2012•bepress Legal RepositoryOpen access

Policing School Discipline

Catherine Y. Kim

Open full text 8 citations

Abstract

1969).2 See, e.g., Vernonia Sch.Dist.47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 656 (1995) (holding that the scope of constitutional rights for public school students is limited by "what is appropriate for children in school").3 See generally William G. Buss, Procedural Due Process for School Discipline: Probing the Constitutional Outline, 119 U. PA.L. REV.545, 640-41 (1971) (comparing procedural rights of student accused of misconduct with those of an adult suspected of a crime); Stephen J. Schulhofer, On the Fourth Amendment Rights of the Law-Abiding Public, 1989 S. CT.REV.87, 115 (same).' New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340 (1985) (sustaining student search where school officials have a reasonable suspicion that the search will uncover evidence of criminal activity or a violation of school rules).' Although the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on this issue, lower courts consistently find no custodial interrogation where a youth is questioned by a 861 2012

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

1969).2 See, e.g., Vernonia Sch.Dist.47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 656 (1995) (holding that the scope of constitutional rights for public school students is limited by "what is appropriate for children in school").3 See generally William G. Buss, Procedural Due Process for School Discipline: Probing the Constitutional Outline, 119 U. PA.L. REV.545, 640-41 (1971) (comparing procedural rights of student accused of misconduct with those of an adult suspected of a crime); Stephen J. Schulhofer, On the Fourth Amendment Rights of the Law-Abiding Public, 1989 S. CT.REV.87, 115 (same).' New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340 (1985) (sustaining student search where school officials have a reasonable suspicion that the search will uncover evidence of criminal activity or a violation of school rules).' Although the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on this issue, lower courts consistently find no custodial interrogation where a youth is questioned by a 861 2012

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 8 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

1969).2 See, e.g., Vernonia Sch.Dist.47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 656 (1995) (holding that the scope of constitutional rights for public school students is limited by "what is appropriate for children in school").3 See generally William G. Buss, Procedural Due Process for School Discipline: Probing the Constitutional Outline, 119 U. PA.L. REV.545, 640-41 (1971) (comparing procedural rights of student accused of misconduct with those of an adult suspected of a crime); Stephen J. Schulhofer, On the Fourth Amendment Rights of the Law-Abiding Public, 1989 S. CT.REV.87, 115 (same).' New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 340 (1985) (sustaining student search where school officials have a reasonable suspicion that the search will uncover evidence of criminal activity or a violation of school rules).' Although the Supreme Court has not directly ruled on this issue, lower courts consistently find no custodial interrogation where a youth is questioned by a 861 2012

Key concepts: Misconduct, Criminalization, Context (archaeology), Punishment (psychology), Criminology, School discipline, Enforcement, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Policing School Discipline — Research Paper | ScholarLens