Slashdot Mirror
School Admins Demand Access to Students' Cellphones
Reverberant writes "School administrators in Framingham MA have implemented a policy allowing them to not only confiscate cell phones, but also to search through students' cell phone data as part of their anti drug/violence efforts. Students claim that the policy is an invasion of their privacy."
Dont take your cell phone to school
That doesn't matter. Them breaking the school rules does not give you the right to break the law.
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 says:
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
The cell phone checking does absolutly nothing to prevent (or handle) these incidents since there is no record of numbers that are about to be called.
I'm in high school and in march last year we had a huge drug bust. How? Searching through text messages on a students phone, leading to others phones and looking through call lists, etc. There isn't much you can do when a few cops come into the classroom and tell everyone to put their phones on the desk and get out.
ACLU of Northern Californial
http://www.aclunc.org/students/guide/searches.htm
"Can the principal or a teacher search me?
Yes, but only under certain specific circumstances, because you don't give up your right to privacy when you go to school. Under the law, if a school official wants to search you, there are two requirements. First, before he or she searches you, there must be a "reasonable suspicion," based on facts, that the search will produce evidence that you are violating the law or a school rule. For example, the principal would have to have specific information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a student is carrying a weapon, drugs or cigarettes. Second, the way he or she searches you should be "reasonable" based on your age and what is being searched for.
These restrictions apply to searches of a student's person (i.e., pat down of clothes, emptying pockets) and any personal belongings, including backpacks, lunch bags, or cars (if they are on school grounds)."
Reasonable suspicion = all your base are belong to school
"Remember: if the principal asks if you agree to a search and you say yes, you can turn an illegal search into a legal search."
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
the school has no right to search a student's piece of property.
The Supremes say otherwise, at least in the case of the purse of a drug-dealing student who made the mistake of getting caught smoking. See TLO vs. New Jersey.
I see no problem with digging through cell phone call records and old text messages, as long as there's reasonable suspicion. In the TLO case, for example, a girl caught smoking denied it, but a search of her purse quickly revealed not only smokes, but rolling papers, pot, and a list of students who owed her money (this case did predate the Notorious BIG: "you think a crackhead paying you back, shit forget it").
From the majority opinion:
"The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a teacher to obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules (or of the criminal law) would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools"
That doesn't sound terribly unreasonable, especially if a suspension from school is the only punishment handed down for dealing drugs, since presumably evidence acquired in this manner wouldn't make it past pre-trial motions.
IANAL, but I do not believe this is a case of "losing your rights". In any school district in America, while at school, K-12 students (minors) are in a custodial relationship with the school. That is, the school's position is 'in loco parentis' while the kids are there. If kids' parents have the legal right to open their lockers, tell them to empty their pockets, shut up, etc, the school has similar rights.
If the only impact of not wearing a seatbelt or helmet were on you, I'd agree with you. But when people don't wear their seatbelt or motorcycle helmet, they are many times more likely to have serious injury in an accident. If multiple vehicles are involved, whoever is at fault will pay much more. Even without that, the impact on the medical emergency system of a single vehicle accident would be much higher, drawing resources away from being able to handle other accidents, meaning that greater money has to be invested in hospitals and emergency services to provide a given level of service. People depend on those services. If someone without a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet get in an accident, they don't expect to be left at the side of the road, they still expect to be rescued. IF you were truly on your own -- wild and free -- none of this would matter, but you aren't.
People's decisions to not wear seatbelts or motorcycle helmets ultimately cost *everybody* more money. If people wishing to make the riskier choice want to sign a special waiver stating that they personally will bear all the additional medical costs, absolve any other person of responsibility for the excess injury caused by that choice, somehow make it binding on all other people who might sue on their behalf in the event they are rendered an unconcious vegetable, and pay insurance premiums several times higher or put up a multi-million-dollar bond (whatever would be necessary to cover all that additional expense), then I'd be okay with their choice. They could be issued a special license plate that indicated they had paid the extra high premium, and police could leave them alone.
With freedom of choice comes responsibility. You are right, the state is being paternalistic: but only by telling you to wise up, be an adult, and take responsibility for your choice instead of being a child who thinks they can do anything without affecting everybody else. I agree that making it a mandatory law is a draconian way to deal with the issue, rather than making it a risky choice *with* the ability to adopt all the big responsibilities that come with it, but there are practical challenges to that alternative, and the mandatory law does have the advantage of simplicity.
