You be the judge

[StrangeSox]

I've been out of law school for 4 years now, and I am not a practicing attorney, so please bear with me here...but it sure seemed that many of the cases I read in regards to constitutional rights being violated had much less reason for economic harm than this one. If you assume for the sake of argument (and I know you disagree here) that there is some constitutional right to privacy, wouldn't the fact that information considered by the courts to be a very private concern was disclosed to her mother be plenty egregious enough to formulate some economic harm from?

 

Your relationship with your parents is one of the most important relationships a person will ever have, after the relationship with your spouse and your children, and considering many people go through their lives without either of the latter two, for many people, it is THE most important relationship they will ever formulate in their entire lives. To have that relationship jeopardized (and I am not saying this is morally correct that a parent would hold something like sexual orientation against their child) by someone who has no compelling reason to disclose a private concern of the child to the mother seems like a fairly extraordinary offense to me. I've seen attorney monetize a lot of far less obvious harm in my day of studying the law and working in law firms.

 

Right, I can't imagine that your constitutional rights to privacy are tied solely to direct economic harm.

[Jenksismyhero]

Right, I can't imagine that your constitutional rights to privacy are tied solely to direct economic harm.

 

The Supreme Court isn't in the business of awarding damages. It might remand a case back to a level where a trier of fact would do that, but its role is to determine issues like, does this right exist under the constitution, is this protected under the constitution etc. i.e., issues of constitutionality.

 

Those cases only establish that sexual orientation is private information that shouldn't be disclosed. Whether or not it's actionable in a given case is a different question, one ultimately held up to different standards (i.e., the elements of the tort of public disclosure of private information or invasion of privacy) to be decided by factual evidence.

[G&T]

I've been out of law school for 4 years now, and I am not a practicing attorney, so please bear with me here...but it sure seemed that many of the cases I read in regards to constitutional rights being violated had much less reason for economic harm than this one. If you assume for the sake of argument (and I know you disagree here) that there is some constitutional right to privacy, wouldn't the fact that information considered by the courts to be a very private concern was disclosed to her mother be plenty egregious enough to formulate some economic harm from?

 

Your relationship with your parents is one of the most important relationships a person will ever have, after the relationship with your spouse and your children, and considering many people go through their lives without either of the latter two, for many people, it is THE most important relationship they will ever formulate in their entire lives. To have that relationship jeopardized (and I am not saying this is morally correct that a parent would hold something like sexual orientation against their child) by someone who has no compelling reason to disclose a private concern of the child to the mother seems like a fairly extraordinary offense to me. I've seen attorney monetize a lot of far less obvious harm in my day of studying the law and working in law firms.

 

I would guess that the answer is yes if the mother actually cared and it impacted their relationship negatively. Courts put monetary values on loss of society.

 

But if the mother didn't care, then I would say no, the violation had no impact for which damages can be granted. This is same in every tort or even criminal procedure. Hell, in a criminal case, a judge can admit evidence in direct violation of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment and as long as that error was harmless the conviction will stand. Do you think that's fair?

[iamshack]

I would guess that the answer is yes if the mother actually cared and it impacted their relationship negatively. Courts put monetary values on loss of society.

 

But if the mother didn't care, then I would say no, the violation had no impact for which damages can be granted. This is same in every tort or even criminal procedure. Hell, in a criminal case, a judge can admit evidence in direct violation of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendment and as long as that error was harmless the conviction will stand. Do you think that's fair?

Yes, even though I don't think it's that simple...even if the mother didn't care, the daughter might care that the mother knew, and thus there might be some kind of emotional harm experienced.

 

But yeah, I think that's probably a fair way to think about it.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yes, even though I don't think it's that simple...even if the mother didn't care, the daughter might care that the mother knew, and thus there might be some kind of emotional harm experienced.

 

But yeah, I think that's probably a fair way to think about it.

 

She would need to receive medical treatment for it to be recoverable though. Feeling depressed, angry, sad, embarrassed, etc. isn't enough.

 

[iamshack]

She would need to receive medical treatment for it to be recoverable though. Feeling depressed, angry, sad, embarrassed, etc. isn't enough.

We both know that wouldn't be difficult to accomplish.

[Texsox]

I know just enough of the Constitution to be dangerous here. Would this case be argued based on the 4th Amendment?

