What is the 661 F Supp 155 court case?

Answer 1

Dickens v. Johnson County Board of Education, 661 F. Supp. 155, 156 (E.D. Tenn. 1987)

Dickens was a federal case brought in US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, questioning whether the use of a "time out" box to isolate emotionally and educationally handicapped school children as a form of behavior modification was a violation of the students' substantive due process rights (liberty interest).

In this case, an educationally disabled student was subject to Level III discipline that consisted of being made to sit at a desk placed in the corner of the classroom for as long as an hour-and-a-half each day, surrounded on three sides by a refrigerator box that prevented him from viewing other students.

Although the student was not able to see classmates, he could hear them, was able to view the chalkboard and teacher, could participate in class activity, and could work on planned assignments. He was not restrained and was allowed to leave the time-out area at appropriate times. He was also monitored by school personnel.

The District Court held time-out was implemented in a reasonable way because it was not unduly harsh nor disproportionate to the misbehavior. The student was monitored, and was not deprived of basic rights to food, water, shelter, adequate heat and ventilation, nor exercise. He was also not deprived of his property interest because his education was continuous.

The courts have consistently held that de minimis (very limited) deprivations of liberty, such as time-outs, detentions, and brief in-school suspensions, by themselves, are insufficient to trigger Fourteenth Amendment Due Process concerns. According to the Dickens court, the student could be held for as long as an hour-and-a-half, up to six consecutive days without triggering a Goss procedure (parental notification and the right of a manifestation determination hearing).

The US Supreme Court decision in Goss v. Lopez, 419 US 565 (1965) is relevant to all students, but particularly those with behavioral or educational disabilities who may experience Level III (time-out) consequences as a more frequent means of discipline. Goss held that students have certain due process rights that must be protected: 1) liberty rights, or a substantial degree of freedom from physical and psychological restraint and isolation; and 2) property rights, which includes the right to a free public education.

Under Goss, a student may be suspended for as many as ten days, but his or her parents must be notified of the decision within 24 hours, and have the right to appeal the decision to the board of education, and must be allowed to speak at a meeting of the board. Parents of children who believe their constitutional rights have been violated may file suit in US District Court.

While Dickens has been cited as persuasive authority in a number of cases, it is not binding on any courts. There is no established binding precedent or federal statutory prohibition against the use of restraint and isolation, in general, although the method applied must be appropriate, reasonable and not "shocking" to the conscience. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) encourages the use of positive intervention but does not prevent schools from using either restraint or isolation.

The US Supreme Court has yet to hear a case involving children in a special education environment, but agreed in Youngstown v. Romeo, 457 US 307 (1982), that mentally ill and mentally handicapped individuals in hospital settings have a liberty interest protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court applied the "reasonableness standard," but declined to create guidelines for determining "reasonableness," deferring instead to professionals' judgment.

Answer 2

661 F. Supp. 155 refers to a United States federal court case that was decided in 1987. The specific details of the case can vary, as it represents a citation format used to reference a particular case within the Federal Supplement legal reporter. Each case will have its own unique facts and legal issues.