Hypothetical Number 6
Stealing School-Owned Property
EDU 403 – Spring 2009
Instructor – William H. Koenecke, Ph.D.
School District XYZ in Kentuckyrecently purchased fifty new computers for use in their computer labs. These computers were “state of the art” and the retail cost was approximately $3,500 per unit.
Late one afternoon a teacher in the same XYZ school district was observed placing a computer in the trunk of his/her car. This observation was reported to the school principal the next day. The school principal made a point to talk with this teacher during his/her planning period. The principal mentioned to the teacher that it had been reported to him that the teacher was observed placing a computer in the trunk of his/her vehicle. The teacher denied that he/she had placed a computer in his/her vehicle and informed the principal that it was a box of used computer parts left over from the old computers the school was no longer using. He/she was just clearing out the computer lab rooms and he/she was taking these parts home to throw away. The principal accepted this explanation, but thought it was strange that the teacher just didn’t toss the used parts into the school dumpster.
The principal re-contacted the person that reported the teacher placing a computer in the truck of his/her car and the person said he/she was positive that it was one of the new computers, not parts from the old computers.
New equipment, especially expensive computers, is listed on a master inventory list by description and by serial number. The principal, without informing the teacher accused of placing a computer in his/her trunk, first counted the number of new computers present in the computer labs. The tally was 49 computers, rather than 50 computers recently purchased by the school district. Next, the principal matched each computer to the serial number on the master list and determined the serial number for the missing computer.
After conducting the inventory the principal a second time informed the teacher that a computer was missing from the computer lab. The teacher told the principal that this was news to him/her and the last time he/she checked, there were fifty computers in the lab. The principal suggested that they count the computers together to verify the number of computers present today and match this information with the serial numbers on the master list. Sure enough, there was one computer missing and the serial number on the master list matched the missing computer. The teacher still denied that he/she had taken the computer and suggested that someone else had taken the computer.
Since the computer was missing and considered to be stolen property, the chief of police was notified and a detective was assigned to the case. To make a long story short, the detective found out during the past two days a computer was sold to a local pawn shop. The computer in the pawn shop had the exact same serial number and was the same missing computer. Recently because of stolen merchandise, the pawn shop owner installed a hidden camera and took a picture of all customers bringing in items that retailed for more than $500. There was a very small sign on all entrances explaining the details of the establishment and that people within these guidelines would be photographed with the item. It was not well known that the pawn shop owner actually took pictures. In fact, since he had been questioned by the police several times, he started to photograph EVERY person whose pawned item was $500 or more in loan value. Apparently the high school teacher didn’t know about the procedure at the pawn shop. The photograph clearly indicated the teacher from the XYZ school district was holding the stolen computer in the picture at the picture. The teacher after being confronted with the evidence exercised his rights and asked for an attorney to be present before he would say anything. After consulting with his attorney, he took advantage of his rights under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The teacher pleaded not guilty at his first court appearance. The case will be bound over for trial.
ISSUE:
Should the teacher be suspended and/or fired for stealing school property?
Will the teacher continue to teach at the XYZ school district?
Since U.S.law believes you are innocent until proven guilty, on what basis could you suspend the teacher?
HOLDING OF THE COURT: (CONCLUSION)
Holding # 1: Can the school district legally suspend or fire the teacher?
Holding # 2: Based on the evidence presented, do you believe the teacher will be convicted in court?
DISCUSSION:
This is the part where you must include a detailed analysis of the facts of the hypothetical as to which law(s) is/are being applied, coupled with a thorough examination of appropriate statutory and case law that you find in your research. The discussion is the heart of the hypothetical (memorandum). It should include the similarities and differences in the law (as the researcher finds it), and the leading cases and their holdings.
Please refer to the previous example posted on Dr. K.”s Web Site:
Please address the following questions in your answer:
- What was the court’s ruling? Base your decision on the “facts” of the case history
history presented in this hypothetical, the appropriate federal laws/case laws,
and Kentucky rules/regulations/laws that pertain to theft by a teacher.
2. Do you believe that this teacher, if convicted of this crime, will ever be allowed to
teach in any school in Kentucky? Why or why not? Base your decision on the “facts”
presented in the case history presented in this hypothetical, the appropriate federal
laws/case laws, and Kentucky rules/regulations/laws that pertain to theft by a teacher
and/or any other employee.
ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Please limit your answer to no less than two pages and no more than four pages.
Good Luck!
Dr. “K”