Legal Opinion · Dissent

In Re Dengg

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided March 5, 1999No. ACCELERATED CASE NO. 97-P-0113Published

1DissentWilliam M. O’Neill, Judge

As stated by this court in In re Adam (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 364, 697 N.E.2d 1100, “[I]t is hypocritical for a teacher to lecture on the grandeur of the United States Constitution in the morning and violate its basic tenets in the afternoon.” Id. at 376, 697 N.E.2d at 1108. As correctly stated by the majority, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the “right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Constitution does not say “big people” or “grownups” alone are to be protected. It applies…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. New Jersey v. T. L. O.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  2. In Re AdamOhio Court of Appeals · 1997

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API