Wofford v. Evans Essay Example

Wofford v. Evans Essay This case provides elaboration on the right to due process of a student while being detained by school and police authorities in search for a weapon in the school premises to ensure the safety and protect the lives of children entrusted to the care of school officials. The decision basically notes that parental notification is not requisite to due process.Case SummaryJennifer Wofford, mom to ten-year old M.D., filed an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit on the district court’s dismissal of her lawsuit against the Botentourt County School Board and Sheriff’s Department as represented by Principal Rita Evans and Associate Principal Erika Rosa of the Colonial Elementary School, including Detective Jason Markham and others. Wofford claims that M.D.’s rights to due process and freedom from unlawful seizures have been violated by the school and the county sheriff. This issue has arisen, when M.D.’s classmates reported to their teacher that M.D. brought a gun in school on the eve of Thanksgiving in 2001. M.D.’s teacher called the associate principal’s attention and thus, Erika Rosa questioned M.D. regarding the gun. M.D. permitted Rosa to search her book bag and her classroom desk but the assistant principal did not find any weapon. On the Monday following Thanksgiving, Principal Evans and Rosa continued the investigation among M.D. and her classmates. While M.D. denied the allegation, several attested that M.D. did brought a gun and one classmate, Josh Bane said that M.D. threw a black handgun into the woods near the school. Concerned, Evans and Rosa called the police and so three detectives came by mid-morning. The detectives questioned M.D.’s classmates and then M.D. who continued to deny having brought a gun to school. After sweeping the campus grounds, the detectives failed to find any gun.Salient Points of the CaseThe Appellate Court affirmed the district court with the following reasons: 1) †Å"School officials must have the leeway to maintain order on school premises and secure a safe environment in which learning can flourish.† For this, the appellate court pointed out: â€Å"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.† The appellate court further explains: â€Å"when the justification for the original detention includes a concern that also warrants police involvement, no violation of the Fourth Amendment occurs if the police detain the pupil while they allay this concern.† 2) â€Å"Imposing a rigid duty of parental notification or a per se rule against detentions of a specified duration would eviscerate the ability of administrators to meet the remedial exigencies of the moment.† For this, the appellate court pointed out that: â€Å"the Constitutio n does not impose a duty of parental notification before the pupils disciplinary detainment while such school guardianship persists.†Supporting LawsThe following major jurisprudences support the case: 1) Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) which states that â€Å"the range of interests protected by procedural due process is not infinite.† 2) Terry, 392 U.S. at 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868 which essentially says that: â€Å"law enforcement officers may depart from the procedural strictures of the Fourth Amendment when they reasonably conclude ‘that criminal activity may be afoot.’†Concurring or Dissenting Opinions:There are no concurring or dissenting opinions in this case as Judges Williams and Titus unanimously joined Judge Wilkinson’s opinion.ReferencesWest Publishing. (n.d.). â€Å"390 F.3d 318 November 19, 2004.† The Federal Reporter Volume 390 3rd Edition. Retrieved August 4, 2009, from http://bulk. resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/390/390.F3d.318.03-2209.html