Chapter 8 student discipline records and attendance

ELEMENTS OF DEFAMATION

1) DEFAMATORY WORDS (PER SE - without explicit evidence, not required to proof actual injury or monetary loss, but YES that words impaired his/her REPUTATION or standing in COMMUNITY or cause personal ANGUISH, SUFFERING, HUMILIATION) or PER QUOD - proving special harm (economic or pecuniary loss) or actual damages (ex publication of the defamation was the legal cause of special harm) 2) PUBLICATION (oral - slander; written - libel) 3) FALSITY 4) MALICE, ACTUAL (dependent on the defendants' motive for making statement) OR IMPLIED (unsolicited, derogatory, oral or written) 5) RESULTING IN INJURY *TRUTH, GOOD FAITH, Privilege ARE DEFENSES against defamation.

Search and seizure overview of court cases

*Mapp v. Ohio 1961 - Federal and state government officials are PROHIBITED FROM OBTAINING EVIDENCE for prosecution by SEARCHES THAT ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY WARRANTS 1) New Jersey v TLO (1985)* 2) Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) * 3) Board of Education of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)* 4) Doe versus Little Rock (2004)* 5) Doe versus Renfrow (1980)*. 6) Jones versus Latexo S D (1980) 7) Horton versus goose creek independent school district (1982). 8) TJ versus State of Florida (1989)*. 9) AJM versus State of Florida (2016)* 10) State of Florida versus Roger Dean Sizemore Junior. 11) State of Florida versus Eric Roderick griffin. 12) Safford unified school district vs Redding (2009)* 13) People versus D (1974)* 14) Jenkins versus Talladega city Board of Education. (1997) 15) Dennis Wolley v. State of Florida (1984)* 16) Anable v. Ford (1985)* 17) Brookes (1989)* 18) Schaill v. Tippecanoe (1988)* 19) State v. J.A. (1996) 20) State of Florida v. D.M. (2016)* 21) Gallegos v. Colorado (1962)* 22 M.K. vs. Brevard County (1998)*

Miranda warnings in the fifth amendment - 2)Gallegos v Colorado (1964)

- 14-year-old boy does not have a conception of what will confront him when he is made accessible only the police. - A lawyer or an adult relative or friend could've given him the protection which his own immaturity could not. -presence of his or her parents is advised when questioning a student. ****AEEBIT Age experience education background intelligence and even time of the day must be considered **** in determining whether a juvenile exercised free will -GIVE WARNING WHEN when a SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR is 1) QUESTIONED - questioning a student and has an SRO or other police officer present. 2) CANNOT LEAVE The student reasonable believes that he or she may not leave the interrogation. 3) QUESTION LEAD TO A CHARGE - The interrogation can lead to criminal prosecution then the student is in constructive custody and Miranda warnings must be afforded

Family educational rights and privacy act of 1974 (FERPA) POSTING GRADES

-OK AS LONG AS NO PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE. - Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo - FERPA DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE PRACTICE PEER GRADING = not educational record as material maintained by person acting for the institution. Education records are NOT student grades that have not been collected or put on the grade-book.

Appellant's versus school board if Seminole County 2000

- EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES are school sponsored student activities which are NOT RELATED TO REGULAR COURSE OFFERINGS nor produce academic credit - students DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE in extracurricular activities -courts have traditionally allowed a great latitude to schools concerning policies and rules which the schools may use to govern student participation in extracurricular activities so long as schools have some rational policy which is not clearly arbitrary. - 2 formal high school students challenged a 30 day suspension from all extracurricular school activities but not from school For violation of the citizenship standards - DRINKING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES OFF-CAMPUS - while they were playing on the football team. One of the students was visibly drunk at the beach the both the father and the friend admit it - parents of three other students were NOTIFIED of the violation of the citizenship standards applicable to athletes -The LETTER inform parents of the violation and investigation. -TELEPHONE CONVERSATION between the principal and each parent. - Inform the PARENTS OF RIGHT TO HEARING. -an enclosed a copy of the citizenship standards. - Zero tolerance policy of the citizenship standards 1) 1ST CONTENTION - was that the students have a constitutionally protected PROPERTY INTERESTS IN SPORTS OR in participating in extracurricular activities. NO! 2)the second was at school officials DO NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO DISCIPLINE STUDENTS IN OFF-CAMPUS ACTIVITY - unrelated to a school event where as such activities do not interfere with the operation of the school. - CITIZENSHIP standards for participation in extra-curricular events remain intact. -Standards and consequences should be clearly delineated and procedures carefully followed in the event of future challenges -formal hearing is certainly not required prior to denial of a student to participate in extracurricular activities -HOWEVER, the student should be made aware of the such participation and be told the reason for such denial -school personnel will not be penalized for more processes to the student then it's due so it is always advisable to allow the student to relate her own version of an incident

- Dog Sniffing - Jones v Latexo S D 1980 (2)

- If NO INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION, TEAMS OF DRUGS SNIFFING DOGS violate the STUDENT PRIVACY RIGHTS based upon the THREATENING PRESENCE OF ANIMALS, and was an unwarranted invasion of student rights and VIOLATED 4TH AMENDMENT.

Reasonable suspicion

- Knowledge sufficient to induce PRUDENT and REASONABLE person to believe criminal act is at hand based upon = specific describable FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES + rational INFERENCES from those facts that warrant intrusion.

Homeschooling

- Meyer v. Nebraska- parents have the liberty to direct the upbringing and education of their children under their control. They have the right to nurture and direct their children's destiny High duty to recognize and prepare them for additional obligations CASES: -School board rule DENYING PART-TIME ATTENDANCE of a home-schooled child DOES NOT VIOLATE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE of hybrid rights of child and parents (1998). -States use of ACHIEVEMENT TESTS to MONITOR HOME INSTRUCTIONS is CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID (1988). - DENIAL of home-schooled students' participation in PUBLIC SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES DOES NOT VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE (2005).

