2006, only three laws have been passed, which are named in honor of crime victims (Miss. Bill Status, 2016).

On the Summer night of July 15, 2003, Evan Miller along with an accomplice committed murder by the way of battery and arson (Oyez). Nearly a decade later, this case would play a crucial role in the Supreme Court decision on mandatory life without parole sentences of juveniles. In a decision which relied heavily on the beliefs and opinions of those present, the court argued the culpability of youth with regards to actions such as murder. Much of the rationale used on the date of the oral argument stemmed from the former cases of both Roper V. Simmons (2005) and Graham V. Florida (2010). Essentially, the Miller V. Alabama case

Following the Hazelwood decision of 1988, school officials such as principles were given the right to censor student publications and practice prior review; reading the articles before they are published. Many school officials fortunately refrain from using their ability to do so. Sadly, nearly one third of journalism students and teachers have reported administrative censorship over their content