RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up

School Posts

School: Sioux Central

Bill of Rights Institute Badge

Written by olsonaplc-3a0

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

There is a huge difference between a school having the right to search a student’s backpack and a school having the right to search a student’s phone. A student’s backpack is solely intended for school purposes, while a student’s phone is privately owned and not used for school purposes.

The question being asked involves having reasonable suspicion that a student is communicating with someone else (whether it be with another student or not) about selling drugs. A school should still not have the right under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to search that particular student’s phone. This Amendment states, “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 be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” If a school authority is truly and reasonably suspicious that a student is using their cell phone or other electronic device during school hours to communicate with another person about selling drugs, said school authority should contact a higher authority (i.e., the police) and obtain a proper warrant to seize and search the student’s device. The Fourth Amendment protects such searches and seizures from happening without “probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation”, and that right should not be violated.

On the other hand, if a school authority is suspicious of a student possibly having illegal drugs in their backpack during school, that is a completely different story. A student’s backpack is intended for school purposes. They are full of books, papers, and other necessary supplies for a student’s school day. Given that students’ backpacks are more than likely not a school’s property, it is a much closer relation to school than a student’s phone or other electronic device would be. If a school authority intends to seize and/or search a student’s backpack, however, the student should be fairly warned and informed of the reasons of the suspicions and the search and seizure. A seizure and/or search of anything belonging to a student should not be done in a sneaky way, without the student’s knowledge, or without reasonable and probable cause.

Any searches involving the suspicion of a school authority and a student should be executed during school hours. If a school authority sees a student outside of school hours with their backpack and for some reason suspect they may have drugs in said backpack, they should not be allowed to seize and search that student’s backpack. The authority figure should be required to contact police and have the police handle the situation rather than taking it into their own hands.

All in all, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, like the rest of the Amendments, should be taken very seriously. Even in schools and to minors and young adults, rights are rights and it is only fair for all Amendments to be active for all Americans in every facet of life.

BRI

This post has been awarded the
Bill of Rights Institute Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Good job!


Concourse Badge

Written by olsonaplc-3ce

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The First Amendments states that schools are permitted from punishing students for statements that are made outside of school via the internet. An eighth grade student created a false MySpace page to make fun of their principal. Another high school senior created a MySpace page to falsely accuse their principal for alcohol consumption and illegal drug profession in his school. In both of these cases each student could not be found liable for these actions, for each took place off school grounds.

At this day and age, there are numerous ways of communication, such as: Smart phones, Facebook, MySpace, and even Ipods. That also means there are multiple ways to get someone into trouble. A student can be in contact with a teacher or friend in a second. Not all of the these communication areas are used in the best ways though. Facebook, known as a social networking site connecting with friends, family, and even potential coworkers. In high school, students seem to be using Facebook in a the wrong ways. Creating hate pages, starting unnecessary drama, and putting lives at risk. Recently, a freshman boy from South O’Brien, committed suicide after coming out to the world that he was gay. Former friends began to distance themselves from him. They started teasing and harassing this young boy, but one could not even tell that something was wrong. On April 14, 2012, his family arrived back to their house to find this boy had hung himself in their garage. As of right now, the parents of this boy are not pressing charges, nor are the police officers.

The First Amendment should not protect those students for what they had done. If someone has an opinion like that, don’t take it to Facebook where the whole world can see. Bullying is illegal in the state of Iowa and no one seems to be enforcing it, even after someone takes their life. That law should be enforced all of the country, their has been more suicides recently then there has been in a long time. Just because something like this was said online doesn’t mean anything. It just shows that there is proof to do something about it, even if someone deleted a comment or a wall post. More lives are being put at risk because people don’t seem to be doing much to stop it.

The principals of the schools lives will never be the same.  The case will follow them where ever they go, because the students that had created those pages on MySpace got away free because they were protected by the First Amendent. It doesn’t only affect them but also their family. Not only does that  case ever go away, but it will continue to be tried until those students are found guilty. Giving someone the right of free speech doesn’t give them the right to say just anything they want. They can say anything they want, but in the back of their minds they should realize that there will always be consequences.

 

consource

This post has been awarded the
Consource Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Excellent analysis.


Consource Badge

Written by olsonaplc-8d

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The first amendment gives the freedom of speech, but there should be limits on how far people can go. It is one thing to say something, and post it online was a “status,” but it is another thing to make a page of false information. When this is online people may see it, and believe these false accusations. It can cost people a job, because they do background checks online and may find this, and either fire this person or not hire them. This is not fair to the person the lies are about. It is so easy for anybody to sabotage another person online these days. They should not to be able to do this to an individual.

The speech on networking sites outside of school can definitely disrupt in-school time. Bullying takes place online all of the time. It is freedom of speech, but it can hurt others in many ways and even help lead to a suicide to being committed. When the school then informs the whole student body of this tragedy, they cannot focus in school and it really is tough on everyone and little is accomplished in the week after this horrible event. It can also trigger fights between students during school hours. This may result in suspension, or expelling, but definitely is a distraction. Words can lead to wars.

This student is legal when it comes to the first amendment for the freedom of speech, but by making this profile of someone else, they then crossed the line of identity theft. Also, if they would have said it on their profile on MySpace as a “Status,” then it would be different, because it is their own expression of their thoughts. However, in the first amendment it says freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition to the government, and to their own religion (United States Constitution). This is beyond the freedom of speech and the other four do not permit it to be right either. Along with the Madison’s Resolution for Amendments to the Constitution (June 8, 1789) also says they can publish opinions, speech, writing, and press, but this is more than writing, opinions, speech, and press. They do not protect this student from being able to do this act.

