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."
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!
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
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.