Dog Sniffing - Horton v Goose Creek SD (1982) (3)

- NON-INTRUSIVE SEARCH by drug trained DOG was NOT A SEARCH under the 14th amendment but PRELIMINARY TO A SEARCH 1) IF REASONABLE SUSPICION - OK TO SEARCH 2) UNCONSTITUTIONAL to search STUDENT BODY because NO INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION. sooo OK for dogs to search STUDENTS AUTOMOBILES AND LOCKERS as long as the dogs are NOT ALLOWED TO GET UP-CLOSE AND PERSONAL with the students

Random, Suspicion-less Searches Drug searches by urine test - NO "SPECIAL NEEDS" CATEGORY 4) Brooks (1989)

- School district policy requiring students 6-12 to submit to a URINE TEST PRIOR to participating in ANY EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITY was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. -School district has NOT DEMONSTRATED THAT A DRUG PROBLEM EXISTED within a student population but perceived GENERAL SOCIETAL ABUSE. -Court found no compelling or substantial governmental interest on the part of school, so the privacy expectation of the student won out

Search and Seizure - 2) AJM V STATE -

- School official exception to the probable cause requirement for warrant less searches allow only school officials to SEARCH A STUDENT UPON REASONABLE CAUSE. - If the school resource officer is involved in the search or if the school official is acting at the behest of a law enforcement officer, probable cause is needed in order for there to be subsequent criminal prosecutions of the offending student

Seizures definition

- taking POSSESSION of property - or when officers ARRESTS person, - whenever he or she RESTRAIN the individual's FREEDOM to walk away

Drug searches by urine test court case overview

-Anable verses ford 1985. -Brooks 1989. - SCHAILL V Tippecanoe 1988 - Acton versus Vernonia 1992. - Board of Education for Pottawatomie School District versus Earls 2002

Miranda warnings court case overview

-State of Florida versus DM. - Gallegos versus Colorado. 1962

Student attendance

-COMPULSORY LAWS applies to students ages 6 to 16 unless the child files a formal DECLARATION OF INTENT to terminate school which must be signed by the child and the child's parent or guardian -The school must notify child's parents or guardian if such a declaration is filed - constitutional requirement that state provide schools for all children between 5 - 20 - 1900s - younger than 16 years of age working -1912 - southern states had age and hour limit and some prohibit night work -Most states - age limit was 12 and workweek was 60 hours.

STUDENT RECORDS - FLORIDA PUPIL RECORDS LAW V. Family educational rights and privacy act of 1974 (FERPA)

-DIFFERENT FROM FERPA (Buckley Amendment) because it allows PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION BY AGGRIEVED PERSON. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. -Any public school in the state of Florida needs to afford any PARENT, GUARDIAN, OR MAJORITY AGE STUDENT access to the EDUCATIONAL RECORDS for their child or student within 45 days. -any and all records filesm related to the students, maintained and used by public education institutions. - CUM - STUDENTS' CUMULATIVE RECORD FILES Social Security, ACADEMIC RECORDS such as grades, standardized test results, ATTENDANCE DATA, HEALTH DATA, family information, TEACHER GRADES, or COUNSELOR ratings - NOT INCLUDED: teachers OR administrators PERSONAL RECORDS, records of LAW-ENFORCEMENT units, DIRECTORY INFORMATION, students names, address, telephone number, date, place of birth, major field of study, participation in activities and sports, weight, height, members of athletic teams dates of attendance degrees awards come conferred, Most recent OR previous educational agency or institution intended by the student ** FERPA allows a stepparent to exercise all record access rights granted to a parent when the stepparent is present in the home on a day-to-day basis, together with the child and a natural parent, and the other parent is absent. **FERPA affords full rights to either parent (noncustodial parent included) unless the school has been provided with evidence that there is a court order, state statute, or legally binding document that specifically revokes these rights **Charter schools are considered public schools, so FERPA regulations apply **McKay Scholarships are SUPPORTED by state (not federal) funds. If a student attends a private school on a McKay Scholarship, FERPA requirements do not apply to that school by virtue of the acceptance of scholarship funds. However, FERPA does apply if the private school receives funding from the U.S. Department of Education

FLORIDA PUPIL RECORDS LAW

-DIFFERENT FROM FERPA because it allows PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION BY AGGRIEVED PERSON. -NOTIFY PARENTS AND STUDENTS of the types of directory information which may release and allow them time to object to such -Parent,or guardian, or majority age student may request to inspect records and school must honor that request no later than 45 DAYS TO COMPLY - CAN CHALLENGE ACCURACY of records: WRITTEN REVIEW OR HEARING. -If any official or employee of the public educational institution refuses to comply, the aggrieved person may bring an ACTION IN CIRCUIT COURT for INJUNCTIVE RELIEF and may also be awarded ATTORNEY FEES and COURT COSTS.

