Week+4+Judicial+Review

Week 4 Judicial Review

As a result of a bomb threat at Alpha Elementary School, the students were evacuated and taken to nearby Beta Elementary School. Later that day, Ms. Ludmilla, a sixth grade teacher at Beta, noticed several of her students laughing and looking at something under a desk. She then saw a student named George slip something into his pocket. Ms. Ludmilla walked up to him, put her hand in his pocket, and pulled out a piece of paper, which read: “Let everyone out of your school, or KABOOM I will blow the school sky high!” Ms. Ludmilla immediately told George he should go home and that he was suspended indefinitely

1. Did George do anything wrong? It would be nearly impossible to determine George’s guilt or innocence without further investigation. If the school officials could prove that George had written the note in connection with a possible bomb threat, then George would face disciplinary action for inappropriate student expression. If there was confirmation that the note pertained to the situation at Alpha Elementary School, it would be easy to prove that George's speech acts had caused a substantial disruption within the academic setting. Furthermore, if the school could prove that George wrote this note with willful intent, then he would not be protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. During bomb threats, “words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create clear and present danger” (Russo, 2006, p. 867). However, it would be impossible to implicate George without more substantial evidence. It is necessary to detemine who wrote the note and why George put it in his pocket. It is possible that a friend of his, not himself, wrote the note and that he was trying to protect his friend. This could perhaps be constued as some kind of "conspiracy" which could implicate George even if he had not written the note.

2. Did Ms. Ludmilla do anything wrong? George was not afforded his due process rights. The teacher did not question George or others about the paper and it is unknown if George wrote the note or if he found it. It is also unknown if that note has any connection to the bomb threat the school received earlier in the day. Page 848 states "studnets who are subject to significant disciplinary penalties are entitled to notice and opportunities to respond..." In this case,the teacher did not provide the student or his parents with advance notive and instead immediately suspended him indefinitely. Ms. Ludmilla violated George’s Fourth Amendment rights by conducting an illegal search and seizure. Seeing a group of students laughing certainly does not give a teacher just cause to search a student’s pockets. “There were no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search would turn up evidence that the student had violated either the law or the rules of the school” (Russo, 2006, p. 856). In fact, George might be able to argue sexual harassment depending on the exact location of the pocket. Ms. Ludmilla also set herself up for a lawsuit by violating George’s right to defend himself under the Fourteenth Amendment. By issuing an out of school suspension for an indefinite period of time without the benefit of a due process hearing, Ms. Ludmilla has violated George’s property rights to an education. This course of action would only be acceptable if there was ample proof that George was posing an immediate threat to the other students (for example, if there were explosives in his possession). Finally, Ms. Ludmilla should have contacted an administrator before issuing a suspension. She does not have any authority to issue make these types of decisions. Agreed that Ms. Ludmilla violated George's due process rights and school policies by not informing the administration, conducting an investigation, informing George as to what the offense was, contacting parents and even rights to pivacy as she went into his pocket perhaps without sufficient cause to search and sieze. According to Reuters page 856, certain conditions must be met prior to conducting a search and siezing property. Additionally, if George was perhaps a threat (danger to self and others), his safety was not considered by letting him out of the building unsupervised. As part of George's due process rights, "students who are subject to significant disciplinary penalties are entitled to notice and opportunities to respond in the presence of fair and impartial third-party decisionmakers" (Russo, 2009, p. 213). Ms. Ludmilla did not involve a third party decisionmaker in any way.

3. Can the school take disciplinary action against George? Page 844 of Reutter's 6th edition states " As long as discipline policies and procedures satisfy due process, courts usually uphold the actions of educators as long as they are not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." In order for George's suspension to stand, the school must further investigate and prove that George's actions warrnat a suspension based on their written school rules. In Cuff ex rel. B.C. v. Valley Cent. School District, a student was "suspended from school from turning in an assignment which expressed the desire to blow up the school" (Reuters, 2009, p. 909). If George has a due process hearing and is found to have made a threat, then the school can take reasonable disciplinary action against him. This would depend on the result of the investigation but, yes, if he made the threat or tried to protect a peer who made the threat. The case of New Jerseyv. T.L.O. the Supreme Court eventually determined that the search of the student's purse did not violate her Fourth Ammendment Rights" (Reuters p.855-6). Protecting student safety is paramount and can be achieved while respecting George's rights. Students lose their rights to free speech when in a situation of "clear and present danger or when it causes incitement of violence and disruption" (Reuters, p867). If further investigation implicates George, the school can impose disciplinary sanctions in accordance with the written code of conduct. However, it is important to remember that this incident occured in an elementary school. "Courts take the sex, age, and size as well a the mental, emotional, and physical conditions of students and the nature of their offenses into consideration when imposing penalties" (Russo, 2006, p. 844). If George does confess to writing the note, the school must determine an appropriate punishment for a 6th grader. If George has an IEP, the sentence might be reduced.

4. What process should have been followed?  The school could have followed due process procedures, investigating the note, its origins, its intention, etc. If at that point they found the note and the student to be in violation of written school rules the parents and student should have been notified if the suspension and given the opportunity to respond The teacher should have escorted George and the peers present to the administrator and tell the administrator what she saw. The administrator would then investigate further and determine whether there was sufficient concern to warrant a search of George's pocket. Prior to this George could be asked to give to the administrator what was in his pocket. According to Reuters, page 855 states "that it is also important to educate George about his fifth amendment rights before he confesses." Depending on the results, a discipline determination would be made while informing George and his parent of the reason for the disciplinary action. If George truly was deemed to be dangerous, the police should be called to take him for a emergency psychiatric evaluation. George's status as either a special education or regular education student should be verified as the processes for suspensions are different. George should be supervised while waiting for a parent to pick him up. Everything should be in writing and ideally, George should be given a work packet to work on at home.   <span style="color: rgb(0,255,0);"> Reuters (2009, p. 914) states that the length of a suspension has some impact on the implementation of the due process hearing. For a shorter suspension, more "rudimentary" procedures are acceptable; if a student is removed for a longer time period, or permanently, more formal procedures must be followed. Reuters (p.914) also states that the due process requirements should "be fulfilled as soon as practicable."

Before issuing a suspension, a school administrator should have provided Goerge and his parents with oral and/or written notice of the charges. At that point, a due process hearing should have been scheduled to present the evidence against George and give him an opportunity to refute the charges (Russo, 2006).

<span style="color: rgb(255,0,255);">Jennifer <span style="color: rgb(255,0,0);">Erin <span style="color: rgb(0,0,255);">Julie <span style="color: rgb(0,255,0);">Christie