Thanks to Mr. Stangle, the freshmen students of Kimball Area High School will be getting the unique chance to take on a U.S. Supreme Court Case. The first step in this annual event is to pick the students that will be handling Illinois v. Wardlow. In each freshmen class, the students has a choice to either be a Justice, lawyer or journalist. The candidates for the role of a Justice were interviewed by the lawyers and journalists. Those brave candidates were, Ms. Cassey Spaeth, Mr. Ross North, Ms. Alison Rosha, Ms. Kristi Markgraf, Mr. Brandon Konz, Ms. Elizabeth Kampa, Ms. Katie Krantz, Mr. Eric Ruprect, Ms. Amanda Davis, and Mr. David Dahnke. Interview questions were about abortion, Iraq and Internet use in schools. After the interviewers thought about the future Justices’ answers they voted. As the tallies were being counted, most of the future Justices were nervous for they knew one of them would not make it. Some, such as Mr. Konz, were calm and looking forward to the outcome. Mr. Ruprect ended up with the job of a journalist. I do believe I forgot to mention that while the future Justices were being questioned, Mr. Stangle was seeking a Chief Justice. This person turned out to be, as he is now referred to, Chief Justice Dahnke. While Chief Justice Dahnke and the eight other Justices went to get the robes they will wear in court, lawyers on each side of the case were given some time to study. Each team of lawyers received a packet with procedure on how to perform and lists of potential sources on the Web. Monday, April 7, was a chance for everyone to study while the journalists asked questions. The Justices and lawyers were not allowed to find out the outcome, but they could study how the court procedure goes and how to set up the case. Those who wanted to win studied hard for they knew court would be held the next day. As, Ms. Rose, Ms. Holker, and Ms. Brinkman gave their case for the entire state of Illinois, there was a sense of confidence in the air from lawyers and Justices alike. The respondents held strong in stating that Wardlow knew he was in a high crime area; he knew he had illegal materials in his possession. The state of Illinois considered running an obvious confession of guilt. Responding to this presentation, the Justices believed that a police officer should not go by gut feelings alone, and should follow the proper searching procedures. Apparently, the proper steps were not taken due to the fact that a police officer doesn’t always have a warrant for a random person. As Ms. Rose added, “It’s better to be safe then sorry.” The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids illegal search and seizures, which includes pat-downs. The petitioner side of the case was given by Mr. Schutz, Ms. Linn, and Ms. Boeson, who asked why someone was arrested for running. As Mr. Schutz was giving his team’s part of the case, a question was brought up to Chief Justice Dahnke. (It is common knowledge among most or all of the ninth grade students, Chief Justice Dahnke is on the school wrestling team.) Mr. Shultz asked how the Chief Justice how he would feel if he were stopped by the police while running to cut weight. This strategic move made it obvious that no one would want that to happen. The reasoning was that if someone saw the police in a high crime area, they might worry that there was trouble at home and hurry back. There was brief conversation among the reporters and nervousness between the lawyers as the verdict was being made. The Justices voted unanimously as Chief Justice Dahnke asked for the Justices’ opinions on the case. The real Supreme Court came to the opposite conclusion as our class’ Justices. The true vote of five to four showed that there were obviously hidden rights and wrongs in this case. This court professionally handled its beliefs as some had more experience with the parliamentary procedure than others. If I were wearing a blue robe today I think I would still be undecided.