If school officials could discipline students for off campus behavior though, many more students would be getting in trouble. Many students do illegal acts. It would be hard to discipline them all for it. The worst they really could do for these actions are to expel or to suspend them. School officials cannot and should not be able to stop the students freedom to internet speech. They should be able to inform students of the harm they are causing to the emotions of others, but it is their freedom to speech.

From looking at the first amendment and Madison’s Resolution for Amendments to the Constitution, it does give students the ability to give their opinions to others and say anything they want. This case shows it was not an opinion or just words, and was trying to give false information to others about this school official. This student should be found guilty.

consource

This post has been awarded the
Consource Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Very well done.


Individual Rights Blog

Written by olsonaplc-53

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Does the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution permit schools to search a student’s phone (iPod, Android, Blackberry, etc.) if they suspect the student was communicating with another student about selling drugs?

~Is there a difference between searching a student’s backpack, and searching a student’s phone?~

Searching a person’s phone and searching a person’s backpack are two totally different things. A backpack is used for school supplies and things you would need during a school day. A phone is a personal connection to other people that doesn’t have anything to do with school. A phone allows us to communicate about and with out of school people and things. What is on phones is personal.

Hypothetically speaking, if a school let every single person in a school have a phone and it was the schools phone then that is a whole different issue. Just like the school owns our school laptops hypothetically if the school gave everyone a phone then they would have the right to take it, search it, and do just about anything with it because of the fact that it belongs to the school. A backpack should only have school stuff in it. It shouldn’t have anything worth being suspicious over because that isn’t the function of a backpack.

The fourth amendment states; “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 be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” I’m going to break this down a little so its understandable. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.” This means that people have the right for anything they own or use to be secure to them. “Against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” This means that someone can’t just search your house, possessions, or anything that you own without a reason. “And no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This just says that no one can make up an issue for a warrant without probable cause, or a good reason. For someone to get a warrant they have to state the reason they need it, why they need it, what they are going to use it for, and where are they going to use it.

The fourth amendment does not permit schools to search a students phone. They could tell the student who is suspected parents. But they don’t have the right to just take someones personal belonging and search through it. Phones aren’t relevant to schools unless hypothetically the school issued out a phone for each student to use. Peoples right and lives shouldn’t be violated by the school because the fourth amendment doesn’t permit schools to search someone’s personal belongings.

BRI

This post has been awarded the
Bill of Rights Institute Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Excellent post!


Fourth Amendment

Written by olsonaplc-22a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The fourth amendment says that they can search your phone or other belongings as long as they have probable cause.  The fourth amendment allows school to search it as long as it is on their property and could cause danger.  The school should go to higher authorities if they believe they have a student that is engaged in drugs.  I do think there is a difference between searching a backpack and searching a phone.  You cant carry drugs on your phone but you can on your backpack.  They should only be able to search if they have probable cause but I think the better option is to contact the higher authorities. Schools should probably have random drug tests for kids in sports or after school activities. If they test positive for drugs they shouldn’t be able to compete or participate in the after school activities. Schools should not have the right to look through a persons phone because it can not harm anyone.  The phone its self cant cause harm only the people using it can.  Their backpack can store things to hurt someone or to hurt them selves. They should be able to search backpacks for that reason.  I think that if the school has probable cause that someone is doing drugs they shouldn’t deal with it.  They should report it to authorities who have actually been taught how to handle the situation and do it on a daily basis.  Schools and their administration were taught to teach kids and to make them prepared for the life ahead. The law is for policemen so when administration happens to hear about or see someone doing or selling drugs the should tell the person in charge there and they should contact the authorities.  In the Safford Unified School District #1 v. Redding I think they went way over board on a girl having ibuprofen on her in school grounds.  They didn’t need to go that far when ibuprofen is legal to have and the girl was only 13 years old. They did not need to strip search her for an ibuprofen tablet. I don’t necessarily think that random drug test follow the fourth amendment they don’t have probable cause to search people or test them for drugs.  I don’t necessarily think its a bad idea but I can see where people would want to deny the test because of their rights.  They shouldn’t have to get tested unless the person testing has a cause to do so. Student athletes should be tested for drugs in case they are using them in a way that could better their skills while playing that sport.  They should be notified that if they are going to play the sport they are probably going to get tested and that if they don’t want to be tested they shouldn’t try out for the sport.  So I think that the fourth amendment does allow schools to look at your phone under certain circumstances.  There is also a fine line as to what circumstances are just and which ones aren’t.

BRI

This post has been awarded the
Bill of Rights Institute Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Very good post.


Bill of Rights Institute Badge

Written by olsonaplc-34a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The school does have limits on whether or not they can search your personal belongings. The school is a place for education, not a place for handling the law. Under the Fourth Amendment, schools have the right of search and seizure, if and only if there is probable cause, or it is on school property and could cause danger.

As a student in a public school, there are rights that everyone has. Students do not have to be searched for no apparent reason. But if there is reason to be searched, no matter the case, the school can do so in order to protect all of the students and staff that are in the building. Being searched, does include a cell phone because it is a belonging that holds information to find out what is going on.