Expulsion

-Definition - removal of the RIGHT and OBLIGATION of a student to attend a public school under conditions set by the school board and for a period of time not to exceed the REST OF SCHOOL YEAR PLUS 1 YEAR 1) PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDS EXPULSION TO SUPERINTENDENT who has a serious breach of conduct, willful disobedience, open defiance of authority of the principal, a member of his or her staff violence against persons or property or other act which substantially disrupts the orderly conduct of the school. 2) OPPORTUNITY FOR FORMAL HEARING for a regular education student. The process for an ESE student more complex 3) process starts with the principal. The assistant principal or Dean will EVALUATE THE CONDUCT OF THE CHILD and determine that it is so severe as to warrant expulsion from school, usually based upon a concern for SAFETY AND WELL-BEING of the remaining students within the school. 3) If it's necessary to remove and offending student immediately the building level administrator will suspend the child for the maximum time of 10 days and begin paperwork to initiate the expulsion process. 4) GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO CONTACT PARENTS - by phone and written notice a suspension with the principles recommendation mailed home AND SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS WITHIN 24 hours of the suspension 5) The entire packet is received and reviewed by a designated administrator to determine if it's complete and if misconduct does in fact warrant the charge of expulsion. 6)The parents will be notified formally of the charge and recommendation for expulsion in a formal hearing will be scheduled 7) the PRINCIPAL or his or her DESIGNEE will PRESENT EVIDENCE to an IMPARTIAL HEARING OR PANEL usually three school board members. They may extend the suspension past 10 initial days if here she determines that it's necessary. 8) at the formal hearing the PARENTS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL, to present WITNESSES and to have proceedings RECORDED, and CROSS EXAMINE any witness preferred by the school administration 9) hearsay testimony may be admitted wanted to wait to be determined by the hearing officer. the court ruled that while hearsay is admissible in the expulsion hearing it is not sufficient in itself to support an order of expulsion 10) HEARING OFFICER MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS to the superintendent the recommendation may not be more severe such as an expulsion for a longer Term 11) school districts may hold an "executive session" where the school board members will review the record in a meeting that's close to the public before taking action concerning a student at an open school board meeting 12)no matter what the individual policy, SCHOOL BOARD TAKES ACTION ON DECISION at an open school board meeting - the identity of the student will be protected at the open school board meeting unless the parent of the student or the student chooses to address the school board at a meeting 13) the final step in the process is on the school board to voted to expel the student so is the order 14) STUDENT/PARENT RIGHT TO APPEAL - The student may initiate an appeal in the proper District Court of Appeals does this court will not hold a trial de novo but rather REVIEW THE RECORDS to be certain the PROPER PROCEDURES WERE FOLLOWED absent and clear evidence that a mistake was made by the school district. 15) the court of appeals will not second-guess the decision of the school district but only REVIEW THE PROCESS FOLLOWED used to ensure the right of the students were preserved

Exclusionary rule

-Evidence obtained in violation of the 14th amendment is inadmissible at trial - exclusion of illegally obtained evidence - UNLESS UNDER EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES. Safeguards in a US Law Enforcement Investigation. *shock unpredictable conditions* Destroyed evidence. Runaway. Domestic dispute. Voluntary permission without coercion. Felony. Medical emergency. Suicide. Gunshot. Explosion. Stabbings. Child neglect

Student publications

-FLAT REFUSAL to allow a student to make available religious material to others in the school during NON-INSTRUCTIONAL TIME was an IMPROPER DENIAL to the student of her rights under the first amendment to the United States Constitution flat refusal - School officials have the authority to prevent a distribution of vile, obscene, libelous, or inflammatory material VOLI such as fighting words. -ALSO, clear right to establish reasonable time place and manner TPM of restriction or of distribution so long as the policy is not content oriented. -Student publications may be available for dissemination in the front hallway or entry before or after School hours and must be passed must be a passive distribution -available on the table for pick up by interested person but not thrust upon any person not requesting such -the goal is to avoid a disruption of the educational environment by its distribution -to justify prohibition of a particular expression of opinion school officials must demonstrate that the forbidden conduct would SUBSTANTIALLY INTERFERE with the requirements of APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINE in the operation of the school -NOT ENOUGH BURDEN OF PROOF TO USE PRIOR RESTRAINT TO AVOID DISCOMFORT AND UNPLEASANTNESS OF AN UNPOPULAR OPINION and significant fear of disruption.

Special Needs Random, Suspicion-less Searches Drug searches by urine test - MANDATORY TESTING OK IF THERE IS A RATIONAL BASIS FOR REQUIRING THE TEST SUCH AS "Special Needs" Category

-NO to mandatory drug test for all students unless the test or directly related to participation in sports or athletics -results NOT TURNED OVER TO LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS or used for INTERNAL DISCIPLINARY REASONS, ONLY drug testing program, and temporary suspension from activities , and further testing 1) MINIMAL LEVEL OF INTRUSION - Collection of sample is minimally invasive, discrete and safeguards students welfare, health, and security. WHS 2) Students who participate in these voluntary activities have a DECREASE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY 3) State public schools responsible for maintaining the discipline, health, and safety of all students so drug testing is NOT BASED ON INDIVIDUALIZED REASONABLE SUSPICION of wrongdoing (e.g. require officials to show pervasive drug problem because safety is a controlling factor) CONCERN SOMETHING HARMFUL TO STUDENTS MAY BE SECRETED.

Miranda warnings in the fifth amendment - 1) State of Florida versus DM

-NOT NECESSARY when the juveniles being questioned by SCHOOL PERSONNEL WITHOUT the presence of a LAW-ENFORCEMENT OFFICER and ONLY IN SCHOOL SANCTIONS SITUATIONS. -OK and necessary when statements of the accused to be ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE in a criminal procedure and USED AGAINST THE ACCUSED. -he/ she must be an ACTUAL POLICE CUSTODY or in a reasonable COERCIVE CUSTODIAL SETTING. Overview of Case - a juvenile spoke freely with a police officer over the phone - it was not given Miranda warnings - juvenile was not an actual nor constructive custody

Corporal punishment

-PHYSICAL FORCE OR CONTACT maintain discipline not the same thing as protecting yourself from other students. - not unlawful in the state of Florida although many school districts have an active policies against it. -if NO SCHOOL BOARD POLICY EXISTS - corporal punishment may be met under the following conditions 1)the use of corporal punishment must be APPROVED BY PRINCIPAL 2) the principal must have GUIDELINES FOR ADMINISTRATING the punishment such as TYPES OF INFRACTIONS AND AUTHORIZED STAFF to administer such punishment that doesn't have to be a teacher 3) principal or designated teacher corporal punishment only in the PRESENCE OF ANOTHER ADULT it doesn't need a teacher 4) principal who has administered corporal punishment, upon request, provide WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF THE REASON for the punishment in the NAME OF PERSON PRESENT AS WITNESS.. 5) No parental permission is needed for such punishment so long as the designated teacher or principal properly observed the school district and state school board policies and so long as he or she DID NOT USE EXCESSIVE FORCE in the administration of the corporal punishment, no civil or criminal liability shall lie in the administration corporal punishment, suspension, or expulsion ***bruising for seven days and temporary disfigurement constitutes excessive force

