Children and the School Flashcards
Students don’t shed their rights to freedom of speech at schoolhouse. To justify prohibition of a particular expression, have to show a material and substantial interference w/ school operation/classes or collision w/ other’s rights
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
[SCOTUS]
Schools are a place for students to grow in their own views, promote liberty
Social Reconstruction Theory
Schools teach what society does and guides students to perpetuate those values; promotes order
Social Reproduction Theory
Freedom to advocate unpopular views in school must be balanced against society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior. Schools must teach by example the shared values of a civilized social order and can protect children, especially in a captive audience from exposure to sexually explicit, indecent or lewd speech
Bethel School District v. Fraser
[SCOTUS]
School disciplinary rules don’t need to be as detailed as a criminal code b/c imposed to further education, not for punishment.
Conduct v. Decision Rules
School officials may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use
Morse v. Frederick
[SCOTUS]
Public schools don’t possess all the attributes of traditional public forums. Publishing the school newspaper was a lab class and the school was entitled to regulate the content in any reasonable manner b/c educators are entitled to exercise greater control over school sponsored speech to assure participants learn the lessons the activity is designed to teach. Educators don’t offend the 1st Amend. by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions were reasonable. School has to tolerate speech, but doesn’t have to promote it.
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeir
[SCOTUS]
State compulsory education law entitles students to a free public education, a property interest, that can’t be withdrawn on grounds of misconduct absent fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether misconduct occurred. For a suspension of 10 days or less, students must have oral or written notice of the charges and if denied, an opportunity for a hearing. There need be no delay between the notice and the hearing and some circumstances, post notice and hearing will be ok if student’s presence poses a danger to persons/property/academic process. Longer suspensions/expulsions may require more formal procedures
Goss v. Lopez
[SCOTUS]
Likely applies to fact questions (did x punch y) not policy/value questions (did x pass 5th grade)
Goss Hearing Requirement Applicable To:
8th Amend. n/a b/c applies to criminals, not schoolchildren. Due Process. (i) Interest implicated - liberty includes freedom from bodily punishment, but not being paddled is limited by history b/c at common law, an invasion of personal security could be justified - only interest is in avoiding unjustified paddlings. (ii) Risk of Erroneous Deprivation/Safeguards - Florida has strengthened protections against unjustified paddlings - 2 people have to consent, damages and criminal sanctions if paddled in excess. (iii) Government interest - time, cost, effective discipline. At some point, additional safeguards are outweighed by the costs
Ingraham v. Wright
[SCOTUS]
4th Amend. applies in schools against unreasonable searches. To judge reasonableness balance the need to search against the invasion the search entails. The legality of a search depends if (i) the action was justified at its inception (is there reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated school policy or law) and (ii) the reasonableness of the scope of the search (consider age, sex, severity of infraction)
New Jersey v. TLO
[SCOTUS]
While public schools don’t have a constitutional duty to protect, for many purposes, school authorities act in loco parentis w/ power and duty to inculcate the habits and manners of civility. Program limited to athletics
Vernonia School District v. Action
[SCOTUS]
4th Amend. imposes no requirement of individualized suspicion and the government may be justified in undertaking non-individualized searches to discover hidden conditions or prevent their development in the school setting, where warrants and probable cause are impracticable. (i) Privacy interest - a student has a limited expectation of privacy at school, especially if participating in extracurriculars. (ii) Character of Intrusion - minor b/c can pee behind a closed door, info isn’t turned over to law enforcement, info is kept confidential, and you can have 2 positives before you’re suspended form the activity. And you can avoid tests by not participating. (iii) Government interest - States can surely protect their children’s health and schools have a special responsibility of care
Board of Education of District 92 v. Earls
[SCOTUS]
School searches have to be reasonable in both objective and scope. Searching a girls underpants for ibuprofen was unreasonable b/c no evidence contraband was concealed on student and no indication of danger from the drugs, or their quantity. Unclear as to whether need both danger and knowledge of concealment on person, or if either alone works
Safford Unified School District v. Redding
[SCOTUS]
5th Cir. - intensive smelling of people is a search. Scope of reasonableness judged by considering (i) invasion - high b/c body odors are highly personal, dogs engender fear, preparation for search. 7th Cir. says it isn’t.
Dog Sniffs
