Cases on student rights.

Tinker vs. Des Moines

Who remembers the legal principle involved

in Tinker?

What rights do YOU have?

•What did Associate Justice Abe Fortas write in his opinion in the Tinker case about student rights?

•Students do NOT lose their rights at the school house gate.

YOU BE THE JUDGE !!

Now we are going to do a little role-playing…you get to be an Associate Justice

on the U. S. Supreme Court…

not a bad job!I’ll give you the facts.You give me a ruling.

What can students say in the Devil’s Advocate?

• Year: 1983• Case: Hazelwood School District

vs. Kuhlmeier (Student editor of the school paper “The Spectrum.” )

• Facts:– Paper was about to go to print.– Advisor reviewed and gave to principal.– Principal objected to two stories that

included:

– 1st story: Three students become pregnant and have babies while attending school.

– 2nd story: The impact of divorce on students.

• Principal said stories were inappropriate since one was on sexual activity and the other did not give parents a chance to respond.

• In the summer the student editor sued claiming a violation of ___?????????____

• Trial court ruled in favor of school.• 8th Circuit ruled in favor of students• Supreme Court ruled: YOU BE THE

JUDGE!

HOW DO YOU DECIDE THIS CASE?

• What are the facts?• What rights are possibly being

violated?• How many believe that the school

district was correct? Why?• How many believe that the students

rights were being violated? Why?

• Lets see how the U. S. Supreme Court ruled…..

United States Supreme Court

RULED IN FAVOR OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AGAINST THE

STUDENTS.The school paper is not a public forum

but a qualified learning experience.Remember you cannot disrupt the

educational learning environment.Paper is “controlled” by the school

district.School provides the money for the

paper to be published.

DIANE DOE v. RENFRO (1981)

• Drug dog to the classroom.• Dog “hit” on Doe.• Book bag, purse, pockets were

searched and nothing found.• Taken to nurse for strip search.

Question:

• Were Doe’s rights violated?• What if any rights were violated?• Can a school district search and

search and search until they find something?

• Or are there limits and if so, what are the limits?

• Well, what say ye Justices?

Decision:

• Search was illegal. • Even though the dog indicated she

had drugs, after the search of bag, purse and pockets, it was not reasonable to conduct the strip search.

New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

• Teacher finds two girls in bathroom. One is smoking and one is not but both taken to office.

• One admits it.• One denies.• Principal searches her purse and finds cigarette

papers and marijuana.• Girl admits it and gets one year probation.

TLO decision• Parents sue claiming violation of

which amendment?• Supreme Court decision? What say

ye?• If school officials have “reasonable

suspicion” they can search.• Was this search “reasonable?”• “En Loco Parentis” School officials

have the right to search, just as your parents do, BUT, it must be reasonable.

• This is a lower standard than probable cause where police need for a warrant.

In re Gault (1987)

• Gault is 15 and lives in Arizona• He and a friend meet after school at

his house for telephone pranks.• Arizona law forbids use of obscene

language with minors or elderly.

Gault continued• Gault and friend call Gault’s elderly

neighbor and use obscene language.• Neighbor recognizes Gault’s voice

and calls police.• Police arrive and arrest Gault. (His

friend had already left the house.)• Police do not notify parents.• Police interrogate Gault but do not

read him his rights on silence or to counsel.

Gault continued

• Parents arrive at police station thanks to a neighbor telling them about arrest.

• Gault is released to parents custody pending hearing.

• Hearing is held but neither Gault or his parents are told about it.

• Judge hears from arresting officer and finds Gault guilty.

• Gault receives 6 years in the Youth Industrial Center.

Parents sue Arizona…• What amendments and rights of

Gault have been violated?• #5 silence, #6 right to confront

accuser, #6 right to counsel, #14 right to due process.

• Arizona courts rule in favor of state, based on state juvenile law. In Arizona minors do not have the same rights as adults.

• Case is appealed to U. S. Supreme Court from Arizona State Supreme Court.

• Well, Justices were his rights violated?

Court decision

• Court ruled that, yes, Gaults rights were violated.

• Minors have the same rights of due process as adults.

• But stop and think… The year is 1987! That is not ancient history.

• Thanks to this case you have rights !!• Tinker gives you rights here at

school.• Gault gives you rights outside of

school.

That concludes “student rights.”These cases will be on the final exam so keep the handout with your notes.

Any questions? OK. Tomorrow we start Chapter 7, Section 1.