[G&T]

I know just enough of the Constitution to be dangerous here. Would this case be argued based on the 4th Amendment?

 

No the 4th Amendment applies to criminal investigations.

[mr_genius]

i think this fits into the mind your own business category.

[Texsox]

No the 4th Amendment applies to criminal investigations.

 

Most of what we call right to privacy seems to be under the 4th, 5th, or 9th each always seem like a stretch to me. You are correct though, perhaps the 5th Amendment would fit better.

[G&T]

Most of what we call right to privacy seems to be under the 4th, 5th, or 9th each always seem like a stretch to me. You are correct though, perhaps the 5th Amendment would fit better.

 

5th applies to criminal investigations as well.

[Texsox]

There is no specific "Right to Privacy" amendment in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the constitution. So, I'm wondering along what lines this will be argued. If it is going any higher up, there has to be a constitutional claim.

[G&T]

There is no specific "Right to Privacy" amendment in the Bill of Rights or anywhere else in the constitution. So, I'm wondering along what lines this will be argued. If it is going any higher up, there has to be a constitutional claim.

 

It will be argued under the line of cases that created the notion of a right to privacy. Roe said it was created under the penumbra of the 4th, 5th, 9th, 1st or something like that. So it is really about how far the cases will be extended.

[Soxbadger]

The case is in Federal Court, any Federal Case can go to the Supreme Court (it doesnt necessarily have to have a constitutional right), slightly different than a case in State Court which would only generally go to the Federal Supreme if there was some sort of Federal Constitutional issue.

[StrangeSox]

Sox badger your posts violate my constitutional rights.

[Soxbadger]

Success.

[knightni]

Seems like an easy decision. Possible abuse here between an adult and a child. They needed to report it to someone. Actually they should have called the police.

The 16 year-old minor is not the appropriate one to be the first to talk to regarding this. If there was a concern, the school's Principal should have contacted the parent first.

 

Especially the way it was portrayed as being done.

[Texsox]

The 16 year-old minor is not the appropriate one to be the first to talk to regarding this. If there was a concern, the school's Principal should have contacted the parent first.

 

Especially the way it was portrayed as being done.

 

I agree the principal is a more appropriate choice, but the teachers still needed to go to the police. Just telling the principal is not enough.

[knightni]

I agree the principal is a more appropriate choice, but the teachers still needed to go to the police. Just telling the principal is not enough.

The Principal calls the parent, the parent calls the police.

[iamshack]

Really? Because she is dating an 18 year old and she's 16?

 

This is what we need to be worrying about in high schools?

[knightni]

Really? Because she is dating an 18 year old and she's 16?

 

This is what we need to be worrying about in high schools?

The school is allowing the parent to make that decision. If the parent wants to go after the 18 year-old, it should be their decision, not the school's.

[southsider2k5]

The Principal calls the parent, the parent calls the police.

 

And the principal goes to jail.

[knightni]

And the principal goes to jail.

Really...why?

 

There was not confirmed knowledge of a sexual relationship by the school until the 16 year-old stated it under duress to the coaches.

 

My thoughts were how the chain of command should have been used if they were suspicious of activity.

 

coach to athletic director to principal to parent.

[iamshack]

Really...why?

 

There was not confirmed knowledge of a sexual relationship by the school until the 16 year-old stated it under duress to the coaches.

 

My thoughts were how the chain of command should have been used if they were suspicious of activity.

 

coach to athletic director to principal to parent.

First, this is not confirmed knowledge.

 

Secondly, I understand schools have the right to be involved in their students' lives, especially since many times kids are spending more time with teachers and coaches than their own parents. That does not give schools the right to assume the role as parents in regards to what kids do off of school property. They have no business digging into this student's love life. They have no business putting a student "under duress" to even question whether she is involved in a sexual relationship with this 18 year old.

 

"Suspicious activity"? What the hell is the role of the school, to play the role of the police state?

[southsider2k5]

Really...why?

 

There was not confirmed knowledge of a sexual relationship by the school until the 16 year-old stated it under duress to the coaches.

 

My thoughts were how the chain of command should have been used if they were suspicious of activity.

 

coach to athletic director to principal to parent.

 

If the principal suspects something illegal, their next stop is either the systems top administrators (who then call the police) or calling the police. That is the law.