Slashdot Mirror
Student Records Kids Who Bully Him, Then Gets Threatened With Wiretapping Charge
An anonymous reader tips news of an incident in a Pennsylvania high school in which a student, Christian Stanfield, was being bullied on a regular basis. He used a tablet to make an audio recording of the bullies for the purpose of showing his mother how bad it was. She was shocked, and she called school officials to tell them what was going on. The officials brought in a police lieutenant — but not to deal with the bullies. Instead, the officer interrogated Stanfield and made him delete the recording. The officer then threatened to charge him with felony wiretapping. The charges were later reduced to disorderly conduct, and Stanfield was forced to testify before a magistrate, who found him guilty. Stanfield's mother said, "Christian's willingness to advocate in a non-violent manner should be championed as a turning point. If Mr. Milburn and the South Fayette school district really want to do the right thing, they would recognized that their zero-tolerance policies and overemphasis on academics and athletics have practically eliminated social and emotional functioning from school culture."
Update: 04/17 04:36 GMT by T : The attention this case has gotten may have something to do with the later-announced decision by the Allegheny County District Attorney's office to withdraw the charges against Stanfield.
Update: 04/17 04:36 GMT by T : The attention this case has gotten may have something to do with the later-announced decision by the Allegheny County District Attorney's office to withdraw the charges against Stanfield.
The probably is Pennsylvania is an all-party state, where most states only require the consent of one party to record.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Here's an interesting article that looks at the legal aspects of this case:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
tl;dr version: The charges are bullshit.
Yes, the kid got charged because he violated Pennsylvania's wiretapping and recording laws. Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state so both parties to the conversation must consent before a recording can be made.
No, you would not be arrested and charged for video taping someone stealing your car because you aren't recording a conversation.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Yes, the kid got charged because he violated Pennsylvania's wiretapping and recording laws. Pennsylvania is a two-party consent state so both parties to the conversation must consent before a recording can be made.
A good lawyer would get it thrown out for Necessity.
"In U.S. criminal law, necessity may be either a possible justification or an exculpation for breaking the law. Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm and when that conduct is not excused under some other more specific provision of law such as self defense." - wikipedia
Recording the bullies was NECESSARY in order to prove the bullying existed, so it could be dealt with.
Appropriately, the page with TFA has an ad encouraging me to "Win an AR-15 from Sebastian Ammo". Google is getting scary...
Must not have been a Google ad, Google doesn't allow gun ads. Personally, I think that's stupid, but in the interest of accuracy, your ad couldn't have been from Google.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Here are the details of the relevant parties:
The "judge": Maureen McGraw-Desmet
295 Millers Run Road Bridgeville, PA 15017 phone: 412-221-3353 fax: 412-221-0908
The "officer": http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ro...
and then there's this piece of shit: http://www.southfayette.org/si... (smilburn@southfayette.org)
If ever there was a job for Anonymous...
There are two things about this. Pennsylvania's "two-party consent" only applies in situations where those being recorded without their consent have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." I have a problem with the judge finding that people (teachers and students) have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the classroom. The other thing is that the Pennsylvania law also has an exception that states that you do not need to permission of someone who is committing a crime in the recording. That would not have applied in this case since not all of those being recorded were committing a crime. (I am not sure if any of the actions recorded crossed over into criminal territory, or not. Although if I was a judge, or on a jury, they are at a minimum close enough that I would be unwilling to convict the person recording them.)
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
I'm going to play devil's advocate here because I read the article to see what event had transpired.
Necessity typically requires three tests to be a valid defense, the defendent needs to be breaking the law to avoid a significant risk of harm, there were no adequate lawful means to address the situation, and the harm avoided was greater than the harm caused by breaking the law. The problem in this situation is the second one. The problem is that neither of the articles suggested that any other steps were taken to stop the bullying prior to committing the recording. That's the problem. There's no suggestion that the boy told his mother about the bullying, there's no suggestion that the mother contacted the school about the bullying before the recording was made. All that exists is a vague statement that the boy felt powerless so he made the recording. No suggestion as to why he felt powerless, be it lack of response when bringing the issue up or due to his own disabilities. This situation, unlike many of the clear cases of necessity, had a long period of time over which to address the problem rather than requiring near immediate action such as to prevent someone from being injured or killed.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
WTF? Bullying _is_ against the law. You repeatedly intimidate and threaten me, causing me to fear for my safety? That's "assault". You trip me, making me drop my lunchbox? That's "battery". And so on. Just because you're a child and in a sane system you would be required to undergo counselling rather than also be facing fines/prison as adults might, or because in the farcical bizarro world of many schools that you get away with it, doesn't make what you're doing even remotely lawful.
That officer who, instead of conducting a proper investigation into a potential serial harassment/assault/battery case, told the victim to delete the recording or be charged with felony wiretapping? That officer should be hauled up to explain why he shouldn't be charged with "destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice under colour of authority", which are federal crimes. And if it was done under orders from above? Add "conspiracy under colour of authority".
But, of course, that's in a sane and rational justice system that actually contains justice, rather than the authoritarian sociopathic farce that is far too common.
(note: exact wording of charges may/will differ depending on your jurisdiction / country of residence)