If a school wants to drug test students who want to participate in extra curricular activities, they can have students take them. Because the extra curricular activities are extra and not a have to do like attending school.  When a student chooses to be in activities beyond just school, they have to follow a good conduct code. Students represent a school and how the system works. When there are drug tests in the student athletes, that prevents those students from taking drugs because they do not want to lose their spot on the varsity line up. A majority of students are apart of one extra curricular activity or another. The Fourth Amendment protects students from a random search. But if say, a drug dog comes onto campus, and detects drugs, that is probable cause to be searched.

Schools have procedures on when students do take drugs or get caught. Students cannot participate in extra curricular activities for a period of time, or even taken off the team or activity. This is a good rule to have in school systems.

Public school students have the same rights as adults, but when you attend school, there is a good conduct code that has to be followed. There are several stipulations that have to be followed when attending the school.

If a school has a probable cause to search a students belongings, like their backpack or purse, then the cell phone is apart of that category to be looked through for evidence. Especially if the drug selling was happening on school grounds, between two students who attend the school. A smart phone can be just like a computer and do web searches, so a lot of information can be withheld on a phone. People might say there is a difference between searching a backpack and searching a cell phone, but there isn’t really. They are both places that can hold valuable information. Schools and authorities can search the computers and see what they were used for.

The Fourth Amendment does permit schools to search a cell phone, but only if there is probable cause to do so. A cell phone is a personal belonging, so it would be unconstitutional to be searched just because.

BRI

This post has been awarded the
Bill of Rights Institute Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Great post!


4th Amendment

Written by olsonaplc-1a7

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The Fourth Amendment should not allow for the searching of a phone unless there is probable cause. There is also a difference in searching a students bag and searches a students phone. Searching a students bag should only be done if there is probable reasoning for it or the school has a good idea or hints that some student has something illegal on them. A phone is a personal piece of information and I believe that before going straight to searching someones phone that the school should have hard proof that its being done. Phones have personal information on them and most of the information the people with the phone do not want anyone to read it. If the person whose phone they are searching has done nothing wrong then what will happen after that? Another thing is if the school suspects a kid of selling drugs or doing drugs then the school should contact police or the kids parents before going straight to searching their phone or cars. The school should be a place for just strictly education and not for seeing how many kids they can bust with the law. If the selling of the drugs and doing of the drugs affects the school and goes on during school hours thats the only way I feel the school should get involved. In order for the police to be able to come into your house they need a warrant to be able to search your house so the school should need the same warrant to search your phone and or car. I also think that in the Unified School District #1 v. Redding case that they shouldn’t have been able to search a thirteen year old just for ibuprofen. Ibuprofen is not an illegal drug it just might be against school policy to carry it but its not as bad as what she could have been carrying. If someone is suspected of carrying illegal drugs then the school should call that person down to the office and call a policeman and their parents. That way the parents are there for the kid and also the police will be able to do a search and not violate any rights as long as the parents are okay with it. Things that schools do sometimes are having random drug searches in the school with drug dogs. What our school does for this is let the drug dogs go by everyone locker and every kid must put their school bag out in the hallway. Then the drug dogs also go outside of the school and around the parking lot to all of the kids vehicles. If the dogs smell anything or sense anything unusual then I think the school has the probable cause that they need to search the bags, lockers, or cars. This can be good for the school because it will help remove the illegal drugs and clean up the school. By doing this the school wont have to worry about the 4th amendment rights or privacy rights.

BRI

This post has been awarded the
Bill of Rights Institute Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Great post!


4th Amendment

Written by olsonaplc-2ca

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

4th Amendment

Tanner Archer

I believe their is a difference between searching a backpack and a phone. The difference that maybe be the most present is that someone’s phone is their own personal item that maybe be used for work or for other things. Phones might have personal family information on them that no on should see. Phones are not used for school things or in school at all unlike a backpack which has all of your school items in which the school owns. If the school doesn’t have any evidence on you I don’t think they should be able to search phones. If the school has hard evidence against one I believe they should be able to search phones. This is a problem that I think is more relevant in city schools. Its a larger problem in cities because drug use and gangs are more in cities rather than in rural schools. Sure it happens in rural schools but I don’t think it happens as much. In either case I still believe that schools should not be able to search ones phone unless they have a previous record or evidence. Schools are a place for education not for the law. Schools may help with the law but it is not their job. Schools take phones away from kids if they are using them during class time. When they get taken away they may go to the principals office for either a day or maybe even a week depending on the school. If they do take phones they should not be able to go through them in any way shape or form if they do not have a reason. The way I feel in our school is that if my phone were taken and was given to the principal I feel like he might look through it. I have read in some cases that schools may want to do drug tests on student athletes. Testing student athletes would be an ok thing because some of the drugs they may be using could enhance their playing skills. It could affect them positively or negatively depending on the drug that they are using. Drugs like steroids are a drug that would most likely help a student athlete. Drugs like meth or cocaine would hurt athletes a lot because they harm the body a lot more then steroids.

In the end though i still believe that a school is a place for education not the law. The law may be brought up in schools from one student telling on another student or by having a hunch. Whether the case may be true or not i do not think the school should be able to check a students personal belongs to try and find out. If the schools wants to do more about it get the police involved and let them deal with it it’s their job. If schools do check it and take time out of the day of learning i believe that is wrong. The police are the people who should come in and handle it but they should not interrupt learning.

BRI

This post has been awarded the
Bill of Rights Institute Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Excellent analysis.


