Goss Vs. Lopez Case Study

The majority opinion says that the schools did not have the right to suspend the students

Any exit where students leave the building or congregate before or after school should be supervised by a school official.

"The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited deprivation of life, freedom or assets, property, without due process and equally violate the Fifth Amendment rules that inquire no private property shall be taken for public use without rightful recompense.” CES was required to follow up with a notice and provide an opportunity to be heard before they penalized a student. The board was supposed to hold an entire hearing on the third offense before any expulsion, arrest, incarceration or confiscating the student's phone permanently which they completely ignored.

school environment" (Eaton, 2014). The Supreme Court has not yet made a ruling on a case

School boards often do not adequately justify their reasons for denying High School Students their first amendment rights. Usually, the

The student does not have the right to decide his punishment. The school official in

He could say whatever he wanted and that would be protected. But the school could also punish him how they saw fit. They also ruled that his due process rights had not been violated because he had no way of knowing whether or not he would be getting in trouble for his actions due to the school's code of conduct not needing to be as detailed as a criminal code of conduct. I believe that in this instance they made the right decision due to the fact that their reasoning makes sense. The first amendment gives citizens the right to say what they wish and have any opinion that they wish. It does not say that it will protect us from the punishments we may receive by voicing these opinions in an inappropriate way. As for his due process rights, he really had no way of knowing what course the school would take in punishing him, therefore no due process rights could be applied because the code of conduct at the school was not detailed enough for it to work in that

This case involved a 17 year old student that was elgiable for the IDEA services at the school. The student explosively responded to the taunts of a peer by choking the student and then kicking out a school window as he was escorted to the principal’s office. Doe was suspended for 5 days. On the fifth day of Doe’s suspension, the San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) Student Placement Committee notified his mother that it was recommending his expulsion and that his suspension would continue indefinitely until the expulsion proceedings were complete. (Steketee, n.d.) The mother disagreed with this ruling and pressed further. The courts later granted the student a preliminary injunction, the trial court entered a permanent injunction

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 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.

This article discusses Jane Doe, a Texas high school girl sexually molested by a high school teacher. Jane Doe filed a civil suit against Taylor independent School District. The reasons were, the school board permitted violations of due process and violated her equal protection rights. Jane thoroughly established her constitutional rights and proceeded with her claim. The teacher violated the fourteenth amendment to be free from sexual abuse by a state employed teacher. The court ruled in favor of Doe, stating that there was no action taken in order to prevent the violation of her rights. This case impressed me, it was very interesting. I believe that the teacher violated the student rights and the school failed to properly respond to the claims of molestation. I was also shocked that the school district was not proactive toward Doe needs.

The case Morse v. Frederick was a very controversial case involving freedom of speech in the school and at school sponsored events. A High School in Juneau, Alaska consented to a school supervised release from

Ether Parent in the scenario has a right to request an informal conference with the principal. Depending upon the situation, the principal may take a more formal approach. In any case, the student must be contacted or at least make reasonable attempted contact. I have seen a situation where a student has committed serious offenses and the parent was not able to be bothered with the situation. Education code dictates the right to an appeal to suspensions or expulsions. LACOE does not have an appeal policy. There have been situations where students have appealed to the LACOE board. These situations are atypical of a LACOE program. However, LACOE manages programs for the High School and the Arts which has a higher level of participation.

The most crucial part of this case, comes down to one word: reaction. Furthermore, Los Angeles Police Officers, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, did what their instincts told them to do- which was react. Angel Mendez and Jennifer Lynn Garcia were hiding out in a shack, and Mendez was holding a gun. Both officers felt threatened, and they did what trained police officers are told to do, along with what anyone that knows how to react, would have done. If one feels threatened, one is going to whatever it takes to protect one’s self. The United States Supreme Court should rule in favor of the Los Angeles Police Department because officer’s Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson had every right to react the way the did,

If this case came up before me in the Supreme Court I would rule that the high school can not ban students