Doe V. Taylor Independent School Case Study

Assuming that the school district was not justified in its actions, does Susie have a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983?

Bethel School District v. Fraser 478 U.S. 675, involved the Bethel School District and a student named Matthew Fraser. The case dealt with freedom of speech in public schools. During a student government speech Fraser used inappropriate language that included sexual innuendos in order to nominate a fellow classmate. The speech created a rowdy audience of over 600 students. Fraser argued that the school violated his First Amendment rights when they suspended him for his endorsement of a fellow classmate. After being tried and appealed in the Ninth Circuit in 1984, the case found it’s was to the United States Supreme Court in 1986. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision and ruled that school officials did NOT violate Fraser’s

In the case of Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, several students in January of 1990 sued the school board alleging that Westside's refusal to allow the students to start a Christian club violated the Equal Access Act. Some students wanted to form this club and be given the same privileges and meeting terms as other after-school schools in this district. The administration initially denied the request, and the school board upheld the administration's decision. The Court of Appeals found in favor of the students in June of 1990.

These errors may have been as a result of SRO being new and not being familiar with school protocol. Also, according to the established due process requirements from Goss v. Lopez (1975), since Truant continued to deny the charges, he should have been able to explain the evidence and given the opportunity to present his version of the events. He was given the opportunity to explain what happened in class, but not for testing positive on the drug test. By his statement it is not clear if he was told that he tested positive for amphetamines. If he does have a diagnosis of ADHD and taking medication, that would explain the positive result of the urine sample. But, since this conversation has not taken place with his parents, this issue remains in question. Since he did indeed test positive this is in violation of Offense #3 (Narcotics, Alcoholic Beverages, and Stimulant Drugs – A student shall not be under the influence of any

The 3 teenagers ended up filing a Civil Rights lawsuit in federal court through their fathers, asking the court to issue an injunction that would bar the school system from further disciplining students in the same situation as well nominal damages. The district court sided with the school board, deciding that the school’s fear of this protest causing disruptions of school discipline was within reason. The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this ruling on an evenly divided vote. The students ended up bringing their case to the Supreme Court after that.

In closing, Justice Abe Fortas and Justice Hugo Black both give valid testimony for their side of the argument; however, Fortas’ profusion of cited evidence outweighs Black’s mainly opinionated case. And even though this may seem like just another court case to be cited one day, it can go a long way in protecting students’

In February of 1992, in the Supreme Court further (Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools) held that victims might be awarded monetary damages in sex discrimination cases. The case involved a high school woman who said she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher. She filed for damages in Federal District Court, which dismissed the complaint, saying Title IX does not authorize an award of damages. The Court of Appeals agreed. But the U.S. Supreme Court held that compensatory and punitive damages

I stand before you, in this court, to try and sway the majority decision regarding Safford United School District v. Redding (June 5, 2009). With agreeance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the act of searching Ms. Redding for drugs that violated the school’s policy, was not a direct violation of her fourth amendment right. It is no secret that maintaining order in any school environment can be a challenging task. It is more evident in today’s society school officials must take an even more proactive stance, when it does come down to maintaining order. With the recent surge of violent crimes and drug abuse that plague our schools, officials should have the right to try to prevent these actions from perpetuating into an epidemic.

In a public school, it was determined that a person can always refuse a search, there is need for reasonable suspicion for a search, as opposed to probable cause and the exclusionary rule does not apply. In TLO, the initial suspicion to search TLO’s purse was justified due to the suspicion that she had been smoking in the bathroom. The majority opinion, written by Byron R. White, stated, “Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be ‘justified at its inception’ when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either law or the rules of the school.” The Court ruled in favor of the school because there was a reason to believe that the defendant had broken a school rule prohibiting smoking in the restrooms. This clarification by the Court holds that even students in a public school are protected by

This article is about how police in Kentucky arrested two elementary school students and that was ruled as being unconstitutional. The incidents violated the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable seizure. There were two incidents of this happening, the first incident was because an eight-year-old boy was being disruptive during class kicking open doors and kicking at the teacher. The officer confronting the boy was telling him that his mother will be there soon and the boy proceeded to swing his elbow towards the officer. The officer stopped it and hand-cuff him for about fifteen minutes with video evidence of the boy saying “that hurts”. The officer even said to the boy that if he asks nicely he will take the handcuffs off him. The boy was later found to be diagnosed with A.D.H.D and P.T.S.D and the school did not know this. The second incident was from a nine-year-old girl being disruptive and then being moved to a “calm room”. The same officer tried to calm her down but she spit in his face and he handcuffed her the exact same way as the boy. The parents of these students sued the officer and the officer was ruled guilty of violating

Imagine being raped and no one can hear you scream for help. Imagine telling someone about the incident and no punishments were received. Meet Christy Brzonkala a freshman at Virginia Tech that was raped by two individuals. Ms. Brzonkala started off by going to state court to testify against Mr. Morrison and Mr. Crawford explaining to the judge and the people that those two gentlemen had sexual intercourse without giving them permission. Since the incident happened in Virginia, the case was held there and not in Pennsylvania. Mr. Morrison even admitted that he had sexual intercourse with her when she repeatedly stated “no”. The punishments Mr. Morrison and Mr. Crawford received were unacceptable and very disappointing. Mr. Morrison was only kicked out of the school and later was allowed to come back because of technical error that occurred. Mr. Crawford did not receive any punishment because he had an alibi, which resulted in him being innocent because there was not enough information on him. This led Ms. Bronzkala to go to federal court against Mr. Morrison and Virginia Tech because she claimed the school did not handle

Procedural History: Savana’s mother filed suit against Safford Unified School District #1, Wilson, Romero, Schwallier for conducting a strip search in violation of Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court for the District of Arizona granted the motion on ground that there was no fourth violation, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. A closely divided Circuit sitting en banc, however, reversed. The ninth circuit held that the strip search was unjustified under the Fourth Amendment test for searches of children by school officials set out in New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Perhaps the most unsettling thing about Bell v. Itawamba County School Board, regardless of the final decision in favor of Bell, is the shockingly little attention the courts gave to the allegations made in the song. However, it is fairly reasonable that the court did not address the misconduct, as it was not the action in question. Perhaps a more unsettling aspect of this case is the lack of school response to the allegations made about the coaches. Bell’s reasons for writing the song, as expressed in his testimony, were the complaints he had heard from female students at the school that they had been sexually harassed by the two coaches. Bell claimed that the reason he wrote a song rather than presenting this problem to administration was

As custom was in the Providence, Rhode Island schools, Robert E. Lee, the principal at Nathan Bishop Middle School, invited a religious leader, a rabbi, to give the prayers at the promotion ceremony for the 8th grade class of which Deborah Weisman was a member. Lee gave Rabbi Gutterman a pamphlet describing the guidelines for nonsectarian prayers. Gutterman delivered an invocation and a benediction at the ceremony.

Students and teachers are free to speak their minds on public school grounds. They are free to express themselves though their choice of clothing, hair, jewelry, etc. However, this protection guaranteed through the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is not unlimited. The idea is that students are free to express their views unless there is a compelling reason to stop them. School officials cannot arbitrarily pick and choose the speech it will allow. In the scenario mentioned here the school must demonstrate that the speech would provoke “substantial disruption” of school activities or invade the rights of others. Admittedly, the Nazi arm bands are offensive to the Jewish students but it does not invade their rights. If the Jewish students