Consource Badge

Written by olsonaplc-217

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The freedom of speech is protected by the first amendment, but there are limits. A case where a person has been hurt, especially in a professional manner, should not go unpunished. When lies have been made up and started to endanger a person’s job, it cannot go unnoticed. Even if an incident happened outside of school, he/she should be punished because of the factors that it was hurting someone’s reputation, and could even cause the loss of a job. Does it matter that it was a student to principal or teacher? Would the situation actually be the same, under the same circumstances if it was co-worker to co-worker? There have been situations that a worker has either made a comment about their boss, and they have gotten fired, even though they’ve made the comment outside of the work site. It is the same concept, with the making a hate page or a page with lies that were claimed to be “confessions.” Reputations can be hurt, and if the administration would have believed what they saw on the page then a job could have been lost.

If students are bullying other students outside of school, it should be allowed that the school can regulate the internet use, if it is on a school computer. It would not be the school’s business if it wasn’t on a school computer, and what outside of the school area and school time. It is the same way at looking at the teacher who was getting harasses/bullied by a student. But that would need to be punished because it had affected him at school, and his reputation, and possibly his job and co-workers.

In our society if bullying is becoming an issue, I don’t see why cases like this could just be let go. It needs to be stopped by some form of punishment, or what is it going to come to? If it goes unpunished for the kids, no one is ever going to learn that it’s wrong, and the problem is going to keep spreading. What will it lead to? Threats? This has to be looked at from a different point, the principal had no control over what was happening and was being harassed. Is that what our country stands for? Letting people get their feeling hurt, not just kindergarten hurt, but actually affected them, and their work. Our first amendment protects our freedom of speech, yes, but there have to be limits. When it comes to other people’s lives getting affected so much as this principal’s, punishment is the only option.

Don’t let bullying go unnoticed. People have lost their lives because bullying has affected them and never stopped, and there was no way to deal with it. Who says it won’t happen just because he/she’s an adult? No one can guarantee that and we can’t let that keep happening. Our society needs to get a handle on bullying, but first, there will need to be punishment for those who do bully, no matter what age they are, or what form of bullying is going on.

 

consource

This post has been awarded the
Consource Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Excellent post!


Consource Badge

Written by olsonaplc-31a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution should allow schools the right to punish students statements they make outside of school on the internet depending on the severity. Students and people in general are allowed to express their opinions because of the First Amendment. Although there is this amendment, there is a point where stating your opinion can and has gone too far. As far as the First Amendment goes, if a student publishes anything online off campus, then they are safe from any consequences from the school. This is the law, but there has to be line drawn. People have the right to freedom of speech, but they do not have the right to create a fake profile or account so they can make vulgar confessions of a made-up sexual encounters dealing with their peers and principal, or false possession of alcohol and drugs. In many ways the act should depend on the malignity of the situation. For example if a student is venting their feelings of the day on a status or tweet, this is completely different to the cases that have been addressed to the Supreme Court. The point where venting turns into hateful posts, harassment, and false profiles and pages, is when the school should be allowed to step in.   This is a prime example where common sense would tell anyone that this is a disruption of the school and community. Making false accusations of anyone on a social network in a sense has nothing to do with the First Amendment, but has more so to do with harassment and false accusations. The problem with a student posting or creating false profiles on the internet to make fun of or lie about someone else is that many times it may be on their own home computer or laptop. The school, in all honesty, cannot do anything with it being at home and on the family’s own property. The position that the school has to take then is to take it to a higher power. If the school cannot punish them, the court system should be able to find some reason for punishing this student. The size of audience or who the victim is, should not be a determining factor on how much of a punishment the person/student should receive. The punishment should solely rest on what the person has done and how many school codes and government laws the person has gone against. The fact that a student/person has made this offense, will create friction, disrupt school environment, and perhaps even cause an uproar within the school. So, in reality when one looks at it, not only does it affect a student/person’s life and family, but it causes problems within the school and even the community. School systems and parents need to start the process of eliminating harassment online as much as they can and make it a way that can be effective. Schools also need to let their students know of the consequences of their actions online, not only because of the trouble they could possibly get with the school, but now with law system.

 

consource

This post has been awarded the
Consource Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Very interesting post. Well done!


ConSource Badge

Written by olsonaplc-300

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution does NOT permit schools to punish students for statements they make outside of school on the internet.  Although there are certain instances where schools are able to punish students for statements outside of school.  Such as a 1-to-1 school, my school Sioux Central for example, where every student has their “own” MacBook to take home with them.  The school really owns all the laptops and should have the ability to punish the students if the statements about the school where made on the school laptop either at home or any other place.  If the object(laptop, iPad, or other device) is owned by the school and is letting the students use them, the school should have the ability to discipline any student doing any act on the school’s device in which violates the schools rules in their handbook or elsewhere.  If the student posts a statement regarding the school on the student’s own or friend’s computer off school campus, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the student’s freedom of speech rights.

225 years ago, in the year 1787, the original Constitution was proposed in Philadelphia as The Bill of Rights.  When they wrote the first ten amendments, I don’t think they had computers, cell phones, or the internet in mind.  They weren’t expecting all the technology we have now.  So it’s hard to base court cases now with all the technology we have with the Amendments which seem old to some of us.

