LESSON PLAN COVER SHEET
SUBJECT/COURSE:
Landmark School Cases
ENFORCEMENT 2
UNIT:
CAMPUS
LAW
INSTRUCTOR(S):
Instructor
TIME ALLOTTED:
50 minutes
INSTRUCTIONAL AIDS:
Computer with PowerPoint capabilities, projector, student handouts
STUDENT MATERIALS:
Pen and paper
PREREQUISITE EXPERIENCE OF THE LEARNERS: TCLEOSE certified police officer
GOAL (PURPOSE OF THE COURSE):
Upon completion of this module, the participant will be able to identify and understand the
landmark United States Supreme Court cases involving schools and students.
DATE PREPARED:
DATE REVISED:
PREPARED BY:
REVISED BY:
Page 1 of 8
INSTRUCTOR LESSON PLAN
SUBJECT:
UNIT:
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT Officer Role in Discipline, Enforcement,
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT 2
Community Education, and Mentoring
LESSON OBJECTIVES

(Specific points of information to complete the goal statement):
Identify and understand the following United States Supreme Court Cases:
 Engel v. Vitale (1962)
 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)
 Goss v. Lopez (1975)
 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983)
 New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
 Bethel School District # 43 v. Fraser (1987)
 Santa Fe Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Doe (2000)
 Board of Education v. Earls (2002)
 Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
Page 2 of 8
INSTRUCTOR'S LESSON PLAN
I.
PREPARATION
(Student Motivation / Opening Statement)
II.
PRESENTATION
(Implementation of Instruction)
KEY TOPIC POINTS

In CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT
(Basic), you received a comprehensive
review of the most common legal
issues that school based law
enforcement encounter.

