Salazar v. Luty
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
761 F. Supp. 45 (1991)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
A student at a public school informed school administrators that he had purchased marijuana from his classmate, James Salazar (plaintiff), while at school. The school’s assistant principal and an off-duty police officer who served as the school’s security guard interrogated Salazar and suspended him for violating the school district’s drug policy. Two days later, the school principal held a hearing with Salazar and decided to permanently suspend Salazar. District officials rescinded the suspension and assigned Salazar to a school suspension site pending a second hearing. Salazar continued to receive adverse judgments at hearings, which he appealed. Ultimately, Salazar was issued a 30-day suspension, which, due to good-behavior rules, he completed after 15 days. Salazar sued several school administrators and district trustees (defendants), alleging procedural violations of his rights under the United States Constitution. Specifically, Salazar alleged that he was subjected to unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, subjected to unlawful interrogation for self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth Amendment, deprived of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and denied due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hughes, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.