Responsibilities of a parent to abide by the compulsory school attendance rule

-Parent responsible for regular school attendance 1) except WITHOUT PERMISSION 2) WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE such a skipping. 3)due to FINANCIAL INABILITY or 4) sickness and injury -Parent must show diligent effort to keep the child in school - failure to do so can constitute a MISDEMEANOR (Wrongdoing) in the second degree which is CRIMINAL PROSECUTION -Florida Department of Highway safety and motor vehicles SUSPEND OR REFUSE to grant drivers license to person under 18 who fail to meet the above requirements -School board is authorized for employment an ATTENDANCE ASSISTANT and adapt POLICY requiring parents to JUSTIFY EACH ABSENCE and that their justification be EVALUATED AS EXCUSED OR UNEXCUSED. **HABITUALLY TRUANT - 15 or more unexcused absences within 90 days/3 months (with or without parent knowledge) - SCHOOL ACTION - 5 or more unexcused absences within a period of 30 days/1 month ** or 10 unexcused absences or reason unknowns within 90/ 3 months calendar

-RANDOM + SUSPICION-LESS searches (WITHOUT SPECIAL NEEDS) Doe versus Little Rock School District (2004)

-RANDOM + SUSPICION-LESS searches (WITHOUT SPECIAL NEEDS) of students purses and belongings book bags is unconstitutional - So must have INDIVIDUALIZED and REASONABLE SUSPICION for search of personal belongings. -teacher asked the students to leave their personal belongings and bug bags inside the class and ask everybody else to leave. Then the search was conducted. Found marijuana in student purse. 1) Balancing inquiry of PRIVACY AND SECURITY -governments need to conduct searches outweighs the nature of the invasion (Scope of legitimate expectation of privacy + character of intrusion that is complained + nature and immediacy of governmental concern) + efficacy of the means used for dealing with issue. - Possible Punitive Criminal Sanctions - if evidence is found it is actually more serious infraction because a student is then turn to law-enforcement so the school official does not act in loco parentis but part playing a law enforcement role. Overview - *** VIDEO CAMERA in lockers - unreasonable search **** Florida law requires the school to post a notice that the students lockers or other storage areas are subject to search upon reasonable suspicion ***** DOES NOT PROHIBIT the use of METAL DETECTORS or specially TRAINED ANIMALS in the course of the search

Search and Seizure 3)State of Florida v Roger Dean Sizemore Jr

-SEARCH OF A STUDENT'S CAR by a school dean while IN THE COMPANY OF SRO OFFICER. - Dean of discipline and the SRO were returning to school together in a patrol car. -The dean observed a car with a student hiding something under the front seat. ** Area of parking lot had been wrought with drug problems, weapons, trespassers and thefts *** -So, asked the student to step out of the vehicle and then proceed to search the truck. - Defendant owned the truck he was charged with criminal possession of marijuana. -The defendant challenged the search for LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE. - Court found that AJM rule did not apply. - Dean acted reasonably and responsibly.

Conditions of a warrant

-STATEMENT OF FACTS showing PROBABLY CAUSE and WARRANT that crime has been committed. -Specification of the PLACE to be searched. -Description of the ARTICLES

Random, Suspicion-less Searches - No "Special Needs" Category Drug searches by urine test 2) Odeheim (1985)

-School board policy- ALL students was required to undergo physical examination of health status prior to enrolling. -DEFENSE - Because the school treated such drug or alcohol use as a departure from normal health, 1) NO SANCTIONS ATTACHED TO ANY POSITIVE RESULT ON URINE TEST, except PARENT NOTIFICATION AND REFERRAL FOR APPROPRIATE TREATING and 2) NOT A CRIMINAL MATTER, the school board argued that their policy was not subject to 14th amendment restrictions. - COURT DISAGREED - Stating that the the students had a LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY and PERSONAL SECURITY WAS VIOLATE

WEAPON SEARCHES - State v. J.A. (1996)

-School district program of RANDOM SEARCH FOR WEAPONS IN CLASSROOM was found to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. - Search team members into the classrooms on announced with handheld electronic metal detectors. -If the student refused to be searched here she will be sent to the office for automatic suspension suit is found to be in possession of items illegally under Florida law were arrested in subject of persecution -The teams were supposed to choose schools in classrooms randomly but that was not always the case one school will search more than 20 times. -Student pass a jacket to a shelf in the back of the room. The team search to jacket and found a gun. -J a claim to be the owner of the jacket but denied he owned a gun. He was arrested for CARRYING CONCEALED FIREARM violation of Florida law (FELONIES) and having a GUN ON SCHOOL PREMISES. - LOWER TRIAL - CIRCUIT COURT - JA had an EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WITH THIS JACKET and a search conducted by the school district in this matter must meet a PROBABLE CAUSE STANDARD. - Search was in violation of the fourth amendment and suppressed the evidence found under the exclusionary rule -COURT OF APPEALS - BALANCE TEST - School children have a reasonably lessened expectation of privacy than other members of society and immediacy of the boards' concern for student safety and the safety for all school personnel was well justified - Appeal - Board's policy is both reasonable and constitutional. The administrative search that led to the discovery of the weapon in J.A.'s jacket is constitutional. Therefore, the suppression of the weapon was error

Random, Suspicion-less Searches Drug searches by urine test 3) SCHAILL ve Tippecanoe (1988)

-School district recognized a DRUG PROBLEM EXISTED when it student body and start to develop rational means to deal with it. (REASONABLE SUSPICION- JUSTIFIED AT ITS INCEPTION). 1) Developed a DRUG TESTING PROGRAM for all INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETES. 2) Athletes required to complete CONSENT FORM PRIOR TO COMPETITION- failure to submit form, excluded from competition. 3) Athletes names were DRAWN RANDOMLY for URINE TEST. 4) Test administration was DISCRETE AND SAFEGUARDED STUDENTS PRIVACY (RESPECTING MODESTY). 5) NO CRIMINAL OR SCHOOL SANCTIONS were imposed for a positive test indication and they were follow up test for insure accuracy. - The most severe sanction was exclusion from the athletic program. -Athletes have a somewhat limited expectation of privacy because their various sports activities involved a certain amount of "communal undress". -The school had a strong interest in preventing drug abuse so the court upheld the policy finding NO VIOLATION OF 4TH AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

