kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 5, 2015 23:49:27 GMT -5
I would have cleared the room of all other students and locked the child in until her parents came to claim her False imprisonment.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 6, 2015 6:40:43 GMT -5
I would have cleared the room of all other students and locked the child in until her parents came to claim her False imprisonment. Not so certain there is either a 4th Amendment seizuire issue or a common law false imprisoment tort in a school disciplinary context where "disturbing schools" is a misdemeanor: "One consequence of this confluence of Terry standards is that, when school officials constitutionally seize a student for suspected criminal activity and transmit the basis for their suspicion to the police, any continued detention of the pupil by the police is necessarily justified in its incipience. This very sequence of events occurred here. The police officers' initial involvement in the incident, therefore, satisfied constitutional requirements. - See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1059723.html#sthash.miDSOUKm.dpufSince the student was charged with "disturbing schools" under SC law, probable cause existed for the school authorities to detain the student. lwvcharleston.org/files/spp_disturbing_schools_act.pdfwww.patc.com/articles/detail_srti.php?id=LL131The second case cited in the link gives the SRO authority to detain but does not speak to the level of force used to detain in a case not dissimilar to the South Carolina circumstances.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Nov 6, 2015 10:52:40 GMT -5
Not so certain there is either a 4th Amendment seizuire issue or a common law false imprisoment tort in a school disciplinary context where "disturbing schools" is a misdemeanor: "One consequence of this confluence of Terry standards is that, when school officials constitutionally seize a student for suspected criminal activity and transmit the basis for their suspicion to the police, any continued detention of the pupil by the police is necessarily justified in its incipience. This very sequence of events occurred here. The police officers' initial involvement in the incident, therefore, satisfied constitutional requirements. - See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1059723.html#sthash.miDSOUKm.dpufSince the student was charged with "disturbing schools" under SC law, probable cause existed for the school authorities to detain the student. lwvcharleston.org/files/spp_disturbing_schools_act.pdfwww.patc.com/articles/detail_srti.php?id=LL131The second case cited in the link gives the SRO authority to detain but does not speak to the level of force used to detain in a case not dissimilar to the South Carolina circumstances. I was being [only partially] facetious. However, in this day and age, would you be surprised if someone made such a claim?
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Nov 6, 2015 10:58:54 GMT -5
Not so certain there is either a 4th Amendment seizuire issue or a common law false imprisoment tort in a school disciplinary context where "disturbing schools" is a misdemeanor: "One consequence of this confluence of Terry standards is that, when school officials constitutionally seize a student for suspected criminal activity and transmit the basis for their suspicion to the police, any continued detention of the pupil by the police is necessarily justified in its incipience. This very sequence of events occurred here. The police officers' initial involvement in the incident, therefore, satisfied constitutional requirements. - See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1059723.html#sthash.miDSOUKm.dpufSince the student was charged with "disturbing schools" under SC law, probable cause existed for the school authorities to detain the student. lwvcharleston.org/files/spp_disturbing_schools_act.pdfwww.patc.com/articles/detail_srti.php?id=LL131The second case cited in the link gives the SRO authority to detain but does not speak to the level of force used to detain in a case not dissimilar to the South Carolina circumstances. I was being [only partially] facetious. However, in this day and age, would you be surprised if someone made such a claim? No but if I were the City solicitor, I would rather defend the detention than the desk dumping/dragging...
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,075
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 6, 2015 11:26:20 GMT -5
Not so certain there is either a 4th Amendment seizuire issue or a common law false imprisoment tort in a school disciplinary context where "disturbing schools" is a misdemeanor: "One consequence of this confluence of Terry standards is that, when school officials constitutionally seize a student for suspected criminal activity and transmit the basis for their suspicion to the police, any continued detention of the pupil by the police is necessarily justified in its incipience. This very sequence of events occurred here. The police officers' initial involvement in the incident, therefore, satisfied constitutional requirements. - See more at: caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1059723.html#sthash.miDSOUKm.dpufSince the student was charged with "disturbing schools" under SC law, probable cause existed for the school authorities to detain the student. lwvcharleston.org/files/spp_disturbing_schools_act.pdfwww.patc.com/articles/detail_srti.php?id=LL131The second case cited in the link gives the SRO authority to detain but does not speak to the level of force used to detain in a case not dissimilar to the South Carolina circumstances. I was being [only partially] facetious. However, in this day and age, would you be surprised if someone made such a claim? kc, absolutely agree with you (thought you might have tongue in the cheek, a bit). As I used to tell client agencies when they asked "Can I be sued for xxx?" Of course, you can be sued for it. Will the plaintiff win? By and large, nope. Not because I was a great attorney but because the statutes that waive sovereign immunity are typically narrowly drawn in order to protect the public fisc (if the suit is against the municipality, state or feds) and individual defendant employees will, more likely than not, enjoy absolute immunity or qualified immunity.
|
|