Social networking is an amazing resource when used properly.  Of course, like all things, there are some people who abuse their ability to use it.  Social networking is a new way people use to vent their problems and stress, which can be very bad.  The venting online could consist of insulting bosses, co-workers, teaches, or fellow classmates.  When back in the day, people would get with their best friends and discuss their problems and stress.  That group of 2-4 people are the only ones that find out about your stress. When you post your furies on Facebook and Twitter, the whole world can now see what your stressing with in life.  And this of course, starts gossip.

If schools really want to be able to punish students for statements they post about their school or teachers, the schools should be able to put a section in their handbooks about off campus speech harassing.  When the student signs and hands in the book at the beginning of the year, it gives the school the right to be able punish students for any remarks about them in any form on the internet.  This is one possible solutions to regulating off camps Internet harassing speech.  Schools with the 1-to-1 system do need to take the extra step and regulate what a teen can do and say on his or her computer to other students which can harm the student.  Schools should have all social networking websites blocked at school for the purpose of harassing other students or teachers or remarks about the school.

consource

This post has been awarded the
Consource Badge (300 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Florence v. Board of Freeholders of Burlington County, NJ

Written by olsonaplc-300

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

It was obvious that Mr. Florence did not have a criminal background, and was not any threat to to society.  Yet, in jail he was housed and searched with people who did have criminal backgrounds or were a threat to society.  Prisoners capable of harming other people and are a threat to society should not be roomed in the same area as prisoners not capable of harming others.  The prisoners that do not have a criminal background could get hurt and beat up by the others who do have criminal background.  There is just one problem: deciding who is criminally dangerous.

Students without any criminal backgrounds should not be treated the same way as dangerous criminals who have been found guilty of crimes.  I think this because students do not know as much information about life as most adults do.  Therefor, the punishment for doing something bad should not be as bad as it would be for grown adults.

florence

This post has been awarded the
Florence v. Board of Freeholders Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Well done!


Rehberg v. Paulk

Written by olsonaplc-3a0

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

I understand having to have some government officials be immune from having lawsuits against them. However, it is probably not the best way to go about immunity rules. If an angry inmate complains about ‘unconstitutional prison conditions’ or claims that there was an instance/were instances of ‘police misconduct’, it is debatable whether or not those government officials that the inmate is targeting should be held liable or be granted immunity from the claims.

One must assume that the ‘violent Ku Klux Klan problems in the South after the Civil War’ is referring to the problems that the United States had with policemen, judges, mayors, etc. being racist and siding with the KKK so much that it sometimes interfered with court cases and arrests. More than likely, most of the officials that were accused of such acts were granted immunity, and the cases probably never became popular news.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Official Immunity and Section 1983

Written by olsonaplc-28d

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The court would need to grant certain officials absolute immunity, because if they were not every one that wanted to get out of what they did wrong could just turn on the official and try and press charges until every one forgot what they did bad in the first place. With the passing of the section, it wasn’t really a good time period because of the large amount of officials that were involved in the klan because, with the new changes they found a way to bail them selves out of being held accountable for what they had done in the previous years. The immunity section is actually a good thing when dealing with the courts and arrests though, it the person that is preforming the judging and arrests could be charged for any little thing that the criminal believed was wrong there would never be any process there would just be more and more cases that would fill up the court rooms for more important cases instead of the ones trying to divert the argument.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Write the Opinion Rehberg v. Paulk

Written by olsonaplc-34a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

In the Rehberg v. Paulk case, my class has decided that Rehberg was in the right. Paulk should be tried, and have to pay Rehberg retribution. Paulk lied about Rehberg to the Grand Jury. Paulk ruined Rehbergs’ name so money should be paid. There should not be immunity to Paulk, because lying is not apart of his job. In the case, Brisco v. LaHue, 640 U.S. 325 (1983), Brisco had wanted to sue LaHue, his police officer, because he thought LaHue was lying during his trial case. LaHue was protected because of absolute immunity as a police officer, who was just doing his job. This is not like this case because he had to do what his job needed him to do. In this case,Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 2009, the officials that were sued by Goldstein were rightfully sued because he was wrongfully prosecuted. In this case absolute immunity could not help anyone. In the case my class is discussing, Rehberg v. Paulk, Rehberg should be charged for what he did do wrong, but not for what he was wrongly accused of. Paulk should give Rehberg retribution for what Paulk had done to Rehberg. In Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993), Buckley was being prosecuted with false evidence. The evidence that was given hadn’t been proven to be true, because prosecutors went to someone until they were given the information they wanted to hear.  This was not fair to Buckley. In this case there was no absolute immunity,  because finding somebody to give false testimony is not apart of their job. In two of the three cases given, lying was at the heart of the issue. The unethical behaviors of those we trust to protect us destroy what the job description their job entails. Therefore, there should be no absolute immunity. Paulk does owe retribution to Rehberg.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Rehberg v. Paulk and CongressionalIntent

Written by olsonaplc-31a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

If a judge were to interpret laws based on the judge’s belief of the legislature, or Congress, this would mean that a judge must know what the law meant when it was passed. The method of interpreting laws is a confusing, perhaps because your conscience or other outside forces get in your way, of making the lawful decision. The reason for interpreting laws is to focus on the main point of the case and to make sure you make the correct decision. If one was to find reasons against the interpretation of laws, perhaps may be some one who felt they were not given a fair law interpretation at court. It may also be, because they think that a judge’s own conscience of right and wrong should acceptable in a court case. Let us say that a judge were to supposed to attempt the meaning of Congress from 140 years ago, why would this be difficult? It may be difficult, because first, it takes a lot of time and patience to translate or decipher the language of 140 years ago. There is also the chance that people may think that because we are now in the 21st century, there should be no reason to interpret these laws, as long as American citizens understand them.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)


