1 / 30

Assistant Principal ILT

Assistant Principal ILT . Legal Case Studies November 8, 2012. Before we Begin a Review. 1 st Amendment to US Constitution 4 th Amendment to US Constitution Tinker vs. Des Moines. Before we Begin a Review. 1 st Amendment to US Constitution What does it say?.

ellema
Download Presentation

Assistant Principal ILT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Assistant Principal ILT Legal Case Studies November 8, 2012

  2. Before we Begin a Review • 1st Amendment to US Constitution • 4th Amendment to US Constitution • Tinker vs. Des Moines

  3. Before we Begin a Review • 1st Amendment to US Constitution • What does it say?

  4. 1st Amendment to Constitution • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceable to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  5. Before we Begin a Review • 4th Amendment to US Constitution • What does it say?

  6. 4th Amendment to Constitution • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  7. Tinker Case • Tell me about the Tinker Case

  8. Tinker Case • Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door

  9. Tinker Case • Substantial Disruption or • Material Disruption

  10. Case Study 1 • Review and lets look at it together

  11. Case Studies • Case Study 2 – Elementary AP’s • Case Study 3 – High School AP’s • Case Study 4 – Middle School AP’s

  12. Case Study 2 • What did you decide?

  13. Case Study 2 - Court Said • The Court held that the student’s statements were not protected speech either under the “true threat” or “substantial disruption” analysis. The Court stated: • “Here the district was given enough information that it reasonably feared the student had access to a handgun and was thinking about shooting several students at the high school. In light of the district’s obligations to ensure the safety of its students and reasonable concerns created by shooting deaths at other schools such as Columbine, the school district did not violate the First Amendment by notifying the policy and subsequently suspending her after he was placed in juvenile detention.”

  14. Case Study 2 – Actual Case • Actual case: D.J.M. vs Hannibal Public School District (8th Cir. 2011)

  15. Case Study 3 • What did you decide?

  16. Case Study 3 Court Said • The 4th Circuit ruled: • Adele used the Internet to orchestrate a targeted attack on a classmate and did so in a manner that was sufficiently connected to the school environment as to implicate the school district’s recognized authority to discipline speech which materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school and interferes with the rights of others. The Constitution does not hinder school administrators’ good faith efforts to address the problems of harassment and bullying.

  17. Case Study 3 Court Said • In addition the court found that following receiving a copy of the harassment complaint they conducted an investigating of all of the students and determined that Adele had created a “hate website” in violation of school policy.

  18. Case Study 3 Court Said • In addition the court found that following receiving a copy of the harassment complaint they conducted an investigating of all of the students and determined that Adele had created a “hate website” in violation of school policy.

  19. Case Study 3 – Actual Case • Actual case: • Actual Case: Kowalski vs. Berkley County Schools (4th Cir. 2011)

  20. Case Study 4 • What did you decide?

  21. Case Study 4 Court Said • The school and individual defendants requested a dismissal of the case. This request was denied. • The Court ruled that a “reasonable reader could not consider her statements likely to cause a substantial disruption to the school environment”.

  22. Case Study 4 Court Said • The Court also denied the qualified immunity of the individuals in this case. The Court determined that the protected status of off-campus online speech was clearly established law. • The District Court determined that the admitted sexual conversations were not illegal and did not violate any school policies therefore her lawsuit against the school district could continue on the Fourth Amendment claims and against the individuals involved in searching her phone.

  23. Case Study 4 Actual Case • Actual Case: R.S. vs. Minnewaska Area School District, 2012.

  24. What does all of this mean • On Campus Speech • Students have a right to free speech but not if violates current school policies. • We are free to enforce our policies

  25. What does all of this mean • Off Campus Speech

  26. Walsh Anderson in October 2012 Legal Digest States “For purposes of whether the government can regulate off-campus student speech, courts have generally held that a student’s speech will not be protected by the 1st Amendment if:

  27. Walsh Anderson in October 2012 Legal Digest States 1. If the speech is determined to be a true threat that a reasonable person would interpret as a serious expression of an intent to cause a present or future harm; or

  28. Walsh Anderson in October 2012 Legal Digest States 2. The student expression materially or substantially interferes with the normal operations of school or the rights of other students or teachers or if the school administration has reasonable cause to believe that the expression would materially and substantially interfere with school operations.”

  29. October 25, 2012 School Safety and Security Don’t get caught up in the trappings of electronic student speech…It is still student speech and the traditional rulings apply. As a general rule ask: “Who is the target?”

  30. October 25, 2012 School Safety and Security “If a student is the target, you have more leeway to step in…but if snarky comments are directed at staffers, step back.”

More Related