Jon Laramore was the presenter.
Free expression. Price v. State – existing law. Loud profane comments to police can be “political” speech which can only be regulated by the state if it’s shown to harm an identifiable individual. Disorderly conduct conviction reversed. (Again, not legal advice, but as a practical matter, avoid being loud and profane to the police if you can avoid it.) This year, JD v. State came out differently. Juvenile in Guardian’s Home got into it with a deputy at the Home, according to her, complaining about the conditions at the Home. Arrested for juvenile version of disorderly conduct. The Supreme Court overturned Court of Appeals, saying that Art. I, sec. 9 of the Indiana Constitution (which I would have gotten to by now in my Constitution series if I were more diligent) that says that people can be held responsible if they “abuse” their right to free speech.
Section 9. No law shall be passed, restraining the free interchange of thought and opinion, or restricting the right to speak, write, or print, freely, on any subject whatever: but for the abuse of that right, every person shall be responsible.
AB v. State – Supreme Court granted transfer and Court of Appeals opinion has been vacated, so this area is still unsettled. But, in an invitation only area of a MySpace page, a student complained about a principal generally and about body-piercing policies specifically. Some comments were thought to constitute threats against the principal. The Court of appeals found that juvenile adjudication wasn’t appropriate because it was political speech. But, like I said, the Indiana Supreme Court is going to take a second look.
State Bd. of Ed. v. Brownsburg Comm. Schl Corp. Home schooled kids wanted access to school for one class. School said, no, we have a policy where you have to take at least 6 credit hours. Court held that the rule was valid and constitutional – so schools aren’t required to offer a la carte class offerings. Mr. Laramore suggested that a school finance case was working its way up the ranks and that schooling questions would increase in the near future.
Double jeopardy – Can’t be convicted of two different things on the same evidence. A B felony and C felony cocaine possession both based on the same act (enhanced by different circumstances) and, therefore, constituted double jeopardy violations.
There was a lot more on Constitutional decisions affecting the criminal law. This isn’t really part of my practice and I don’t have a lot of experience with criminal cases, so I have a hard time digesting the materials presented. So, I won’t.
On the federal level. School desegregation – race can’t be a factor in school assignments except when it is used to address a judicial finding of past discrimination. Also, Bong Hits 4 Jesus – School could punish kids at a parade who held up a sign that said “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”. A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Also, it’s not a free speech violation to restrict coaches from face-to-face recruiting contacts. Also, a taxpayer does not have standing to contest an executive branch allocation of funds for faith based initiative. (Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation.) There is apparently a prior decision, Flast v. Cohen, allowing taxpayers standing to contest direct legislative appropriation for faith-based purposes.
Leave a Reply