UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

One scholar has noted that “[t]he school-to-prison pipeline is the product of the policies of school districts, law enforcment agencies, and courts that criminalize in-school behavior or otherwise push disadvantaged, underserved, and at-risk children from mainstream educational environments into the juvenile justice system, and all too often [into] the criminal justice system.” 18 In some circumstances, a child’s acting out in school may indicate that the child has an education-related disability and should be receiving special education services. 19 School personnel have an affirmative obligation to identify children whom they suspect have education-related disabilities. 20 A parent has a parallel right to obtain from the school system, without charge to the parent, evaluations of the child in any area of suspected disability. 21 Changing what happens in our public schools is critical in that, absent system reform, children and youths continue to be pushed into the [juvenile delinquency and criminal] systems. Without education reform, students caught up in the juvenile system are much less likely to obtain the services and skills that prevent them from being funneled into the pipeline again and into the adult correctional system. 22 and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)(A) and § 1401(9); see also, id. at § 1400(d)(1)(B)-(C) and (d)(2)-(4). 18 Ronald K. Lospennato, Multifaceted Strategies to Stop the School-to-Prison Pipeline, 42 CLEARINGHOUSE REV. 529; see also ANNIE E. CASEY FOUND., supra note 9 (“A disproportionate share of public school students referred to the juvenile justice system under zerotolerance policies are youth with educational disabilities, suggesting that schools are opting to prosecute rather than educate students with special needs.”) 19 SUE BURELL & LOREN WARBOYS, UNITED STATES DEP’T OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUVENILE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION, SPECIAL EDUCATION IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM (2000). 20 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A) (2006); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a)(1) (2006). 21 See generally 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)-(c) (2006).; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.300-.311 (2008).; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B) (2006); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4) (2006). 22 Lospennato, supra note 18. 6
Section 3: Writing Exercise Section 3 Instructions Scope of your universe: Outside research is prohibited. The contents of your submission should be based solely upon the materials included in this packet. Failure to adhere to this requirement will lead to automatic disqualification from the competition. If a source within this packet refers to a source that is not included within the packet, you may discuss it in your submission only to the extent that it appears in the provided materials, but you may not look up the actual source. Citations to sources not included within this packet, but which are cited by materials that are included in this packet, should comply with Bluebook citation rules to the greatest extent possible. You may make passing references to history, current events, or other relevant information. You may rely on your basic legal knowledge to support your argument. You may also consult dictionaries (legal or otherwise), thesauri, and style manuals. Citations: Your citations should comply with The Bluebook rules of citation for academic publications. You may not use any other form of citation. There is no minimum or maximum number of footnotes. Citations to page numbers should be based on the page numbering of the original material, not the numbering of pages in this packet. Format: Your response to this section should be included within the provided answer form that you upload, appearing after your responses to sections 1 and 2. Your response to this section may not exceed five double-spaced pages. Shorter submissions are acceptable. We will not accept submissions longer than five pages. Your response to this section should have 1” margins on all sides. Page numbers should be centered at the bottom of each page and may fall within the bottom margin. Use 12-point Times New Roman font for your main text, and 10-point Times New Roman font for your footnotes. Footnotes may be single-spaced. Do not use endnotes. Approaching your submission: Like any analytical piece of writing, your submission should include an overarching thesis and contain a well-structured legal argument. Do not be intimidated by the length of the packet (or these instructions)! This packet contains a diverse collection of materials so that you can compile and support your argument from a variety of views. Do not feel compelled to read everything in this packet: We neither expect nor encourage you incorporate all of the provided materials into your argument. Many strong submissions will be narrowly focused and concentrated heavily on only a few sources. There is no significance to the order of the materials included in the packet. There are no “right” answers: The packet is designed to encourage you to shape a creative legal argument. Finally, remember to edit your work! Organization, clarity of thought, grammar, and style are crucial to a successful submission. Evaluation criteria: Element Formatting Evaluation This element is weighed heavily. We will be looking to ensure that you have the ability to accurately follow the directions provided. 7
Page 1 and 2: UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUM
Page 3 and 4: article that appeared in the period
Page 5: incarcerated children in the Distri
Page 9 and 10: Opinion PERRY, J. 73 So.3d 34 Supre
Page 11 and 12: activities, or statements that he e
Page 13 and 14: damaged package and notified federa
Page 15 and 16: B. “Sniff Test” at a Private Ho
Page 17 and 18: was standing in front of the door,
Page 19 and 20: justified on the basis of reasonabl
Page 21 and 22: The probable cause affidavit listed
Page 23 and 24: unwavering expectation that there w
Page 25 and 26: otherwise prompt his dog to alert.
Page 27 and 28: (quoting State v. Morsman, 394 So.2
Page 29 and 30: society recognizes as reasonable. A
Page 31 and 32: obtained through the search is not
Page 33 and 34: without implicating the Fourth Amen
Page 35 and 36: [14] The Government contends, howev
Page 37 and 38: the President and Attorney General
Page 39 and 40: nuisance. IV Blackstone, Commentari
Page 41 and 42: The other ‘eroding’ case cited
Page 43 and 44: 11 Jones v. United States, 362 U.S.
