This made local headlines forever ago and I only found out about it recently. I don't want to share any links because I don't want to reveal my area, but I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to find with some Googling.
Back in the early 2000s, someone's teen brat got suspended for being suspected of smoking weed and then arrested for refusing a drug test. Moo claims that the kid was paraded around in front of reporters before being hauled in to the station, but several reports from the accused police officers said this never happened. While awaiting trial, the kid kills himself a few months later at home.
Moo filed a lawsuit against the school, the town, the principal, the superintendent and the arresting police department by claiming that they all intentionally and conspiratorially targeted and harassed her innocent baby to make an example of him, and that the humiliation and pressure caused by the arrest is what led to his suicide.
Moo also claimed a violation of the kid's constitutional rights and cited the first, fourth and sixth amendments specifically. So arresting Junior for smoking weed was a violation of his freedom of speech, his right to not be unreasonably searched/seized, and his right to a trial/jury/lawyer/knowledge of your accusers? I really don't see how any of those rights were violated and the suit description said as much.
Apparently the kid had a history of depression, but one article quoted his father as saying he was a happy-go-lucky kid who was always smiling. So this would imply that the kid was either unmedicated when he had a known mental disorder or his parents were so out of touch with him that they didn't see/care he was depressed. Either way implies shitty parenting.
Moo didn't win because the description of the lawsuit said the evidence did not support Moo's claims. I'm thinking the parents didn't want to admit that their iddle dumpling used drugs or that they neglected his depression, so they decided to blame the police and the school instead.