Under the Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-77
Author(s):  
Julie Underwood
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
School Shootings ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
Fast Pace ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy ◽  
Made In

School personnel must often balance a student’s right to privacy with a school’s interest in protecting all students. A recent decision by the Ohio Supreme Court — Ohio vs. Polk (2017) — brings to light the complexity of these competing concerns and the high-stakes decisions that must be made in the fast pace of a public school. Does a student have a reasonable expectation of privacy when he leaves a backpack behind? Is the school behaving appropriately when personnel open an unattended backpack? In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court gave the benefit of the doubt to the school in concluding that the more thorough search of the first bag was reasonable. In doing so, they focused on the threat of violence in the schools and the incidents of school shootings in the U.S., stating that schools have a “compelling interest [to ensure] that unattended book bags do not contain dangerous items.” The author concludes that it seems reasonable to expect that bags that are left unattended will be opened not just to identify the owner but to determine if they represent a threat to the general safety. Extending that rationale to the schools which may experience many unattended bags throughout the day seems reasonable.

scholarly journals The Intractability of Inaccurate Eyewitness Identification

Daedalus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 147 (4) ◽  
pp. 90-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jed S. Rakoff ◽  
Elizabeth F. Loftus
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Eyewitness Identification ◽  
Human Perception ◽  
Eyewitness Testimony ◽  
Wrongful Convictions ◽  
Jury Instructions ◽  
Eyewitness Identifications ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Made In

Inaccurate eyewitness testimony is a leading cause of wrongful convictions. As early as 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized this danger, but the tests it promulgated to distinguish reliable from unreliable eyewitness testimony were based largely on surmise. More recently, substantial research has demonstrated that, while significant improvements can be made in the manner in which lineups, photo arrays, and other identification procedures are conducted, inherent limitations of human perception, memory, and psychology raise, in many cases, intractable barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony. Where barriers to accurate eyewitness testimony exist, one response is to sensitize jurors to the limitations of eyewitness identifications, but studies to date have not shown that special jury instructions can accomplish that purpose. Moreover, research on expert testimony has produced mixed results, with some studies showing that it helps jurors discriminate between good and bad eyewitness evidence, and other studies showing that it merely creates overall skepticism.

scholarly journals Waiving Federal Sovereign Immunity in Original Actions Between States

2020 ◽  
pp. 447
Author(s):  
Sandra Zellmer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Meaningful Participation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Reliable Mechanism ◽  
The U.S

There are tremendous disparities between high stakes original actions between states before the U.S. Supreme Court, where there is no waiver of federal sovereign immunity, and other types of cases in the lower courts, where a plethora of immunity waivers allow states and other parties to seek relief from the federal government for Fifth Amendment takings, unlawful agency action, and tort claims. Federal actions or omissions are often at the heart of the dispute, and federal involvement may be crucial for purposes of providing an equitable remedy to the state parties, but there is no reliable mechanism for bringing the federal government to an original action before the Supreme Court. This Article shows how federal sovereign immunity stands in the way of comprehensive resolution of interstate water rights and highlights the need for reforms to facilitate meaningful participation by the United States. In particular, it investigates the merits of a waiver of federal sovereign immunity in original actions between the states. Although federal immunity is a staple of our nation’s jurisprudence, it has no constitutional basis and it serves little purpose in this context. The Article concludes that a congressional waiver of federal sovereign immunity would be appropriate and would have few downsides, at least in the case of original actions between states before the U.S. Supreme Court.

scholarly journals Discarding Reasonable Expectations of Privacy: A Critique of R. v. Patrick

2010 ◽  
pp. 1037
Author(s):  
William MacKinnon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Compelling Evidence ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
Drug Production ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
To Come ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Tremendous Impact ◽  
Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

Patrick, the Supreme Court of Canada’s latest landmark privacy decision, will have a tremendous impact on policing in years to come. In Patrick, police officers sifted through the curbside garbage of Mr. Patrick, discovered compelling evidence of drug production in its contents, used the information to secure a warrant to enter his residence, and found an ecstasy lab once inside. The Supreme Court, in upholding the decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal, denied Patrick’s claim to a reasonable expectation of privacy in his garbage.

scholarly journals Tessling, Brown, and A.M.: Towards a Principled Approach to Section 8

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
William MacKinnon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Historical Development ◽  
Search And Seizure ◽  
Reasonable Expectation ◽  
Section 8 ◽  
Individual Privacy ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy

This article analyzes the Supreme Court of Canada's search-and-seizure jurisprudence in anticipation of the Court's forthcoming decisions on the admissibility of evidence obtained by police dog searches in Brown and A.M. After reviewing the historical development of s. 8, the author then goes on to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Court's analysis of sense-enhancing aids and the reasonable expectation of privacy' in Tessling. The article ultimately argues that the Court ought to eschew a case-by-case model for establishing the existence of areasonable expectation of privacy, and go beyond the facts of Brown and A.M. in order to adopt a more principled approach to s. 8. The author maintains that a more principled approach is necessary because stale actors need clearer guidance if they are to successfully balance individual privacy with the use of sense enhancing aids.

Antitrust: U.S. Supreme Court Affirms FTC Jurisdiction but Vacates Scope of Analysis on CDA Policy

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-198
Author(s):  
Joseph R. Zakhary
Keyword(s):  
Public Relations ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Federal Trade Commission ◽  
Ninth Circuit ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Rule Of Reason ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
Business Financing ◽  
The U.S

In California Dental Association v. FTC, 119 S. Ct. 1604 (1999), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a nonprofit affiliation of dentists violated section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTCA), 15 U.S.C.A. § 45 (1998), which prohibits unfair competition. The Court examined two issues: (1) the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) jurisdiction over the California Dental Association (CDA); and (2) the proper scope of antitrust analysis. The Court unanimously held that CDA was subject to FTC's jurisdiction, but split 5-4 in its finding that the district court's use of abbreviated rule-of-reason analysis was inappropriate.CDA is a voluntary, nonprofit association of local dental societies. It boasts approximately 19,000 members, who constitute roughly threequarters of the dentists practicing in California. Although a nonprofit, CDA includes for-profit subsidiaries that financially benefit CDA members. CDA gives its members access to insurance and business financing, and lobbies and litigates on their behalf. Members also benefit from CDA marketing and public relations campaigns.

Creative Problem Solving in Public School Supervision

1989 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 320-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Shapiro ◽  
Nelson Moses
Keyword(s):  
Public School ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
School Environment ◽  
Professional Growth ◽  
Cognitive Learning ◽  
School Personnel ◽  
Collaborative Problem Solving ◽  
The Public ◽  
School Supervision ◽  
Team Functioning

This article presents a practical and collegial model of problem solving that is based upon the literature in supervision and cognitive learning theory. The model and the procedures it generates are applied directly to supervisory interactions in the public school environment. Specific principles of supervision and related recommendations for collaborative problem solving are discussed. Implications for public school supervision are addressed in terms of continued professional growth of both supervisees and supervisors, interdisciplinary team functioning, and renewal and retention of public school personnel.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document