Official Immunity and Section 1983

Written by olsonaplc-22a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

I don’t thing that anyone should receive immunity from court.  That would mean that they could do anything they want and get away with it.  It is not right.   They should have to pay for their wrongs just as everyone else does and should.  People who know they have immunity could abuse it so that they could win court cases and have people in jail for no good reason.  Its just not right.  Celebrities are also bad with this.  They seem to get away with less charges then if a normal civilian would have done the exact same thing.  They have money and are famous so they can get away with it?  I don’t think that should be the way it is.  Everyone is equal in this country and we should all be treated equally too.  It is wrong to say one person is above another in the law sense.

justice

This post has been awarded the
The Justice Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Rehberg v. Paulk olsonaplc

Written by olsonaplc-1a7

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

No one should have natural immunity in court if they are the ones that are guilty. If this was the way it was then this case probably wouldn’t be such a big deal. Even if it would happen to be the president of the United States and he commits a crime they should not receive natural immunity just because of who they are. A lot of times you see this happening with celebrities. The celebrities could commit the same crime a normal person would commit but instead the normal person gets a harsh penalty that they deserve and the celebrity gets off easy. In this case if they lied about false crimes just to get the other one in trouble I think this is wrong and natural immunity should not cover for what they did. Someone should look into the natural immunity thing and see if there is anyway they could change it for the better.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Friend of the Court

Written by olsonaplc-217

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The group I am defending is a group that is trying to make it easier to sue police officers. The group believes that no official should be treated and different from them, as in having more rights, or no being able to get sued. If a police officer has done something wrong where they are in a situation to get sued, they should be sued. If the people have a defense a police officer, then he/she should be tried. They jury should treat the situation as if the police officers are on the same level as the rest of the citizens, or community. They should not be treated higher than anyone in a case of being sued for doing something wrong. If a police officer was not tried fairly for a trial, it is setting a bad example for our country if there are higher people, than the citizens in a court of law. It is going back to non equality of our nation, and that is not what we want.

amicus

This post has been awarded the
Amicus Brief Badge (150 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Rehberg v. Paulk

Written by olsonaplc-300

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The Supreme Court allows certain government individuals to be absolutely immune from suit because maybe the individual has high authority in a business or government and if he got a law suit, it would change the economy or the nation.  The individual which has received a suit, could change his views on subjects and try to convince citizens what he believes.  He then could begin to change government.  No it would not change my answer learning that Congress passed Section 1983 in large part as a response to violent Ku Klux Klan problems in the South after the Civil War.  There are some people that do big things and when one little mistake comes up, there is always someone trying to and a suit on them or get them is trouble and if they lost money they may leave their job and stuff might happen that would have if he was still there.  Some people take this out of hand and think that they can do whatever they want and get away with it without getting in trouble at all.  Those people should liable to citizens.  The government officials are suppose hold the view of their citizens so they should be liable to them.  Some police officers believe that they can do a lot of stuff since they are part of the law and get away with it.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)


Congressional Intent – Constitutional Law Badge(150 points)

Written by olsonaplc-8d

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Congressional Intent - Constitutional Law Badge(150 points)

The methods that support this legal interpretation are the laws that came forth in section 1983,(Title 42 of the U.S. Code) giving them the right to invade the privacy rights if there is a suspicion the individual has committed a crime and needs to be investigated without knowing about it. The reasons against is that it is going against the rights of American citizens by destroying the fourth amendment, giving the right for people to have privacy. The should not figure out what the laws were 140 years ago and they should apply modern understandings. The reason for this is because 140 years ago does not matter if the laws have changed and these are the current laws. I believe it is wrong to invade someone’s privacy, however it can be useful and send guilty individuals to jail or prison where they belong. It is wrong to falsify documents as they did though, even if it was all for a good cause because they lied under oath. You can not do this. The immunity plea should not be used because you should have to take responsibility for your actions and face the consequences. So the way I see it, it was wrong for Paulk to invade the privacy of Rehberg. However, I do not believe Rehberg should get the sums of money he is requesting, maybe enough for any damages Paulk caused but no more than that.

constitutionallaw

This post has been awarded the
Constitutional Law Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations!


Justice Badge

Written by olsonaplc-2ca

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Tanner Archer

Justice Badge

In Rehberg v. Paulk, Paulk was lying to the hospital. Rehberg wanted money for it because he was being lied to and had valse info. I think that Rehberg should be entitled to money because he had been lied to by a hospital and Paulk. Rehberg had to go back to court two more times for the same thing and each time got off because of false testimony. How would you like it if you were taken to court for something you did not do. If i was taken to court for something that i did not do and they had false information i would be really upset and i would want something back after i was found innocent. Then if i was taken to court another two more times for the same thing on false testimony again i would be furious and i would definitely want something back.

justice

This post has been awarded the
The Justice Badge (50 points)

This post has been awarded the
Bill of Rights Institute Badge ( points)


Justice Badge

Written by olsonaplc-53

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

To give someone absolute immunity allows prosecutors to say and do things in front of a judge or grand jury without being allowed to be sued as longs as they are fulfilling their duty as the government’s representative in court. If you were to take this away from police officers there would be tons of cases coming to court that wouldn’t be necessary to be taken that far. While there would also be cases that would need to be looked into before they are just brushed aside like it is nothing. This makes me wonder how many people have gotten off the hook because their case didn’t look like it was a big deal, who has gotten away with murder. Everyone should have a right to take their claims to court but not everyones claim is even worth it. It isn’t fair that we over look one thing but make such a big deal out of another.

justice

This post has been awarded the
The Justice Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Congratulations on winning the Justice Badge!


