Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Law Final
Law Final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Law Final

250

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
250
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Michael Parent Education Law Final Exam Seton Hall University QUESTION #1 Dear Superintendent Sam, I have reviewed the facts surrounding the disciplinary case of Stew Starr (Starr). There are several legal issues that you must carefully consider prior to your decision to impose Principal Patty’s requested disciplinary measures. First, before any disciplinary action can be taken, Starr is entitled to his due process rights. Referencing Goss v Lopes and the New Jersey administrative code, if a student it is to be suspended for more than ten (10) days, they are entitled to an expulsion hearing. The Board of Education will serve as the jury. Failure to grant Starr his 14th amendment right to hear and respond to all allegations levied against him will result in a violation of his civil rights. With that premise stated, I do find cause for disciplinary actions. Because Starr designed a website (as an independent study school project for an approved Board of Education course) and made use of the school’s name in order to promote and expose his own drug use and subsequent encouragement for other students to do the same, according to Bethel v. Fraser, Starr forfeited his first amendment right to free speech. Furthermore, because Starr threatened violence upon another student (through his website) and then carried out that act of violence during school hours, you are justified in levying reasonable discipline against Starr. Although Starr may rebut, using Layshock v Hermitage, claiming that you are violating his first amendment right of free speech, remind Starr that his first amendment right to free speech does apply to cyber space and that his website [a] included a threat, [b] caused a disruption, and [c] was theoretically done on school time since it was an independent project for a class grade. Additionally, to discipline Starr for his promotion of illegal drug use is not a violation of his first amendment rights. You will want to reference Justice Thomas’ argument in Morse et al.
  • 2. Michael Parent Education Law Final Exam Seton Hall University v. Frederick - when speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use, a principal may legally restrict that speech based on existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school’s interest in deterring drug use by students. In New Jersey v T.L.O., the courts found that schools need only reasonable suspicion in order to search students’ personal and school property. Since Starr’s website was accessed during school hours and because of the content of his website, Principal Patty was right in conducting a narcotics investigation by searching his locker, having him empty his pockets, and searching his vehicle which was parked on school property. Should Starr argue this search based solely on his website, remind him that Justice White in New Jersey v T.L.O. wrote “The school setting… requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search.” In short, the rights of students must be balanced against the needs of the school setting. Although no drugs turned up in Principal Patty’s search of Starr’s locker, car, or person, she did find a stolen AP exam in Starr’s locker. For this, Starr may also be disciplined. I suggest you use Herring v United States as your justification; although no drugs turned up in her search, something else that is a clear violation of school and district policy did - therefore, Starr is subject to discipline for that offense. Utilizing these cited defenses and cases, I find no reason for concern about disciplining Starr. I would, however, urge you to reconsider Principal Patty’s request for a twenty-day suspension. Should you decide to move forward with disciplinary action, I remind you to first schedule a Board of Education hearing so that Starr’s constitutional rights are met and not violated. At that hearing, the Board of Education will make a recommendation for discipline.

×