Today we’ll review some landmark
Supreme Court cases involving
schools and students that you may or
may not have heard of before.
ELABORATION ON KEY POINTS
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
 In the New York system, each day
began with a nondenominational
prayer:
o Almighty God, we acknowledge
our dependence upon Thee, and we
beg Thy blessings upon us, our
parents, our teachers and our
country. Amen.
 From what you remember from
CAMPUS LAW ENFORCEMENT
(Basic), why might someone bring suit
over this action?
Establishment Clause
 A group of several families brought
suit, saying that the prayer violated
the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment.
 The Supreme Court agreed and ruled
that government-written prayers are
not to be recited in public schools and
were an unconstitutional violation of
the Establishment Clause.
Question for the class:
What is the establishment clause?
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion.
Page 3 of 8
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent
Community School District (1969)
In December 1965, John Tinker (15), Mary
Beth Tinker (13) and their friend Christopher
Eckhardt (16) decided to wear black
armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam
War.
MORE BACKGROUND:
The school’s
policy banned armbands, and violating
students were suspended but allowed to
return the next day if in compliance. The
students chose to violate the policy and were
suspended until after January 1.
Tinker v. Des Moines
Following the students’ suspension, the
parents filed suit.
The Supreme Court held that the First
Amendment applied to public schools, and
that
administrators
would
have
to
demonstrate constitutionally valid reasons
for any specific regulation of speech in the
classroom.
Question for the class: What does the First
Amendment say?
"It can hardly be argued that either students or Freedom of Speech!
teachers shed their constitutional rights to The court further held that in order for school
freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse officials to justify censoring speech, they
gate."
must be able to show that their action was
caused by something more than a mere
desire to avoid the discomfort and
unpleasantness that always accompany an
unpopular viewpoint, allowing schools to
forbid conduct that would materially and
substantially interfere with the requirements
of appropriate discipline in the operation of
the school.
Famous Quote from Tinker
Goss v. Lopez (1975)
Nine students were suspended for 10 days
for destroying school property and
disrupting the learning environment.
Ohio law allowed the principal to suspend a
student for 10 days, but required that the
student and parents be notified of the action
24 hours before and be given a reason.
Goss v. Lopez
Question for the class:
What does DUE
Page 4 of 8
If the student was expelled, he could appeal
to the Board of Education – but there was no
such mechanism for suspended students.
The Supreme Court held that the state
violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of
due process by removing the hearing process
for suspensions.
PROCESS mean?
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law. At a
basic level, procedural due process is
essentially based on the concept of
“fundamental fairness.”
It includes a
person’s right to be adequately notified of
charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be
heard at these proceedings, and that the
person or panel making the final decision be
impartial to the matter before them.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983)
A high school paper was published as part of
a journalism class, and the cost was paid for
by the district. The principal reviewed the
paper prior to publishing. The paper in
question contained articles about teenage
pregnancy and divorce, and he was
concerned that all identities were not
completely protected. He eliminated those
stories from the paper.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
Several students brought their school to
court, arguing that the school went against
their First Amendment freedom of speech
and press by censoring the article.
What do you think the Supreme Court
decided in this case?
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
The Supreme Court said no – a public school
need not affirmatively sponsor speech that
conflicts with its legitimate pedagogical
goals. The school-financed paper was not
considered a public forum and so its editors
were entitled to a lower level of First
Amendment protection than is applicable to
independent student newspapers.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
Two freshmen girls are caught smoking
cigarettes in a bathroom. Smoking wasn’t
prohibited at school, but it was designated to
specific smoking areas. When called to the
Page 5 of 8
principal, one girl admitted smoking. The
other (T.L.O.) said she had never smoked in
her life.
What do you think the principal did then…?
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
The principal took her to his office and
demanded her purse. When he opened it, he
found a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, a
small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty
plastic bags, a large quantity of money in $1
bills, an index card with a list of people who
appeared to owe her money, and two letters
that implicated her in dealing marijuana.
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
T.L.O. argued that the search violated her
Fourth
Amendment
right
against
unreasonable search and seizure.
The
Supreme Court disagreed, and said that this
search was reasonable under the Fourth
Amendment. The principal had reasonable
suspicion to believe he would find cigarettes
in her purse. WHY?
She had been caught in the bathroom
smoking and was taken directly to the office,
so it was reasonable to assume she had
cigarettes in her purse. When the principal
began searching her purse, the drug-related
items were in plain view – which is an
exception to the warrant requirement of the
4th amendment. Thus, the reasonable search
for cigarettes led to drug related material
being discovered, which justified further
search (including zippered compartments of
the bag).
Bethel School Dist. #43 v. Fraser (1987)
A high school senior gave a speech
nominating a classmate for student body
president. His speech was filled with sexual
innuendos, prompting disciplinary action.
After appealing through the grievance
procedures at his school, he was still found in
violation of school policy and was suspended
for three days. He sued, claiming a violation
of free speech.
Bethel School Dist. #43 v. Fraser
The Supreme Court upheld the suspension.
While standing by its ruling in Tinker that
students have a right to express themselves
in nondisruptive ways, the Court limited that
expression when it is found to be sexually
vulgar.
Page 6 of 8
Santa Fe Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Doe (2000)
The district allowed students to offer
Christian prayers over the public address
system at home football games.
Two
students objected to this practice, saying it
violated the Establishment Clause.
What do you think the Court said in this case?
Santa Fe Ind. Sch. Dist. v. Doe
The Court held that the policy allowing the
prayers was unconstitutional. These pregame prayers were delivered on school
property, at school-sponsored events, over
the school’s public address system, by a
speaker representing the student body, under
supervision of faculty, and pursuant to a
policy that encourages prayer. This was
public – not private – prayer in school.
Board of Education v. Earls (2002)
Two students brought suit against the school
board of Tecumseh, Oklahoma, alleging that
the school policy requiring students
participating in extracurricular activities to
submit to random urinalysis testing for drug
use violated the Fourth Amendment.
Board of Education v. Earls
The
Court
held
that
students
in
extracurricular activities have a diminished
expectation of privacy, and that the policy
furthered an important interest of the school
in preventing drug use among students.
Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002)
An Ohio scholarship/voucher program
allowed certain families to receive tuition aid
from the state, helping to offset the cost of
tuition at private schools (including religious
schools).
The
Supreme
Court
rejected
First
Amendment challenges to this program and
held that such aid does not violate the
Establishment Clause.
Page 7 of 8
Random
Thought
of
the
Day:
Strip Searches
Don’t do them, unless you want to end up
like this SRO:
Video: http://bcove.me/c847uyxy
III.
APPLICATION:
Planning for student to practice or apply new knowledge
(where applicable)
Question and Answer and Discussion for how presentation is applicable to the students work
setting. Instructor may use role-playing/scenarios as appropriate.
IV.
EVALUATION:
Final check of student's comprehension of material presented
Multiple-choice examination
V.
REFERENCES:
 “Landmark Supreme Court Cases About Students,” www.uscourts.gov/
 Supreme Court of the United States website: www.supremecourt.gov
Page 8 of 8