Dog sniffing - Doe v Renfrow 1980 (1)

-School officials stand IN LOCO PARENTIS have a right to use dogs and seek out drugs, specially due to DIMINISHED EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY inherent in public schools. - Duty to maintain an educational environment that is conducive to learning. Overall -dogs and magnetometers are minimally intrusive and often provide an effective means for having required degree of individualized suspicion to conduct a more intrusive searches -canine searches WITHOUT INDIVIDUAL SUSPICION is too intrusive and not reasonable -a dogs identification does not justify reasonable suspicion or probable cause & cannot turn reasonable into probable cause. -Random suspicious-less searches using dogs IS NOT REASONABLE SUSPICION must have PROBABLY CAUSE

Bong Hits 4 Jesus (2007)

-School principal decided to permit staff and students to participate in the torch relay as an SCHOOL APPROVED EVENT OR FIELD TRIP. - students were ALLOWED TO LEAVE CLASS to observe the relay while teachers and administrators monitor the students actions -when the torchbearers and camera crew arrived his friends unfurled a 14 foot banner printable immediately cross the street to charge of the banner and told Frederick to report to the office -suspended him for 10 days -United States Supreme Court decision ruled in favor of the principal and school district stating that a school principal, consistent with the first amendment, restricts student speech at a school event when that speech is recently viewed as PROMOTING ILLEGAL DRUG USE.

Fourth and 14th amendment

-The right of people to be SECURE in their PPHE- Persons, Papers, Houses, and Effects against UNREASONABLE SEARCH and SEIZURES shall not be violated and NO WARRANTS shall be issued but upon PROBABLE CAUSE 5 Component of the 4th Amendment 1) Protects the right of people to be secure in PPHE 2) Protects persons from UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES 3) Searches cannot be done without PROBABLY CAUSE and a SEARCH WARRANT. 4) The search must be specific DESCRIBE the PLACE to be searched and the ARTICLES to be ceased. 5) The GOV'T is responsible for JUSTIFY NEED WITH EVIDENCE.

Student dress code 1) Tinker versus Des Moines independent school district (1969)

-United States Supreme Court - -wearing black armbands by students as a form of protest against the Vietnam war was protected under the first amendment of the United States Constitution. -School officials suspended the students even though there was no apparent threat or disruption. -School officials do not attempt to stifle any other form of expression BUT THAT OF BLACK ARM BANDS so this was a DISCRIMINATORY ACTION. UPHOLDING - Students do not shed their rights at the school house gate - School officials must have MORE THAN a mere desire to AVOID DISCOMFORT AND UNPLEASANTNESS but always accompanies and unpopular viewpoint in order for student expression - NO EVIDENCE OF DISRUPTIVE INFLUENCE IN THE SCHOOL OR PRIOR RESTRAINT - some reasonable indication that such will result in a disturbance or disruption of the educational atmosphere of the school - this is called prior restraint and the courts place a heavy burden upon school authorities in such cases than if they waited for the student act of expression and then punished after the fact for any inappropriateness or disturbances which may have occurred in fact such did occur -removed traditional judicial review that attendance in public school is a privilege not a right -balancing responsibility public school respect rights of students and students must fill their obligations to public schools

Public schools as a limited open form- Equal access act EHA 1984

-fellowship of Christian athletes the school may not deny other student initiated non-curricular organizations to meet within the school faculty nearly because the school officials disagree with the ideology of the organization. - requires that public schools which create a limited open form for non-curricular student groups may not deny access to certain groups based on their religious philosophical or political ideology -neither promoted nor inhibited the establishment of religion in the schools and therefore not in violation of the first amendment of the United States Constitution

Search and Seizure 4) State of Florida v Eric Roderick Griffin

-high school principal saw a car not familiar in the faculty parking lot. ***problems with non-students appearing at dismissal time*** - So, took steps to identify the owner of the car. -Ask the SRO officer to check the tag. -The principal remove the jacket from the unlock hard to search for identification and then the jacket found a bag of cannabis. -Two of the men approach the car and we're taken to the SRO office. -The principal further search the car finding more drugs and drug paraphernalia. -The court found that the OFFICER NEITHER DIRECTED OR PARTICIPATED in the search (NO NEED FOR PROBABLE CAUSE). - The principal was JUSTIFIED AT ITS INCEPTION of the search because he was looking for identification and was ACTING OUT OF CONCERN AND WELL-BEING FOR THE SAFETY OF STUDENTS.

Search Definition

-looking for or SEEKING out that which is otherwise CONCEALED from view

Zero tolerance - M.K. vs. School Board of Brevard County (1998)

-prohibiting a student for being on school property while under the influence of an illegal drug. - To uphold an expulsion based on zero policy school board as a charging body was required to present proof that the student was indeed "UNDER THE INFLUENCE" - the record failed to present sufficient evidence that either student was under the influence without proof the case was not supportable and the expulsion order was reversed - Difficulty in presenting proof that provides a factual conclusion to support the charge of under the influence Overview of Case - BULLETS ARE NOT WEAPONS -student brought BULLETS. student was immediately suspended for up to 10 days while in investigation was completed because the student has committed a serious breach of conduct described as being DANGEROUS AND DISRUPTIVE ITEMS. - assistant principal acknowledged that the student has been VERY COOPERATIVE, they cannot say if this was the students first discipline violation -DEFENSE: The principal of the school recommended expulsion because bullets were dangerous and destructive item student - COUNCIL ARGUED: he could not be found guilty of violating a subsection because the bullets are not weapons ** anything could be considered a weapon if used improperly and denied that anyone was ever put at risk - the school board voted to EXPEL the student and the student appealed to the Florida Court of Appeals for the fifth district ON APPEAL - -The court found that the rule required the "actual" use of the bullets in a matter which is dangerous and disruptive. - IN THIS CASE - the student merely possess them so the student did not violate the school board as a matter of law

