GC v. Owensboro Public Schools
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
711 F.3d 623 (2013)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
GC (plaintiff) attended Owensboro High School. GC told a school counselor that he used drugs, had issues with anger and depression, and had felt suicidal. In March, GC left in the middle of a meeting with the counselor and was observed making a phone call. Concerned about GC’s well-being and safety, the counselor contacted assistant principal Christina Smith. Smith took GC’s phone and checked for evidence that GC was feeling suicidal. GC sought treatment later that day. The next school year, in September, a teacher saw GC texting in class in violation of school policy. The teacher confiscated GC’s phone and sent GC to see assistant principal Melissa Brown. Aware of GC’s history of suicidal thoughts, Brown checked GC’s phone and read the four text messages that GC had sent that day. GC was later barred from attending Owensboro High School due to the texting and his history of disciplinary violations. GC sued the Owensboro Public Schools and four school officials (the school) (defendants). In the lawsuit, GC conceded that the March phone search had been lawful, but he claimed that the school had violated his Fourth Amendment rights during the September phone search. The district court granted summary judgment to the school on the Fourth Amendment claim, and GC appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Norris, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.