Official Immunity and Section 1983

Written by olsonaplc-3ce

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

In Section 1983, it claims that anyone who is of a different color break any law against them or are “caused to be subjected” (Section 1983), will be held accountable for any mistakes that are made. Within the criteria that is said in the describing paragraph of this section wants to know why in the government just because someone has or knows someone that is part of the in crowd, they are not in trouble for something they should be in trouble for. It asked, “why do you think the Supreme Court allows certain government individuals to be absolutely immune from suit?” This happens all the time, everything that is being said in the Rehberg v. Paulk case, is unfair to Rehberg. This cases is being compared to the Ku Klux Klan issue right after the Civil war. The Section 1983 law was passed to

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Well done!


Rehberg

Written by olsonaplc-3cc

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The jury did the right thing by not broadening the right to qualified immunity.  I believe the police are just doing there job. They should have the right to absolute immunity, for now, due to that fact. The absolute immunity does need to be fixed though. We don’t live in a perfect country, the justice system is not perfect, but there has to be some other solution that has not yet been discovered. Many of the cases that would be brought back into the system are small, and it isn’t worth clogging up the justice system for a handful of lawsuits. The respondents, Paulk and Hodges, not only lied but committed perjury, and no one should be immune from such a serious crime or be above the law, but allowing the suit to go through would allow one case to change the justice system. It is not worth that. In the end I would go against unnecessary and unintelligent cases coming back into the court systems. Rehberg was treated unfairly and lied to but to broaden the right from absolute immunity to qualified immunity would make more of a mess of the justice system.

rehberg

This post has been awarded the
Rehberg v. Paulk Badge (200 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Interesting post! Is there a point at which police go past doing their jobs and may actually be going too far? If so, what determines where that line is?


Social Cost-Colton

Written by olsonaplc-3cc

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

No I do not. We can’t treat innocent students and even people like in Mr. Florence’s case. A strip search is a very undermining and humiliating way to do something to somebody who didn’t do any harm to anybody or weren’t even thought to do so. I especially don’t agree with children being strip searched. Thats just wrong. That should be classified to me as molestation. For a student or a kid to be strip searched that shouldn’t be legal and it should be unconstitutional. This also makes innocent people feel like they are in the same classification of rapists and murderers when all they did was not pay a fine or something. They shouldn’t be treated in this way and it is just wrong for people to think they should. Put yourself in there shoes. Would you want to be strip searched and brought down to the same level of terrible criminals?

criminal-justice

This post has been awarded the
Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)


Medical Professionals

Written by olsonaplc-2ca

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

I think whomever conducts the strip searches should at least be qualified to do so. If prison guards or officials conduct a strip search and they do it in the wrong way and hurt the individual I believe that it was wrongly done. They should be trained in this incase they were to remove something from someone that way they would do it the right way. I also think that the person conducting the search should be the same sex as the person they are searching. I don’t think it should matter who conducts the search as long as they are qualified to do so.

criminal-justice

This post has been awarded the
Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)


The Cost of Safety

Written by olsonaplc-34a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Safety is needed in every society. Current events are helping the security get stronger and not letting as much through and giving people a harder time to get through almost anywhere. With what has happened in the past, society is learning from history to try and prevent terrorism.

When the Twin Towers were terrorized, if there would of been a better security and checking, there is a very high chance that that situation could have been prevented. But now, people are coming up with more creative ways to get through the security. People complain about having to go through airport security, but also complaining about terrorism saying that it is preventable. Yes, it is preventable to a certain extent with tough security.

But with some of the security measures that people have to go through, is a little bit over the top. There is a right to your own privacy, but what is being done is just to protect the people. If the wasn’t security or safety at all, what would the world be like, it would be a dangerous place to be.

With the current events that have taken place, officials are doing what they can to prevent bombings, shootings, and killings.

Security at a jail cell is not to invade a persons’ privacy, it is to ensure safety to the others are their and the people caring for them. There is a reason that people are taken to jail, some are worse then others. Jails are there for safety.

criminal-justice

This post has been awarded the
Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)


Social Cost

Written by olsonaplc-217

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

There shouldn’t be the same precautions taken for a person who has no criminal record, as someone who does have a criminal record. If someone has a criminal record and convicted again, there is a reason that some searches are taken place. On the contrary, if someone is convicted, but has no criminal record, there shouldn’t be searched done unless there is suspicion, or if there is something suspected about him/her, or if he/she has been caught red handed with a substance, or has not been completely honest with the situation at hand.

criminal-justice

This post has been awarded the
Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Should the severity of the crimes override a criminal record? For example, should a murderer be treated with greater scrutiny than three-time purse-thief?