Student dress code 2) RK (1997)

-prohibiting students from dressing in a manner that exposes UNDERWEAR OR BODY PARTS in an INDECENT OR VULGAR MANNER or that DISRUPTS SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT. 1) first offense VERBAL WARNING and PARENT contact. 2)Second offense ineligible for EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVES for more no more than 5 days and PARENT MEETING with the principal. 3)Third offense ineligible for extracurricular activities for no more than 30 days and ISS for no more than three days and the parent receives a call from the principal and written communication -if school officials can show that the health or safety of the student is the reason behind such rooming rules the courts usually have upheld such rules -RK 1997 ninth grade 15-year-old male junior high school sued the school board superintendent and the principal for violating his right to be free from unreasonable, arbitrary,and capricious disciplinary action as provided on the fifth first fifth and 14th amendment. -Defendants violated his liberty interest to his reputation and the students sought injunctive relief 1) restoration of academic credit 2) declaration judgment 3) and compensate damages along with costs and attorney fees -Suspended from school for one day for willful disobedience to refuse to take off and upside down cross my other dress code violations. -The principal has been increasingly receiving parental and student complaints about his dresses and the teacher was forced to break up a DISTURBANCE ACROSS THE STREET or several students had accosted and threatened the student BECAUSE OF HIS DRESS. -the principal repeatedly WARNED STUDENT THAT VIOLATION OF DRESS CODE WAS DISRUPTIVE to the educational process in the school and to the orderly atmosphere needed. PRECEDENTS - - Tinker versus Des Moines denial of freedom of expression must be justified by reasonable forecast of substantial disruption -dress code policy constituted a VALID 1) TIME, 2) PLACE, 3) MANNER RESTRICTION on a public school students right of freedom of speech and expression student -conduct which disrupts classwork or involve substantial disorder is not immune by the constitutional guarantees freedom of speech - the court decides that school boards have the AUTHORITY AND OBLIGATION to determine in adopt policies and programs that are necessary for the EFFICIENT OPERATION AND GENERAL IMPROVEMENT of the school district system - it is the prerogative of the state to decide what school curriculum shall be taught and the methodology in which it would be executed -students do not shed their constitutional rights to free speech or expression at the school house gate

Secret societies, grades, and athletic participation

-public school students are forbidden to join, be a member of any secret society, fraternity sorority or any other group formed by peoples attending such public schools which groups are not fostered or promoted by the school authorities. Suspend or expel any student found to violated -beginning in the 9th grade students must maintain a minimum GPA of a 2.0 on a 4.0 scale required for graduation in order to participate into scholastic extracurricular activities - OK for HOMESCHOOL + CHARTER SCHOOL STUDENTS to participate in the ATHLETIC PROGRAMS OF LOCAL STUDENTS in which attendance area the student resides

New Jersey versus TLO 1985 United States Supreme Court

-public school students are under the control of school authorities WHILE AT SCHOOL. On their way TO SCHOOL. On their way home FROM SCHOOL. At a SCHOOL FUNCTION OFF SCHOOL PREMISES. -School authority searched the students PERSONAL PURSE and found marijuana. Charged with possession of a controlled substance. Attorney challenged her the search as one WITHOUT PROBABLY PURSE in violation of the 14th amendment. - Principal or AP or dean need "REASONABLE SUSPICION" to conduct legal search of a student - that a prohibited or legally possess substance or object is there WITHOUT PROBABLY CAUSE or WARRANT from a judge to justify search. -The court maintained that there must be some available facts that together provide reasonable grounds to search and this ADVANCE LEGITIMATE SCHOOL PURPOSE OF maintenance of discipline in the school. - GROUP SEARCHES NOT justified under TLO standards as INDIVIDUALIZED. -Constitutional validity of searches is determined at two levels. 1) REASONABLE SPECIFIC SUSPICION is a search initially JUSTIFIED AT ITS INCEPTION 2) LEVEL OF REASONABLE OF THE SEARCH -SEARCH MEASURES adopted for the search must be RELATED to the OBJECTIVE of the search and is NOT EXCESSIVELY INTRUSIVE in light of the AGE and SEX of the student and the NATURE OF INFRACTION. * Even if the search is justified at its inception, NOT REASONABLE IF it 1) LACKS SPECIFICITY 2) It becomes excessively intrusive on student's privacy e.g. STRIP SEARCHES - A balance test - students legitimate expectations of privacy to the schools equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place or legitimate school purpose to maintain discipline in the school -In loco parentis doctrine DOES NOT EXEMPT SCHOOL OFFICIALS from 4TH Amendment search and seizure restrictions, YET School officials act as a representative of the state so CANNOT CLAIM PARENTAL IMMUNITY under the 14th amendment - Doctrine vests school officials with the responsibility of protecting the interest of the child and maintaining the school environment conducive to learning. - Limited power of In Loco Parentis necessary for the conduct of school (Exercise Reasonable and Restraint). - UNLIKE PARENTS - responsible for the privacy, security, welfare, and health of students (PSWH of child). **10 years later- Acton and Earls case - court expanded the power of the school to search students.

Probable cause

-reasonable cause - set of PROBABILITIES based on FACTS and PRACTICAL CONSIDERATION of a PRUDENT and REASONABLE person -having more evidence for than against - more than suspicion **1st) suspicion 2nd) cause that is reasonable

SEARCH AND SEIZURE - 1) TJ VS STATE OF FLORIDA 1989

-sarasota County overturned an adjudication of delinquency for a student after she was found in possession of rock cocaine. - Female assistant principal searched purse of female student upon a report that she was carrying a knife for the purpose of participating in a fight. -Assistant principal did not find the knife in the girls purse. - She then felt inside a small pocket on the side of the purse and felt a plastic bag with a few pieces of rock cocaine. -The drugs were found during an "EXTENDED SEARCH" in the side pocket where quite plainly no weapon could be located -The Court of Appeals held the search to go BEYOND THE SCOPE NECESSARY to find the knife -while the school safety may readily justify a search for weapons the students interest and privacy should preclude a scavenger hunt after the basic search produced no weapons.