People are rightly offended when they talk about how a "nanny state" constrains their freedoms, but I rarely seem them stepping up to the plate and offering to take on the FULL responsibility and costs necessary to cover the risky choice they want to make. They expect the state to cover it for them, or naively forget the costs to everybody else. Any time you do the most basic analysis of these sorts of things, the true costs are enormous, and would be out of reach of most people if they did try to cover it on their own, which is why things like insurance exist -- to share the burden, and provide a financial incentive for people to be responsible (e.g., if someone drives recklessly and gets in many accidents, their insurance premiums will correspondingly go up).
To do the opposite, to simply drop legislation mandating use of equipment with large safety benefits -- would be irresponsible and cost taxpayers money that must come from somewhere, such as everyone's insurance premiums going up greatly. Pick your poison, but the fact is, not using safety devices that have such a HUGE and obvious benefit is a costly choice that only the choosers should bear.
This is pretty far off-topic, but but to tie it back to something relevant, the whole issue of cell phone use in schools is pretty similar: with the use of the technology comes responsibility, and schools are struggling to figure out the right balance. I personally think students should be allowed to bring cell phones to school, but that they must be left outside the classroom or turned off, because they serve no valid purpose in class. And if students don't want to leave them in their locker or in the main office because the phone might get stolen, too bad. If they don't want to turn them off in class, I see n
They have every protection under the US Constitution and US Federal law. Students only have SOME of their rights slightly restricted. This is typically while at school or during the time they are supposed to be going/coming to/from school or when they are supposed to be there. The US Constitution makes no claims as to the age when you receive any rights. All citizens born in the US received are protected by the Constitution from birth.
Why else would any lawyers argue over a minors' Constitutional rights in court all the time?
You can read more about reasonable suspicion here. Disturbingly:
Since it's been established that cell phones are fair game, could this ruling be used in defence of random cell phone checks?
I'd ask what next, but I fear I already know.
I find it disturbing that people are willing to negate the rights of others so flippantly. "Oh hey, they're not really people. They don't need rights." The only reason why many people will do this is because they will never have to deal with the results.
When I was in HS, I was very well capable of making my own decisions. I was a mature, intelligent, and informed individual. I did not like that my school to treated me like a sub-human creature, and would resist any time I was able. The result? Well, the school's administration made me "disappear" with some creative lies to local law enforcement. It is a really long story.
Our schools are run by old men who revel in the power that is afforded to them by a government that no longer cares about citizens. I advise every high school student who might be reading this to rebel. Rebel hard, and don't let your spirit be extinguished by the old perverts who try to control your life.
The following is just my opinion of a reasonable person who read the text of findings of the Supreme Court. I think the article I am replying to misleading in general, and FUD specifically.
:-). Rights are being stripped daily, and something must be done to stop it. Ironically, it seems like kids will have to read some Supreme Court rulings and get familiar with http://www.flexyourrights.org/
Let me make it abundantly clear SCHOOL IS GOVERNMENT. All restrictions against government apply except as limited by the Supreme Court.
Here is the text of the 4th Amendment - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/am endment04/
I've been looking into general causes for the failure of US Education system, and found quite a few interesting references a couple of days ago, so this is not totally new. My goal is to entice some reforms once I can afford to do so.
Now, I've been upset about this policy and its potential impact for several hours since I got back from a nightclub... so thanks for giving me some Supreme Court cases to read. Since you likely haven't read them, I'll post the relevant parts. The TLO case is pretty thorough by itself, but I also think that your "free speech is moot" argument not confirmed by the Hazelwood case. Please read it in your spare time. It concerns limited special circumstances school censorship and disruptions to classroom, but it doesn't waive the 1st Amendment. In case of 4th Amendment, the TLO case reduces "probable cause" to a lower standard and does not require a warrant but doesn't change much else. It doesn't authorize a random baseless search.
Citing the cases is all well, but let's include full quotations omitted from this text with regards to special circumstances as it's quite key
Looking at New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=CASE&court=US&vol=469&page=325
Here is the full paragraph related to 4th Amendment from TLO:
1. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers.
