Wilson Rationale

President Wilson's own ineptitude and stubbornness is what led to the Senate's defeat of the Treaty of Versailles, rather than the strength of the opposing forces. Even Wilson's closest and most trusted advisors could not sway his stance. Wilson was strong in his stance and incorporated the idea of the 14 points. While it is true that opposing forces contributed to defeat the treaty, it was Wilson's unmovable position that led to its ultimate defeat in the Senate.

Wilson, a volleyball who became Chuck’s only companion as he was stranded was who kept him sane during the time they were together. Chuck’s physical needs were being met by Wilson as Chuck was able to maintain his ability to keep up with enough physical activity for him to be able to gather and create tools they would both need to survive, such as starting a fire. As Chuck Argues with Wilson, he fulfills his identity needs by believing that his argument makes him a more logical, smarter person. Chuck is also able to meet his social needs as he uses Wilson’s presence as a listening one he could use to share ideas he had throughout time.

In the court case SMYTH v. LUBBERS, 398 F.Supp 777 (1975) the plaintiff’s rooms were searched without a warrant or probable cause by campus police officers that were acting as officials of the state. They seized a substance that was alleged to be marijuana and proceeded to arrest the plaintiffs. The court held that the search and seizure was illegal because, that two of the campus police officers were acting as representatives of the county police at the time, and there are rules in the student handbook at that college in place to protect students from illegal search and seizure, and those rule were not followed. Just like in Jones v. Rohward University, Deary Jones was subjected to an illegal search and seizure. This search and seizure is

Unreasonable searches are to be prohibited in middle schools. Since the reasons for Redding being search was at the request of the principal. Wilson, he was the main person discussed. The nurse and secretary were acting as agents for Wilson in order to perform the search that he was unable to do because he was male. The school’s rules for the suspicions of illicit drugs were modified to adjust to how it should be handled by school officials. The reasonable standard of suspicion and probable cause has an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge of what is known and discovered. The rules of the school do strictly prohibited the use of nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on the school grounds. The majority feels that the manner in which she was searched was unjust and that it should have been more proof before they proceeded to perform a strip search of the student. The search of the backpack and outer clothes could be expected because of reasonable suspicion of concealing drugs, but the strip search was unnecessary because her clothes did not have pockets and they did not have the right or enough proof to proceed with the strip search in the manner that they did. The Court has adopted a different standard for searches involving an intrusion into the human

With the use of proper search and seizure guidelines, schools are allowed to search students lockers without a warrant. Lockers and backpacks are subject to search with reasonable suspicion. To search a locker, a school staff member or police officer would have to have reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and student consent in some cases (Ehlenberger). For reasonable suspicion to occur, “ the search would be justified at its inception, meaning that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will reveal evidence that the student has violated or is violating the law or school rules, and the search is reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the search, meaning that the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and that the search is not excessively intrusive in light of the student 's age and sex and the nature of the offense” (Ehlenberger). Probable cause to search is when” "known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband will be found" (Ornelas v. United States, 1996, at 696)”

Banks, was the handling of the searches. According to Shade v. City of Farmington (2002), administrators should conduct a search first and then utilize expertise of SRO if evidence is discovered. The administration was not involved in the initial search. In both Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District (1983) and New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) the court deemed it legal to conduct drug searches for probable cause of school lockers and cars in parking lot, so the search of Truant’s belongings was justified if it had been completed by administration first. Ms. Banks should not have conducted any search. The cigarettes and lighter found in the car should be returned to Truant’s parents. Since no drugs were found during the mishandled searches, a drug test should not have been conducted. This was a violation of Truant’s rights. There were no reliable sources corroborating Truant’s use of drugs, nor did any of the searches reveal a reasonable suspicion of his drug

Savana sued her school district, claiming unreasonable search and seizure, and her case went all the way to the Supreme Court(Amy E. Feldman).”School Officers claimed that Ms.Redding was holding Ibuprofen on school grounds. She was called to the office following another student who confessed that she was receiving pills from Ms.Redding. Another student’s confession is not reliable enough for a search or a seizure. The student who was called down has had previous records of drug usage, therefore the probability of her telling a lie was very high at this point.”In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding—25 years after the T.L.O. case—the Supreme Court found that Savana’s rights had, in fact, been violated and stated that a search by a school must not be "excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.(Amy E. Feldman).” The officers at the school claimed Ms.Reddings to be possessing IBuprofen.A probable cause would be to search her purse or backpack, which was the initial search. Nevertheless, subsequently, the school nurse checked her body from her head to her toe, till the only thing covering her, was her underwear.After finding