Administrative Concerns

Written by olsonaplc-3ce

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

In the Constitution of the United States, the Fourth Amendment explains that each person has the right to turn down any unlawful searches and seizures. Strip searches are definitely an invasion of personal space. Beings that Florence was only taken in to jail because an officer misunderstood some information, it was wrong to perform a strip search. A strip search may be a procedure that has to be done at the jail every time someone is brought in, for it is a bigger city. If an incident like that would happen in a smaller area, a strip search would not be needed. It would be too costly in a smaller area, opposed to a bigger city where they have the money for things like that. Individual searches may be a little more expensive, but I would be able to see why they would rather do an individual search over a group search. A group search is an invasion of personal space.

justice

This post has been awarded the
The Justice Badge (50 points)


Cost of Safety

Written by olsonaplc-31a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

On September 11, 2001 the United States was never the same. It changed our lives, but it also changed our level of securities. Before major terrorist attacks posed on our country, airport security was very lenient on checking bags and people. Any major or minor event in our country will mostly favor in American citizen’s security. Although our country’s officials have to maintain our freedom, yet protect us too. Current events effect our security in major ways, because of the fact that many people cannot be trusted, thus making it hard to keep the balance of the fourth amendment and citizen’s safety from terrorists. The balancing of the security and freedom scale is a difficult one to balance. In order to have security and safety in our lives, security officials must enforce the new laws. This is where it causes problems. Our freedom rights must be kept too, so in reality this scale may never be balanced.

criminal-justice

This post has been awarded the
Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Can you give specific examples of the balance being moved recently? What are the specific effects of the balance being moved too far in either direction?


Medical Professionals

Written by olsonaplc-22a

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Medical Professional

Kyle Johnson

Ap English

                       They should use medical officials in prisons for cavity searches because they actually know what they are looking for and know how to look.  They are trained to know everything about the human body.  They can search safely and can probably find more than the average person could. They could identify diseases better and infections and know what they are and how to treat them.  They can also probably prescribe medicine to prevent the spread of the disease.  Prison guards  should not have the right to do searches in prison they are not trained and could cause harm to the individual.  If they are performing the search they might not be able to identify certain objects.  They may also not able to identify certain diseases or infections.  They would just pass by and then everyone in prison would be infected and they would have a bigger problem on their hands.

patient-care

This post has been awarded the
Patient Care Badge (50 points)


Medical Professionals

Written by olsonaplc-1a7

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Medical Professions should be the ones to do the strip searches because they are trained to do it. If a prison guard does them they might not know exactly what they are doing and wont be able to identify as many problems. If a trained doctor would be the one to search the inmates they would not only be able to check for illness better but also be able to relieve them of objects in a better way. The doctor that would preform the searches should be trained highly in that certain area so they are sure what they are doing. When the doctor does the search instead of a prison guard it could help prevent multiple strip searches. Albert Florence was a victim of the multiple strip searches when he was moved from one prison to another. If the search was done by a medical professional it might have helped prevent this from happening.

patient-care

This post has been awarded the
Patient Care Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: What prevents medical professionals, under duress from corrections officers from performing abusive strip searches? Is it their oath or is it something more?


The Cost of Safety

Written by olsonaplc-28d

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

If there are any current events that are believed to be threats then there should be a change in security, even though people don’t like the lines and being searched it is better then getting on a plane where there is no where to go and being trapped and threatened to be killed. The latest event that could changed the airport security is the terrorists new form of smuggling bombs by surgically implanting them into them selves, because the scanners can not detect them as easily. There is no clear evidence of this new plan yet but they are labeling this topic as sensitive matters and are using the September 11th event to try and make their decision on whether to proceed and raise the security. The ones who found out about the new plot were the British officials who uncovered intelligence that Al Qaeda was seeking to surgically implant bombs inside people, some believed that by the use of full-body imaging machines at major airports around the world they could find ways to discover the hidden explosives.

criminal-justice

This post has been awarded the
Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: Well done!


Medical Professionals Blog

Written by olsonaplc-53

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

The jails give strip searches so they can make sure the jails will be a safe place for all of the prisoners. If the people doing these strip searches don’t know what they are looking for exactly how is this helping the safety of the jails. The people who are doing these should be given some schooling or education dealing with identifying things to look for. If these people doing these searches don’t know what they are doing what gives them the right to do this then I have the right to strip search someone. Jails need to have rules to make sure people are safe but how can someone unqualified be able to preform this task. Either get people who know what they are doing and looking for doing this task or you don’t even have the right or need to do this. It should be a requirement that the person doing these searches have knowledge about it or just get medical professionals in there so you get the job done right.

patient-care

This post has been awarded the
Patient Care Badge (50 points)


Social Cost- Criminal Justice Badge(50 points)

Written by olsonaplc-8d

School: Sioux Central
Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

Social Cost- Criminal Justice Badge(50 points)

Mr. Florence may have been violated, but if they do not do the cavity search, then there could be dangerous people go in to jail with a dangerous weapon. It is in order to keep others safe. For this reason even if they are not considered dangerous, they need to be checked and cleared. In this case Mr. Florence should not have even been put into jail because he had documents that even showed he paid. They should not be able to arrest someone for something that they have not proven is accurate.

They need to be treated the same way because even people without criminal records for 20 or more years of life have gone off on a rampage and murdered many people. It is hard to trust people and know whether they tell you the truth or not. We need to treat them the same. It is for the safety of others.

criminal-justice

This post has been awarded the
Criminal Justice Badge (50 points)

Harlan Institute Feedback: What should be the standard for "something that they have not proven is accurate"? If police must arrest suspects on full information and proof of accuracy, then what is the point of the trial?