Home education program

-sequentially progressive instruction in a students home by his or her parent or guardian. Only exception is if the PARENT OR GUARDIAN has been named or determined by court as a PREDATOR in a confirmed report of ABUSE OR NEGLECT of a child. -No teaching certificate. -Guardian or parent must file a notice with the superintendent of schools with the intent to conduct home education. - PORTFOLIO of RECORDS AND MATERIALS of students progress, as well as ANNUAL EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION of the student by the school district

Special Needs - Random, Suspicion-less Searches Drug searches by urine test 5)- Acton vs Vernonia 1992

-several of their student athletes had SUFFERED DRUG RELATED ILLNESSES OR INJURIES and that some of the athletes were even participating in DRUG CULTURE ORGANIZATION. (REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT IS JUSTIFIED AT ITS INCEPTION). -Each athlete will be drug tested at the BEGINNING of the season and then RANDOMLY there after -CHALLENGED - tests had NO INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION. -COURT STANDING - while school district needed NO WARREN AND NO INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION, it was REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATED COMPELLING STATE INTEREST. **On balance test** - the school district did in fact demonstrate compelling interest by showing that there have been specific drug related athletic injuries and problems. 1) Balancing inquiry of PRIVACY AND SECURITY -governments need to conduct searches outweighs the nature of the invasion (Scope of legitimate expectation of privacy) + character of intrusion that is complained + nature and immediacy of governmental concern + efficacy of the means used for dealing with issue. - Student athlete serve as role models for other students. -Reasonableness of a search is judged by balancing the intrusion on the individuals fourth amendment interest against the promotion of a legitimate governmental interest

Process for the compulsory attendance law/habitually truant

-student accumulates 15 or more unexcused absences within a period of 90 calendar days (at least five unexcused absences or reason unknown within one month, or 10 unexcused absences or recent unknowns within 90 calendar) -unexcused absences with or without the knowledge of the parent -TEACHER reports to PRINCIPAL pattern of non-attendance. -PRINCIPAL evaluate and CONFIRMS pattern of non-attendance. - PRINCIPAL sends case to the student study team (SST) to determine if early PATTERNS OF TRUANCY are developing. -Student study team (SST) corroborates pattern and MEETS WITH PATTERNS to identify potential remedies. -PRINCIPAL contact SUPERINTENDENT and provides contact for home education programs. -If the meeting with a parent was not fruitful the parents continue to receive FREQUENT CONTACT. - options include : 1) Offer alternative education program. 2) Attendance card contracts. 3) Recommendation to file truancy petition alleging the child to be in need of services. - If the parent DOES NOT AGREE WITH REMEDIES, the PARENT RIGHT TO APPEAL to the school district board. -The school district board provides a hearing. - If the board finds that the remedies are appropriate and the PARENT DOES NOT COOPERATE the superintendent can CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE PARENT

Random, Suspicion-less Searches Drug searches by urine test - NO "SPECIAL NEEDS" CATEGORY 1) Anable v. Ford (1985)

-students in the bathroom when another student enter to the smell of marijuana. -She reported the incident and the three students were interviewed separately. -All three were submitted to FORCED URINE TEST. - Female school administrator watched by the students urinated into a vial -One of the girls tested positive. She later brought in action against the school for allegedly violating 4th amendment rights. -The court found that forced urine test is UNREASONABLE SEARCH because a positive indication from the test only indicated that the student had 1) AT SOME TIME INGESTED some MARIJUANA like substance 2) no indication whether the student GOT THE DRUG FROM THE SCHOOL. 3) Used it at the school. 4) Or was even under the influence of it while at school

Suspension

-suspension of a student is his or her TEMPORARY REMOVAL FROM REGULAR SCHOOL PROGRAM - NOT EXCEED 10 DAYS. -Opportunity period - Has been held to satisfy the definition of suspension and involved the required due process. -Once suspension occurs - 1) a GOOD FAITH EFFORT to contact a parent or guardian must be made within a 24 hour period of suspension via mail. 2) Prior to suspension except in case of an emergency or disruptive behavior requiring immediate removal - the school authorities must make a good faith effort to EMPLOY PARENTAL ASSISTANCE or other ALTERNATIVE MEASURES TO SUSPENSION. principal establish rules and procedures for suspensions which include 1) oral or written notice of the charges against him or her. 2) If the student denies charge is an exclamation of evidence against him or her, an opportunity for the students to present his or her side of the story is giving - NO SUSPENSION FOR EXCUSED ABSENCE OR TRUANCY. -HOWEVER - the school principal may suspend any student transport to or from school a public expense from the privilege of riding the bus so long as they give notice to the parents as well as the superintendent within 24 hours of the suspension

Private tutoring program

-tutor must have a valid Florida teaching certificate based on the SUBJECT AND GRADE being tutored. - tutor keep all records and make all records required by the state and local school district - as well as make regular REPORTS ON ATTENDANCE of students. -The tutor will REQUIRE actual attendance for the MINIMUM prescribe time

Steps to enforce regular school attendance

1) CONTACT, REFER, AND ENFORCE -frequent contact with a home as well as reference to other agencies to help and subsequent filing of a truant petition as a last resort. TEACHER REPORTS TO PRINCIPAL. PRINCIPAL CONFIRMS PATTERN OF NON-ATTENDANCE. PRINCIPAL SENDS CASE TO SST TO DETERMINE PATTERNS OF TRUANCY DEVELOPMENT. 2) GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE - student study team (SST) facilitate INTERVENTION SERVICES with PARENT MEETING or provides a CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Requires the school to give written notice by CERTIFIED MAIL to a) parent or guardian AND b) superintendence in regards to an intent to file a truancy petition 3) RETURN CHILD TO PARENT-require school personnel to ACTIVELY SEEK students absent without excuse and return such students to the PARENT, SCHOOL, OR LAW-ENFORCEMENT. 4) REPORT TO DIVISION OF JOBS AND BENEFITS- VIOLATION OF CHILD LABOR LAW school personnel required to report any violation of the child labor law to the division of jobs and benefits of the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY. 5) RIGHT TO INSPECT-authorize school personnel has right to ACCESS TO INSPECT ESTABLISHMENT to determine if child of compulsory school attendance age is EMPLOYED. VIOLATION REPORTED to the division of jobs and benefits of the department of labor and employment security