A. Rule: The court case of T.L.O. also establishes a more compassionate standard of what they review as a “reasonable suspicion”, in what goes on to determine whether or not the lawfulness of the search was in the school policy or follows district policy too. To lead reasonable suspicion can sum up and equalized,when it leans toward a lessen of any chance of finding evidence of wrongful behavior in a student or individual. Of all the information Wilson acquired from the Faculty and other questionable sources from students, Marissa’s statement of the pills came from Savannah that lead was sufficient in justification of a search upon Savannah’s backpack. In addition the Savannah’s outer clothing. Savannah reasoning could be possibly was reckoning of carrying the tylenol. The disgraceful strip search and seizure that ultimately exposed her private areas to some degree.The content of this belief failed to match the degree of intrusiveness she was getting from the school. Nothing was led to suggested the amount and quantity of the drugs, could appeal to pose a real danger to any of the students or to that of Savannah in carrying pills in her underwear or in bra.School officials are allowed and can search any students belongings and lockers. They are entitled to qualified immunity where it clearly states and establishes as qualified immunity and established

In Safford Arizona school on October 8th, officials strip-searched a 13-year-old girl after they received information from another student that the girl possessed "prescription strength" 400 mg ibuprofen and 200mg naproxen. While attending math, assistant principle Kerry Wilson entered the classroom and instructed Savanna Redding's to his office. Upon entering, she immediately noticed her planner placed on his desk. However, what she didn't recognize was the knife, cigarette and lighter that was contained inside it. Admitting the planner was hers, she explained to the assistant principle that she had lent the planner prior to her classmate, Marissa and had NO knowledge of what

People generally think that it is wrong to go through someone else’s stuff without their permission. This usually continues when you are in high school and the school administrator goes through your purse. This is what happened for T.L.O. when she was a freshman caught smoking marijuana in the bathroom and the vice principle thought that it was okay to look through her purse for proof of what she had done. They both obviously did something that was going to be seen as wrong to different people. Today we will discuss how the T.L.O. V. New Jersey court case was created, the steps that it went through and the final decision and how it still impacts lives today. The T.L.O. court case made an impact on schools especially students and their administrators.

The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina entered judgements for defendants, and the patients appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Court affirmed. Certiorari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice Stevens, held that: (1) urine tests were “searches” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and (2) the reporting of positive test results to police were unreasonable searches without patients consent, in view of the policy’s law enforcement purpose. Reversed and remanded. – STEVENS, J., joined by O’CONNOR, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER, JJ” (Samaha,

In 1980, at Piscataway Township High School, 14-year-old T.L.O. and a peer were caught smoking cigarettes in a school restroom which violated school rules. The two violators were taken to the Assistant Vice Principal’s office where one student confessed to smoking while the other, T.L.O., denied the allegation. The Assistant Vice Principal demanded T.L.O to hand over her purse where he found cigarette papers, cigarettes, a pipe, marijuana, a list of students who owed T.L.O., and a large amount of money. The school authorities contacted T.L.O.’s mother who then brought T.L.O. to turn herself in; she eventually confessed to having sold marijuana on school grounds. Juvenile delinquency charges were brought upon T.L.O. in the Juvenile and Domestic

The Court ruled that it did not violate students' federal or state constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches. The Court reasoned that the state, as schoolmaster of children, must exercise a degree of supervision and control greater than it could exercise over adults. They also said that public school children have lesser privacy expectations with regard to medical examinations and procedures than the general population, and student athletes have even less legitimate privacy expectation. The school district had immediate and legitimate concern in preventing student athletes from using drugs.

Wilson’s illustrates the unproductive nature of argumentative discussion in a satire by constructing two passages with ironic parallels in structure as opposing views stereotyping each other with wild claims and generalizations.

1. The issue is whether public school officials have the authority to perform strip searches of students in suspicion of hiding illegal drugs.