On December 19, 2010, a Booker T. Washington High School senior was
arrested by a Norfolk, Virginia police officer under the truants
policy in Norfolk, Va while walking to school.  The police officer
pulled him over and told him that he was violating the policy.  The
teen informed the officer that he wasn't a truant and was on his way
to school.  The officer gave Marsh a ultimatum to take him to school
or to jail.  Mr. Marsh refused and was than pushed on to the hood of
the car and arrested by the police officer for violating the city of
Norfolk, Va truants policy.  Dominique Marsh, a star quarterback on
the school’s football team would face the humiliating ride in a police
car; handcuffed and escorted into his own school.      After arriving
at the school, Mr. Marsh would have a anxiety attacked as he fell to
the floor after walking through the school’s door.  The school called
paramedics to treat Mr. Marsh, as other students watched the horrific
events unfold in front of their eyes.  A black teenage male made a
example under a policy that questions youth constitutional rights and
freedoms.
    The ordeal would lead to the city mayor, police chief, as well as
other council members to apologize and try to implement policies that
would not allow such a ordeal to be repeated.  Their was enormous
reaction and response from the parents, teachers and students shocked
at actions that the policy would allow engage youth to such treatment.
 A truant is considered anyone still in public schools under the age
of 18 that is willfully not going to school and wanders the streets
during school hours.  Most of the time the concern about truants has
been their ability to get into trouble due to having a lack of
parental supervision.  Mr. Marsh was clearly not a truant but a
student with permission from the school with classes that started
later than other underclassmen.
    Many profile city leaders came to the youth defense such as
Booker T. Principal Kevin Monroe said Marsh is "a great kid who's
never given us any problems. I felt bad for him."  Also, Norfolk
Councilman Paul R. Riddick said it shows a lack of sensitivity on the
part of the police.  "If this had been a white student walking to
Maury, he would not have been handcuffed," Riddick said.  However, The
high school's football coach, Che Jacobs, said he arrived at about the
same time as the ambulance. "Why did he handcuff Dominique and bring
him to school?" Jacobs asked. "Nobody wants to come to school in
handcuffs."
  Others was supportive of the policy and the police officers
response to the possible truant, but was dissatisfied at the outcome;
such as, City of Norfolk, Va Mayor Paul Fraim said,  “He does not
believe the police violated city procedure.”  “But I'm apologizing
because we didn't have a process in place that would alleviate the
situation without the need to handcuff the young man.  Fraim went on
to state,“Norfolk's procedure needs to change.”  "We should have in
place a procedure for the police if they suspect a young person is a
truant," he said. "There has to be a number they can call and quickly
determine a young person's status." ”We have to find a way short of
driving someone to school in handcuffs."
   The police officer would enjoy qualified immunity, because he was
acting within the line and scope of his employment by enforcing the
truancy laws.  Even though is actions would bring up a even bigger
federal question as the municipality being the City of Norfolk, Va
might be held accountable for having a written policy that might be
unconstitutional.  How far can city government go in handling truants
in the City of Norfolk, Va and probably may set the stage of how
youths are treated in the state of Virginia.  Since the Norfolk Police
Department,  and its officers are not seperate legal entities capable
of being sued for monetary or injunctive relief.  It would overall
fall into the hands of the City of Norfolk, Va government to possibly
take full responsibility.  Monetary would seek money damages and
injunctive would seek to end the practice as have the truancy policy
ruled unconstitutional.
   This issue probably will not have much affect on a state or city
level unless a challenge is made in a federal court on the
constitutionality of the truancy policy created by the City of
Norfolk, and its agents through its customs and official policies.
This matter would  have consequences on the possibility of whether
this youth Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated.
Does a suspected truant have a right to be left alone and go about
their way by stating that they refuse to get into a car and can they
face arrest; for refusal to do so, from a command of a police officer
acting under color of the law.  It is clear that the officer asserted
his authority in order to have Mr. Marsh comply to go to school or to
jail.  Did the city government have the right to allow it’s agent to
make a arrest.
    The next legal question would be could Mr. Marsh attempt to break
off contact and be free to go about his way.   It would definitely
bring scrutiny under the Fourth Amendment for unreasonable searches
and seizures.  1.  The Fourth Amendment (protects right to be free
from unreasonable searches and seizures; provides that warrants shall
issue only upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation) 2.
    The second question would be did the City of Norfolk, Va have the
right to arrest a youth that they suspect of being a truant?  The
Fourteenth Amendment (a person's rights to life, liberty or property
shall not be deprived without due process of law, nor shall any person
be denied equal protection of the laws).   The series of events in
this matter would definitely bring up legal questions on how far city
government can go to resolve known problems with youth missing school
and walking the streets.  Does the government have the power to force
children to go to school or be subjected to arrest and possible jail
time.
    The third question would be does the police have the right to
force a truant to identify himself as being one or be subject to
arrest; especially if the suspected truant makes it clear that they
wish to be left alone.    fifth amendment states “No person shall be
held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in
time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the
same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.”
I am very disgusted and very bothered by this newspaper article; in
which our kids, are forced to speak to police officers or be subject
to arrest.  These unlawful detainers, wrongful arrests, and abuse of
the 4th and 14th amendment violations that are being followed by
policies set forth by the Norfolk police department, Norfolk school
board, and City of Norfolk, Va employees and personnel; has set a
terrible precedent.  I am not just mad at the Norfolk Police
Department, but I am calling for whomever created this policy to be
fired/dismissed and removed from the city of Norfolk, Va employment.
The high school student clearly exercised his right to be free from
unreasonable searches and seizures.  He instructed the officer that he
wanted to go along his way which he had every right to do and for it
gets slammed against a police car and arrested, and their is nothing
in the incident to say he is about to be or was engaged in criminal
activity.  I am very dissatisfied as well with the police officer; in
order to treat anyone in such a manner, and also this officer has a
oath that he is sworn of the state of Virginia to uphold.  As soon as
the young man asked to be left alone and go about his business and the
officer lacking objective facts to assume that he is about is into be
involvedobjective facts  in criminal activity should have been left
alone.   This
policy is more detrimental than productive in giving our kids a sense
of fear of the police and affects communications and positive dialogue
with police officers, and police officers to communicate in a positive
manner with our youth that they are sworn to protect.  These youth are
experiencing that their rights are getting trampled on under the color
of the law.  I hope any and all involved in this policy of abusing the
fourth, fourteenth amendments on a city wide level is singled out and
address directly that this policy needs to stop immediately.  The
officials that should be fired or held accountable for making this
policy should be apologizing  This isnt about race.  This is
about all people being treated fairly and with respect, dignity, and
with equal protection of the law.  I hope each and everyone that
is involved in this matter, and start to take a look at people being
treated like this; not just black, white, or just Hispanic citizens.  If we
take the race out; and just put someone that you love, a family member, a friend
in the same scenario, than treat this matter; the same way you would
want your significant other  to be treated.  The same way government
officials would want
officials in another city, town, or state that has subjected their
significant other
to such abuse; to handle the situation in a manner to make sure
this does not happen again.  A remedy to this problem is only a end to
past the practice of this policy.



The big question that many are assuming and possibly forgetting is who
is responsible for allowing such a policy to be approved as a way of
controlling the truant issues.  The second question is how much rights
do truants actually have under the constitution?  The best test for
this is weighing society legitimate interest against police
interference.