Nor are school officials exempt from the Amendment's dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren. In carrying out searches and other functions pursuant to disciplinary policies mandated by state statutes, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents of students, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the Fourth Amendment's strictures. Pp. 333-337. [469 U.S. 325, 326]
2. Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, non-contraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involve
Leonid S. Knyshov
Find me on Quora
Yes it is, but I disagree with them. The UK has some pretty serious problems right now, and IMNSHO an awful lot of them stem from politically correct initiatives that affect how children may be treated and the rights they have. On the one hand, no forms of corporal punishment are now allowed in our schools, and parents must be wary of even smacking their children for fear of being accused of child abuse. On the other hand, antisocial behaviour has become one of the biggest problems facing our society. I've seen one of my neighbours confronting kids who were about to key the side of his car, and heard one of them shout at him that he couldn't do anything, because the kid was under 10 and he couldn't commit a crime - and I live in a pretty good neighbourhood compared to many places. Similar stories abound, often with responsible adults (including parents and teachers) winding up in court or otherwise under suspicion, while Joe Angelic seems untouchable even if caught red-handed doing something he shouldn't be.
Now, it doesn't take a genius to spot the connection here. Children don't yet have an adult level of maturity and responsibility; that's why they're still children. Thus it is manifestly unreasonable to treat them the same way as adults and expect the same response. I refuse to support the NSPCC (the biggest child protection charity in the UK) while they maintain that an absolute ban on smacking children is appropriate and use the "you wouldn't smack an adult" argument. We can debate the relative merits of corporal and other forms of punishment, and there are always the "My parents smacked me and it did me no harm" and "Well, I raised a child just fine without ever smacking them" brigades. However, I think even their axiom here is wrong: we do use violence, if necessary, to enforce the law on adults. This is, ultimately, what police forces and the military do. It may be reserved for use as a last resort, but the threat is always there. By excluding this possibility on a far smaller scale, children are actually being given a higher status than adults!
It happens that in this case, I do disagree with the rule. I think it's absurd that older children should have no default right to privacy, which is what this boils down to. You don't suddenly turn 18 and become responsible, and you're not automatically a menace to society at 17 years and 364 days. If there is a good reason for the adults responsible for that child to think they need to see something on the phone, that's one thing, but there must be a good reason.
Ultimately, it all comes down to the rights, freedoms and responsibilities thing, as it usually does in these discussions. The two are, or at least should be, fundamentally tied together. As long as you have adults who are legally responsible for minors, they need to have some degree of authority, and the minors can't reasonably expect the same level of rights and freedoms as if they were adults completely responsible for their own behaviour. On the other hand, as children grow older and behave more responsibly, it is inappropriate to deny them any extension of their rights and freedoms to match. Getting the balance wrong, in either direction, will inevitably lead to problems either where children are undisciplined and irresponsible, or where adults take advantage of them inappropriately.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That only technically. Schools shouldn't truly have the right to re-write the laws to their liking, but nothing is stopping them. The local high school here has searched students' cars and persons without warrants or permission. If a student tries to stop the school they pull their favorite rule "disobedience". The school made it so that if a student questions a teacher (ex: "Why am I being taken to the office?") or doesn't obey an order (ex: "No I will no remove my pants for you to inspect") they can get in even more trouble. And the cops are the ones searching the cars. And if a student tries to say that a warrant is needed the cops say that they don't because they can easily have one written.
Now I don't live in a tough area. This isn't a "poor gang area", this is a rich suburb. (This actually makes it worse because student can get off anything by hiring big money layers.)
This sounds crazy. This sounds like lies. But they aren't.
~ Mooga
Sounds like a situation that I ran across back in the 70s. A local 18 year old wrote a letter to the local school board, superintendent, and principal permitting him to grow his hair long. He argued that being 18 years old he was his own guardian, and therefore his guardian was always with him, thus the schools in loco parentis power was rendered moot with respect to him.
At this point I along with several former students of the this ISD had been working to get the dress code dropped for three years. Several school board members, along with the principal, and superintendent had made public statements, both verbal, and in print, as to the reasoning behind in loco parentis. The afore mentioned 18 year old was at this point able to hoist them on their own collective petard.
In the end he, the 18 year old, ran for the school board and won, and much merriment ensued over the next two years.
