The United States Constitution By: Alena Bailey, Michele Mattera & Dan Arnold
Tinker vs. Des Moines <ul><li>Where did it occur?: At a public school in Des Moines, Iowa. </li></ul><ul><li>When did this take place?: December of 1965 ; during the Vietnam war </li></ul><ul><li>Who was involved?: Two students by the names of John and Mary Beth Tinker. </li></ul><ul><li>What is this case about?: John and Mary Beth Tinker were removed from their school because of the fact that they did not want to follow a school rule that forbid students to wear black wrist bands as a symbol to protest against America taking part in the Vietnam war. </li></ul>
Arguments in the Case <ul><li>The First Amendment states that “ Congress shall make no law . . . Abridging (to cut short) the freedom of speech. . . “ </li></ul>Therefore, since the administration of the school is an agent (works for) the government, at a low note, must respect the basic rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. <ul><li>It was argued that schools are meant for learning and a place for establishing order and good civilians. If anything that goes against those lines should be demolished. </li></ul>It was believed that in order for a school to function properly and for a school to complete its educational mission, the rules of that school must be enforced. <ul><li>School in itself is a place to learn and to express new ideas. If new topics and ideas were never expressed, the educational process of each student would be limited. </li></ul>This also means that in a place for learning, there are possibilities that a controversial issue may come up in the process. This is a form of communication among the students which is important towards a students educational process.
How the Case Moved Supreme Court of the United States (1969) Ruled in favor of the students, declaring that the armband protest was protected by the First Amendment right of free speech
Outcome of the Case <ul><li>When the case reached the Supreme Court in 1969, the courts had to face the final question, Does the First Amendment rights of free speech extend to symbolic speech by students in public schools? </li></ul>What the courts had to consider: The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." The Fourteenth Amendment extends this rule to state governments as well, of which school systems are a part. The First Amendment , however, does not identify which kinds of speech are protected. What was the outcome of the court case?: The Supreme Court of the United States has had to determine what types of symbolic speech are protected under the First Amendment. In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Tinker's case and consider the constitutionality of the Des Moines principals' anti-armband policy. The Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines was handed down in 1969. How this court decision affects us today : The Court extended the First Amendment protection of symbolic speech to students in public schools in 1943 during the case of West Virginia v. Barnette
New Jersey vs. T.L.O <ul><li>Where did it occur? New Jersey </li></ul><ul><li>When did this case take place? 1982-1985 </li></ul><ul><li>Who was involved? Two fourteen year old freshman and a vice Principal </li></ul><ul><li>What is this case about? Two girls were caught smoking in a bathroom in school by a teacher and were sent to their vice Principal Theodore Choplick. One girl admitted to smoking and the other girl who was with T.L.O denied that she was smoking in the bathroom. The principal did not believe her so he called the girl in to his office and searched her pocketbook. He found a pack of cigarettes, while he was removing the pack he noticed rolling paper, a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a significant amount of money in one-dollar bills, a list of students who owed T.L.O. money. </li></ul>
Amendment’s Involved in the Case The Fourth amendment – Search and Seizure T.L.O claimed that her fourth amendment rights were violated, but the court said that Choplick did not violate her fourth amendment rights because he was aware that a crime was being committed. The Fifth amendment – Rights of Persons T.L.O claimed that her Fifth Amendment rights were violated because an attorney was not present while she was making her confession. After further research the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that Choplick’s search did in fact violate T.L.O’s fourth amendment right.
How The Case Moved <ul><li>Juvenile Court of New Jersey (1982) </li></ul>Appellate Division of New Jersey (1982) Supreme Court of New Jersey (1983) Supreme Court of the United States (1985)
Outcome of the case <ul><li>The Supreme Court of New Jersey found that Choplick's search was not reasonable. Mere possession of cigarettes was not a violation of school rules; therefore, a desire for evidence of smoking in the restroom did not justify the search. In addition, the further search of the purse was not justified by the presence of cigarette rolling papers. </li></ul><ul><li>Meaning that T.L.O was innocent because her rights were violated and the search was found unconstitutional. </li></ul><ul><li>How this case effected us today: This case effected us today because the outcome of this case was taken into consideration during the case of </li></ul>Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)
Griswold V Connecticut Where did the Case happen? - New Haven, Connecticut in 1965. Who was involved? - Estelle Griswold( Director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut) and Dr. C. Lee Buxton (Professor at Yale Medical School). What is the Case about? - Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New Haven. They were arrested and fined for breaking Connecticut's statute that banned the use of contraceptives.
Arguments used in the case <ul><li>Estelle Griswold used the 14 th Amendment in her argument against Connecticut in the Supreme Court. </li></ul><ul><li>Connecticut argued that the Constitution does not include a right to privacy. </li></ul>
How the Case Moved <ul><li>Appellate Division of the Circuit Court </li></ul><ul><li>Connecticut Supreme Court </li></ul><ul><li>Supreme Court of the United States </li></ul>
Outcome of the Case <ul><li>Supreme Court ruled in favor of Estelle Griswold 7-2 saying the right to privacy is included in the Constitution. </li></ul><ul><li>Connecticut statute that banned contraceptives was deemed unconstitutional for infringing on marital privacy. </li></ul>