Court for kids: it's your turn to be the judge

Both women thought they were adopting the pets permanently.

When the Coutures traced their dogs to the homes of Ms. Bondi and Ms. Rineker in January 2006, the women refused to give the dogs to the Louisiana family. The Coutures sued the women.

The Coutures's lawyer argued that the dogs were the family's property and needed to be given back.

The attorney of one of the defendants said that a dog was not property, but a "living and breathing creature, capable of feeling pain, pleasure, and emotion." Therefore, the dogs should be given to whoever would be the best owners.

What do you think: Should the dogs be considered property or not?

House and home

4. Does a homeless person have the right to privacy inside a cardboard box under a bridge?

Under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, Americans have a right to privacy. Before police search a home and take evidence, they need to get permission from a judge.

David Mooney was a homeless man who lived under a highway bridge. After talking to a witness, police arrested Mr. Mooney for killing a man in order to steal from him.

After Mr. Mooney's arrest, police went to the place under the bridge where Mr. Mooney lived. They did not get a search warrant because they believed it was not a home but a public space.

There, the police saw Mooney's belongings, including a closed cardboard box and a zipped duffel bag.

They opened the bag and box and found $700 worth of coins (possibly stolen from the victim) and other evidence.

The evidence was used in a trial, and Mr. Mooney was found guilty.

He appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court, saying that the area under the bridge was his home and the police needed a warrant to search it and his belongings.

Did Mr. Mooney have the same right to privacy under the bridge as people have in their houses? Also, did he have a right to privacy in his closed bag and box?

Student reporters

5. How much freedom of speech should a student have at school?

Like all Americans, students have freedom of speech. But there are limits. Teachers can stop kids when they say things that disrupt class or cause disorder. For instance, a teacher can quiet a student who interrupts a math lesson to deliver a political speech.

Journalism students at Hazelwood East High School in St. Louis County, Mo., put out a newspaper. The principal had to approve the paper before it was printed.

For the May 13, 1983, issue, he objected to articles about teenage pregnancy and children whose parents were divorced.

Thinking it was too late for the students to change the stories, the principal told the supervising teacher to cut the two pages with the controversial articles. He did.

Three students on the newspaper staff sued the school district, the principal, and the teacher for violating their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The case went all the way to the US Supreme Court, where the justices were divided in their opinions.

Here are two arguments judges gave in favor of the students:

The articles would not have disrupted order in the school or invaded the legal rights of others. They should have been allowed.

If students can't say things that the school disagrees with, then they could also be stopped from offering opinions during class discussions. This limits their freedom of speech too much.

And two arguments for the school:

The newspaper allowed free speech, but students had to be responsible reporters. These articles were irresponsible. For instance, in the divorce story, a girl said bad things about her father, and he was not given a chance to respond.

When students write things in the school paper, which the school funds, people might think that the school agrees with what is written.

Which arguments do you agree with?

Previous

1 | 2