STB
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Contrary to what most seem to believe, the Supreme court held in Tinker vs. Des Moines that students do not leave all their constitutional rights at the school house door. They give up only those that can be said to cause disruption in the school environment. Granted, the standard is pretty low - in the Tinker case, the students were wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war and the court agreed that they were "disruptive." Furthermore, the court held that the school's ability to control a student's behavior ended when they left the school grounds. So, the Tinker children could immediately don their black armbands upon leaving the school grounds and there was nothing the school could do about it.
The court did not say that students could be deprived of their constitutional rights without due process in case where the school only suspected what they were doing might be disruptive. As is illustrated by the current conflict in the NYC public schools over cell phones in schools, there is little support - either constitutionally or from parents - to deprive students of their use of cell phones in school. In fact, the parents seem to be waging a campaign which may make the NYC school system back down.
Furthermore, I am not aware of any case or statutory law that permits school administrators, even when acting in loco parentis, to infringe on a student's constitutional rights in a way that does not meet the "least restrictive method" test. Confiscating the students' cell phone and then forcing them to allow access to all the data on the phone to a school administrator would be a clear violation of their constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure and, clearly, is not the least restrictive way in which the school administrators could prevent any disruption the cell phones, allegedly, are causing.. Furthermore, I don't think the loco parentis rights of school administrators extends to the point where they can waive the right against unreasonable search and seizure, nor am aware of any executive (police powers) that are given to school administrators that would empower them to seize such information and use it against a student.
So, basically, this looks like a school administrator gone amok, trying to pander to the political powers that be by appearing to be "tough on drugs/crime/whatever" and willing to trample the constitutional rights of his students to do so. This man, clearly, needs to apply for another kind of job or reconsider his choice of profession. It is his job to protect children, nuture respect for other people, society, law, et cetera. He, clearly, is failing to do so.
The school's need to legally "cover their butts" does not trump an adult's constitutional rights.
Written permission slips/releases/et cetera do not now, nor have they ever stopped someone from being sued. They stop someone from prevailing in a lawsuit, but they never stop anyone from suing in the first place. Permission slips authorize the school to remove the child from the school grounds with the parent's permission. Most of these forms do not use the term "parent" by itself. Due to the ever changing forms of families, most include references to "parent, legal guardian," et cetera. Since we define adulthood as starting at 18, a parent or legal guardian has no standing over someone who is 18 and, therefore, no "permission slip" is necessary for that person to leave the school premises.
I am forty-nine years old and both my parents are dead. However, if they weren't and I were hurt/killed by someone else's negligence they would have the right to sue for various causes of action, such as wrongful death. This will never change. A permission slip signed by a parent is not a "get out of jail free card" for a school district, or anyone else, who acts with negligence and injures another person - no matter their age.
Claiming someone as a dependent on your tax return has no effect on their standing as an adult. Nor does living under someone else's roof. Fortunately, the law is clear on this subject in most jurisdictions, it requires students to legally attend high school until they graduate or turn 18. This has nothing to do with the majority status of a student.
If a person under the age of 18 wants to be "emancipated" in most jurisdictions there are procedures to have the court declare them an emancipated minor, thereby making them responsible for themselves in all matters. In some states, emancipation is assumed when a minor becomes pregnant. In this case, if an emancipated minor was attending school, they would be able to sign their own permission slips, because they are their own "guardian" so to speak. So, the school would have to deal with it.
In most instances it is fairly clear that the schools have rigid, entrenched bureaucracies manned by dogmatic and recalcitrant staff that are used to being able to get their own way. When they don't, it appears they have little understanding of the real world beyond the schoolhouse door and will do anything to get others to confirm to their vision of the world. Clearly, this is also the case in wanting to be able to search cell phones without probable cause.
As for your other statement... If you need to get in touch with your kid, there is an established procedure for that: Contact the office. It may take a few minutes longer, but it won't end up disturbing the entire class while your kid figures out that it is his phone, digs it out of the bag, and starts chatting in the middle of a test or lecture.
Back when I was in high school, I had 3-4 things per week that took place once school was over. Some took place at the school while others were anywhere from a 5 minute walk to a 45 minute drive. Some where on-going through out the entire school year and some where just a few weeks. But all of them took place when the school office was closed. This "established procedure" just isn't an option.