RSS   Twitter   Sign inLogin or Sign-up

User Posts

School: Sioux Central

Class: Olson:APLC
Grade: 11th

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!


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!


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)