In-school Miranda warnings establish justice by informing all students of their rights before being questioned by officers of law enforcement. Establishing justice means that laws must be reasonable, fair, and impartial. The FreeChild Project is an organization interested in furthering the rights of students and youth. They work towards expanding the rights of students and youth because “court cases, civil rights organizations, and young people have defended [students’] rights time and again, yet many schools do not honor students’ rights…” The FreeChild Project is correct in their arguments. The FreeChild Project is trying to convey that, by not honoring the rights of students, schools are not being reasonable, fair, or impartial. In the US Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tinker, stating that “it can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate.” The ruling given by the court is correct. It establishes justice by allowing all students access to their rights in school that they would have elsewhere. Everyone must have the right to justice, as well as the right of protection from self incrimination.

Providing in-school Miranda warnings provides for the defense of self incrimination. It does this by informing students that they may choose to not answer questions while being interrogated by police officers. In the current Supreme Court case J.D.B. v. North Carolina, a youth identified as J.D.B. was questioned at his school by police officers. He confessed to committing a string of burglaries without being informed of his Miranda rights. Fenhagen, a lawyer who previously argued this case in a lesser court, was interviewed about the case. He stated, “I don’t think it’s reasonable to think that a 13-year-old in school who is confronted by a uniformed officer in class reasonably believes that he doesn’t have to follow that officer where he’s requested to go,” Fenhagen’s statement is correct. A 13-year-old is too young to understand his or her Miranda rights without being told what they are. If he or she is not informed of their Miranda rights, he or she is not protected from self incrimination. In the Supreme Court case J.D.B. v. North Carolina, Feigin, presenting as Amicus Curiae in the case, argues: “I think the critical difference between blindness, deafness, and other sensory disabilities and age is.., in the case of a blind or deaf person, you can try to figure out what the circumstances surrounding the interrogation that are observable to that person are….” Feigin’s argument was that changing the Miranda warnings to fit J.D.B.’s situation would make giving the Miranda warnings more difficult. His statements are wrong. Adjusting the Miranda warnings to fit J.D.B.’s situation would make issuing the warnings easier. There would be less confusion as to when the Miranda warnings would be needed, thereby protecting people in J.D.B.’s situation from self incrimination. Everyone must have protection from self incrimination, as well as the right to counsel.

In-school Miranda warnings give students the chance to accept their right to counsel. The right to counsel is the right to have an advisor during an interrogation. The National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA) is an organization that provides legal counsel and aid. The president of NLADA made a statement that helps strengthen the argument that students must be provided with Miranda warnings: “It has been over 40 years since the Supreme Court declared that people have a right to counsel when they face a loss of liberty due to criminal charges.” Her logic is useful because it helps prove that students are not informed of their rights to counsel when potentially facing criminal charges. This goes against the students’ rights to counsel because the students do not have advisors to help them understand their rights.

Miranda warnings must be given to students being interrogated in a school environment by police. The rights of students must be recognized, including the rights of justice, protection from self incrimination under the Fifth Amendment, and counsel under the Sixth Amendment. In order to accomplish this, students must fight for their rights.

The laptops, which are issued by the school, include webcameras and software that will allow school administrators to remotely activate the software. This measure was supposed to have only been taken if the laptops had been reported as lost or stolen.

The laptop in question, however, has never been reported as lost or stolen. The computer is alleged to have captured as many as 1,000 images of unsuspecting students in various stages of sleep, instant messaging sessions, and various stages of dress. During the course of the investigation, several other students’ cameras were also activated without their laptops being reported as missing as well.

“A substantial number of webcam photos have been recovered in the investigation,” school board President David Ebby said in a statement Friday. “As we have made clear since day one, we are committed to providing all of the facts — good and bad — at the conclusion of the investigation.”

Carol Cafiero, one of the school’s technology coordinators, was questioned by the boy’s attorney about the matter and has exercised her fifth amendment right against self incrimination. Only Cafiero and fellow technician Michael Perbix were authorized to activate the webcams.

Mark Haltzman, the boy’s attorney, was able to quote emails between Cafiero and a colleague who have stated that viewing the captured webcam issues is like watching “a little LMSD soap opera”. Cafiero is alleged to have responded with, “I know, I love it!”

The school district alleges that it has no evidence of the alleged webcam abuse, but both Cafiero and Perbix are on paid leave while the incident is investigated.

Hundreds of parents have opposed the lawsuit. The FBI has become involved and there is talk of a possible class action lawsuit.

“It was Thomas, who tripped me again” he admitted.

Thomas was the bully of kindergarten and he had attempted to make my son’s experience as miserable as possible. He had punched my son, spat on him and issued numerous verbal threats. The school district had a policy of suspension for fighting and Thomas had been suspended several times and he was only five years old.

The teacher was unsure of how to handle Thomas. Many other students also had encounters with Thomas. My son was afraid to go to school. The administrator, Mr. Davis, lived in a haze of denial. I had to help my son stand up to this bully.

1. I told my son to walk away from Thomas whenever he was in the area. Even if it meant playing in a different playground area for a while. If my son was not allowing Thomas to play with him, then he was in control. Also, Thomas would most likely find someone else to bully.
2. If Thomas started approaching my son I told him to say in a loud voice, “I am not playing with you Thomas, leave me alone.” I wanted my son to project his feelings clearly so adult supervisors would hear, take note and help him.
3. I instructed my son to tell an adult over and over until someone eventually would listen to his complains about this student. Pretty soon, I rationalized the school would get sick of the constant complaining.
4. If no one on the playground was listening, I instructed my son to run to the office and tell the office staffs that he needed to call his mother for help. The administration did not wish to bring my attention to the problem. I had spoken with the principal many times about Thomas. I knew the principal did not want me meeting with him again.

The next few days passed by smoothly, but Thomas was absent Monday through Wednesday. On Thursday, Thomas was back to taunting my son on the playground.

My son walked away from Thomas and reported him to an adult supervisor. The supervisor placed Thomas in a “time-out.” After a few minutes, Thomas was back on the playground trying to bother my son. My son sought out more adult help. A teacher, this time, took Thomas to the office for the rest of recess.

But the problem as not solved. Thomas was released after recess. He walked to the class line to wait for the teacher.

Thomas was carrying a rock. He approached the class line and threw a rock only a few feet from my son. The rock hit my son just above his left eye.

Mr. Davis called me at work to tell me what had happened. I was livid.

My son was fine, but what could have happened? My son was not safe at school.

I picked up my son at school and I met again with the principal.

“What would you have done Mr. Davis if that rock had damaged my child’s eye?”

Mr. Davis looked at me blankly. He could not respond to my question. But he knew

I was right and the matter could have been far more serious.

The following day, Thomas was speedily placed in a classroom for children with

emotional issues. I was glad that Thomas could finally receive the attention that he

needed.

 
But most of all, I was relieved that this bully was no longer attending my son’s

school.

Bullying is a silent threat that often goes undetected. Students who report bullies are

deemed “tattle tales.” Many times school-aged children have to cope with bullies on their own. Bullying is harassment. Every school should have clear rules and consequences for students who bully.

Finally, parents should not be afraid to speak on behalf of the safety of their child.

Every school administrator knows that bullying is wrong.

 Some administrators choose to ignore the problem, until an innocent student is

seriously injured.

I urge you to investigate your child’s school policy on bullying. All students have the right to be safe in school.