REASONABLE SUSPICION (SPECIFIC) Suitable/Litigious searches 2) Stafford united school district versus Redding (2009)

1) reasonable suspicion as in TLO (justified at its inception) 2) school search is reasonable related to the objective and not excessively intrusive in light of age and sex nature of the infraction * School officials HAD REASONABLE SUSPICION to justify searching the student's backpack and outer clothing, *Weight of reasonable suspicion is NOT WARRANTED in EXTENDING SEARCH TO HIGHLY INTRUSIVE DEGREE (privacy interest, fright, humiliation - exposure breast and pelvic area) -UNCONSTITUTIONAL -strip search in school based on groundless suspicion IS UNREASONABLE. Outer clothing in book bag OK not intimate parts

What comprise as regular school attendance

1. Public school supported by PUBLIC FUNDS. 2 A RELIGIOUS denomination of school. 3 A PRIVATE SCHOOL supported in whole or in part by TUITION charges or by ENDOWMENTS/INHERITENCE or GIFTS. 4 A qualified HOME EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM. 5 A PRIVATE TUTORING PROGRAM which needs to state requirement

Family educational rights and privacy act of 1974 (FERPA) PARENTAL RIGHTS

FERPA and non-custodial parents give rights to either parents unless there is COURT ORDER that specifically REVOKES THESE RIGHTS. DIVORCE DECREE

Student Dress Codes

Ferrara v Henry County School Board (1978) R.K. v. School Board of Brevard County (1997) Tinker vs. Des Moines Indep. Community School District (1969) Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

Student Discipline Concerning Extra-Curricular Activities

LPM and JDT Appellants v. School Board of Seminole County

Parens Patriae

Legal authority for state to require school attendance. As parent to all persons, state has authority to provide for commonwealth and individual welfare As guardian over everyone - the state has authority to protect those who are not legally competent to act in their own behalf. (KIDS). Cases 1) Wisconsin v Yoder - power of parent even when linked to free exercise of religion may be subject to limitation if it appears parental decisions jeopardize health of safety of children or have potential for causing social burdens. ***objection of the Amish to only post 8th grade compulsory attendance of 14-15 year old and Amish customs of living...diminished compelling interest of the state. 2) Pierce v Society of Sisters of Holy Names of Jesus and Mary (1925) - private school claimed denial of due process of law because state compulsory attendance statures required all children ages 8 - 16 to attend public schools. CANNOT DENY PARENT THE RIGHT TO SEND CHILD TO PRIVATE SCHOOL.

Suspension and Expulsion

M.K. v. School Board of Brevard County (1998)

VACCINATION

NEITHER unproven AUTISM relationship claims nor RELIGIOUS BELIEFS compel a public school to permit attendance of un-vaccinated student (2009)

Immigration and Assimilation

Plyler v Doe (1982)- Undocumented children of alien parents (RESIDING IN U.S., cannot be denied a public education. Martinez v Bynum (1983) - Bonda Fide Residence requirement that furthers STATE INTEREST IS CONSTITUTIONAL...CAN DENY EDUCATION TO UNDOCUMENTED CHILDREN OF ALIEN PARENTS if PARENTS RESIDE IN ANOTHER COUNTRY.

2 Types of School Searches

Reasonable Suspicion (Specific) TLO CASE REDDING CASE Special Needs and Suspicion-less (Random) ACTON CASE EARLS CASE

Family educational rights and privacy act of 1974 (FERPA) PRIVATE DAMAGES

Redress for plaintiff is LIMITED to INJUNCTIVE RELIEF from the courts and DENIAL of FEDERAL FUNDS to the school districts. FERPA does not provide for a PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION to sue for damages, for plaintiff that prevails against school district. from either the LANGUAGE of the FERPA STATUTE and APPLICATION OF SECTION 1983 OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT of 1871.

Suitable/Litigious searches 1) People v. D (1974)

Overview of Case - Young male student was searched and turned up with illegal drugs. -A teacher observed a student entering the restroom twice within an hour spending only 5 to 10 seconds in the bathroom each time. This particular STUDENT had been UNDER OBSERVATION by school officials for about six months or possibly dealing drugs. During the same day he had also been EATING LUNCH WITH OTHER STUDENTS also UNDER SUSPICION. -The teacher reported the information to the school Security coordinator who then reported to the principal. -Security coordinator search the boy in the principals office. The search revealed 13 glassing envelopes. The coordinator required the boy to strip. - Vile containing nine pills of illegal substance were found. -Boys privacy rights simply outweighed the interest of the school in keeping the school drug-free. -The court deemed the STRIP SEARCH UNREASONABLE because the limited information available to the principals insufficient Cause for such an intrusive search

Weapons searches court case overview

State versus JA 1996

Special Needs - Random, Suspicion-less Searches Drug searches by urine test 6) Pottawatomie v Earls 2002

This case allowed just drug testing of students involved in COMPETITIVE EXTRA-CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES IN HIGH SCHOOL. - TEST RESULTS were used in an ADMINISTRATIVE MANNER and not for criminal prosecution. -Students testing positive are allowed to continue participating in extracurricular activities provided their 1) PARENTS NOTIFIED, 2) DRUG COUNSELING PROGRAM and 3) agreed to SUBMIT TO FURTHER TESTING -Acton & earls case - SPECIAL NEEDS - random school searches are permitted WITHOUT REASONABLE INDIVIDUALIZED SUSPICION. SPECIAL NEEDS CATEGORY 1) lower expectation of privacy. 2) Minimal level of intrusion- Method was discrete and meant to safeguard students by promoting a welfare health and security or safety of all students 3). Requires school district to show pervasive drug problem safety is a controlling factor