Week_4_Judicial_Review

An Explosive Situation - Team A Case Study ​ ​ Nancy-blue Judi - red Annamarie-pink RM-green 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.
 * Did George do anything wrong?
 * No, but he was being silly at the time before the teacher was wrong by putting her hand into his pocket.
 * Other than some insubordination, perhaps, it is difficult to determine George's possible involvement with the bomb threat incident.
 * Yes-writing that note is against the law, once it is seen by anyone. Especially since 9/11, any reference to a bomb must be taken seriously.
 * Yes, I agree with AM. In this day and age all students should know that this is unacceptable behavior.


 * Did Ms. Ludmilla do anything wrong?
 * Yes, by putting her hand into his pocket is not the right way to approach the situation. The students could of come forward and told what George did and what he had something to do with the bomb threat.
 * Yes. George was denied due process (Fourteenth Amendment) as he was suspended without a hearing (Goss v Lopez) and without notification of what he had specifically done wrong and he had no opportunity to defend himself. (also Goss v Lopez) Additionally, searching a child in this manner is inappropriate. I would also think that parents would need to be notified rather than simply telling a child to "go home". Further reaching her hand into a student's pocket could be considered an unreasonable search and therefore violates the Fourth Amendment. Not to mention, reaching into a student's pocket could be considered "inappropriate touching"; particularly given his young age. She did not "balance the the need to search against the invasion which the search entails" (Russo, 990). The students were in a safe location so there was no imminent danger. Further, she violated the concept that the "Fourth Amendment provides protection to the owner of every container (like a pocket) that conceals its contents from view" (Russo, 990)
 * Absolutely-Where do I begin... illegal search and seizure. The teacher, even if she had just cause, should not have been the one to search the student. Anyone performing the search should have had him empty his pockets. Since the teacher is female, she put her job and reputation on the line by putting her hand in a child's pants pocket. This could be tied criminally to a child molestation accusation causing her to lose her job, pension, and being put on the sex offender list.
 * Yes! Most schools have procedures in place and she did not follow procedures or inform the chain of command.


 * Can the school take disciplinary action against George?
 * Yes, if he had connection with this situation. I know a note was written, but maybe there was a phone call instead.
 * I would think George should be questioned in conjunction with the bomb threat incident to discover his level of involvement, if any, as there is "probable cause" that he may be involved due to his actions.
 * If he was involved in the incident, then there should be a strong action taken. However, even if his letter was a prank, actions should be taken to make sure he understands that just writing the note is illegal.
 * Yes, the student handbook should spell out the procedures and punishments for this type of behavior. The teacher should also receive disciplinary action for not following the right protocols. She should be notified of her failures and then re-educated in the appropriate way of handling the situation. She should have to review all emergency protocols. If she doesn't know the procedure for handling a bomb threat, then she may not know how to handle lock-down procedures, or fire drills.


 * What process should have been followed?
 * If he had connection with this situation then disciplinary action should follow. He might not be involve with the bomb threat directly -this is something that would have to be investigated.
 * Due to George's behavior and the prior knowledge of the bomb threat, it was reasonable to ask George to hand over the note. When he refused, I would think he could be sent to the principal or other administrator and questioned about his possible involvement in the incident. Further, another request for George to empty his pockets could be made to gain access to the note. Additionally, ascertaining the meaning of the note (was it a copycat prank? did George write the note? did he find the note?) and how it came to be in his possession would be important. At anytime if George did not comply, he should be notified of his consequences (detention, suspension, etc.) Finally, George's parents should be called to notify them of the situation and George should be released to them.
 * Upon discovering that George may have been hiding something, the teacher should have referred this to the administration... pass the buck. The administration should have called his parents to notify them of the incident and then, showing just cause, ask George to empty his pockets. If he refused, then call in his parents to get the note or, law enforcement. Our township police department is very involved in our schools and want to be involved early to help children make the right decisions and teach them what is right and wrong.
 * The teacher should have demanded the note from George and accompanied him to the principals office. The student handbook procedures should be put into action. I assume that the parents would be notified and also the school police officer would need to get involved, since an investigation is probably going on regarding the original bomb threat.