Page 45 and 46: 103 S.Ct. 2317 Supreme Court of the
Page 47 and 48: accompanying remedy. Here, for exam
Page 49 and 50: northbound on an interstate frequen
Page 51 and 52: inapplicable to the decision to iss
Page 53 and 54: L.Ed. 1879 (1949). Justice BRENNAN
Page 55 and 56: case. As the Court points out, “I
Page 57 and 58:
forcefully suggest that the exclusi
Page 59 and 60:
S.Ct., at 3073-3074. (WHITE, J., di
Page 61 and 62:
law-enforcement officers have recog
Page 63 and 64:
government enforcement agent.” Id
Page 65 and 66:
advance an important underlying sub
Page 67 and 68:
Americans must be that the Court gi
Page 69 and 70:
3 In Spinelli, police officers obse
Page 71 and 72:
The only reference to Hereford’s
Page 73 and 74:
v. United States, supra; Sibron v.
Page 75 and 76:
susceptible to the interpretation t
Page 77 and 78:
8 Rugendorf v. United States, 376 U
Page 79 and 80:
104 S.Ct. 1652 Supreme Court of the
Page 81 and 82:
will not be betrayed.” United Sta
Page 83 and 84:
*126 In sum, the federal agents did
Page 85 and 86:
and that search has not left incrim
Page 87 and 88:
privacy in the presence or absence
Page 89 and 90:
surrounding the use of the techniqu
Page 91 and 92:
1437, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960); Henry
Page 93 and 94:
26 See, e.g., Michigan v. Long, 463
Page 95 and 96:
Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177, 181, 110 S
Page 97 and 98:
how relatively warm—Kyllo was hea
Page 99 and 100:
concurring). To be sure, the homeow
Page 101 and 102:
homeowner would even care if anybod
Page 103 and 104:
4 This view comports with that of a
Page 105 and 106:
unless the dog sniff itself infring
Page 107 and 108:
probable cause to stop the car for
Page 109 and 110:
and, implicitly, the application of
Page 111 and 112:
3 Kyllo was concerned with whether
Page 113 and 114:
(500 grams and an unspecified amoun
Page 115 and 116:
authority to allow police inside th
Page 117 and 118:
AFFIRMED. We retain jurisdiction an
Page 119 and 120:
that “[t]he right of the people t
Page 121 and 122:
field” did not constitute a Fourt
Page 123 and 124:
Government’s unrestrained power t
Page 125 and 126:
y the government upon the privacy o
Page 127 and 128:
own difficulties. It involves a deg
Page 129 and 130:
search unless it is achieved by suc
Page 131 and 132:
88 Or. L. Rev. 829 Oregon Law Revie
Page 133 and 134:
hidden in open locations, such as f
Page 135 and 136:
While the Place Court’s failure t
Page 137 and 138:
location may be important in evalua
Page 139 and 140:
III Framing the Canine Home-Sniff D
Page 141 and 142:
seemingly making impermissible what
Page 143 and 144:
possessions. Without minimizing the
Page 145 and 146:
4. Even Surreptitious Canine Sniffs
Page 147 and 148:
the sniff--to the satisfaction of a
Page 149 and 150:
focused on the routineness of the a
Page 151 and 152:
6 See People v. Dunn, 564 N.E.2d 10
Page 153 and 154:
27 See Robert C. Bird, An Examinati
Page 155 and 156:
323 (Friedrich G. Barth et al. eds.
Page 157 and 158:
pre-Place decisions issued by the U
Page 159 and 160:
97 See Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.
Page 161 and 162:
121 Id. at 37 n.4 (majority opinion
Page 163 and 164:
147 462 U.S. 696 (1983). 148 See in
Page 165 and 166:
171 Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 2
Page 167 and 168:
199 As Justice Souter explained,
Page 169 and 170:
to school). 219 Cf. Katz & Golembie
Page 171 and 172:
240 See Kyllo v. United States, 533
Page 173 and 174:
263 In 2004, photographs emerged th
Page 175 and 176:
285 Id. at 1362. The story of this
Page 177 and 178:
306 But cf. Fitzgerald v. State, 86
Page 179 and 180:
328 Riley, 488 U.S. at 448 (observi
Page 181 and 182:
1 Search & Seizure § 2.3 (4th ed.)
Page 183 and 184:
establish a right to privacy therei
Page 185 and 186:
were locked and could only be opene
Page 187 and 188:
The Wright rule also should not be
Page 189 and 190:
to investigate. Noting that a metal
Page 191 and 192:
active domestic use. It housed ten
Page 193 and 194:
Ciraolo,191 involving aerial survei
Page 195 and 196:
ackyard of the building was complet
Page 197 and 198:
feet. The viewing from the helicopt
Page 199 and 200:
cases as Ciraolo, Riley and Dow man
Page 201 and 202:
premises were abandoned where all c
Page 203 and 204:
22 Young v. Harrison, 284 F.3d 863
Page 205 and 206:
37.1 McKenney v. Harrison, 635 F.3d
Page 207 and 208:
(1983); State v. Eddy, 519 A.2d 113
Page 209 and 210:
68 Dinkens v. State, 291 So.2d 122
Page 211 and 212:
eceived no answer to knock on front
Page 213 and 214:
870 (1987). In such a case, the fac
Page 215 and 216:
“Second, the agents had a legal r
Page 217 and 218:
131 United States v. Llanes, 398 F.
Page 219 and 220:
167 The reference is to the “open
Page 221 and 222:
however by fact lights were on insi
Page 223 and 224:
properly crossed defendant’s land
Page 225 and 226:
view”); State v. Merrill, 252 Neb
Page 227 and 228:
the area within the ‘curtilage’
Page 229 and 230:
is not to conclude that a search of
Page 231:
265 Such analysis was challenged by
show all

UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF - UDC Law Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?