assistant principal ilt

ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL ILT

Legal Case Studies

November 8, 2012

Before we Begin a Review 1st Amendment to

US Constitution 4th Amendment to

US Constitution Tinker vs. Des

Moines

Before we Begin a Review 1st Amendment to

US Constitution

What does it say?

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.

Before we Begin a Review 4th Amendment to

US Constitution

What does it say?

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.

Tinker Case Tell me about the

Tinker Case

Tinker Case Students do not

shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door

Tinker Case

Substantial Disruption

or

Material Disruption

Case Study 1 Review and lets

look at it together

Case Studies

Case Study 2 – Elementary AP’s

Case Study 3 – High School AP’s

Case Study 4 – Middle School AP’s

Case Study 2 What did you

decide?

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.”

Case Study 2 – Actual Case Actual case:

D.J.M. vs Hannibal Public School District (8th Cir. 2011)

Case Study 3 What did you

decide?

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.

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.

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.

Case Study 3 – Actual Case Actual case:

Actual Case: Kowalski vs. Berkley County Schools (4th Cir. 2011)

Case Study 4 What did you

decide?

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”.

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.

Case Study 4 Actual Case Actual Case:

R.S. vs. Minnewaska Area School District, 2012.

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

What does all of this mean Off Campus Speech

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:

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

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.”

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?”

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.”