Tag Archives: sexting

Cell Phones at School and Student Expectation of Privacy

Article posted by in August 13, 2009 at 3:56 pm.
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (20 votes, average: 4.05 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

We’ve covered this issue a couple of times before on this blog, but given the interest I thought I would respond to some of the comments that have been posted and provide some insight gained from discussions I have had with folks over the past few months.  Some people have suggested that students have effectively no right to privacy in schools.  On its face, this is patently false – students do in fact have *some* privacy rights in schools.  That said, the rules are different in schools than in other public places.

All Americans are protected against “unreasonable” searches and seizures (4th Amendment), and what can be classified as “reasonable” varies depending on the context.  In schools, educators can generally search student property if (and only if) they have a good reason to believe that evidence exists therein which will reveal a violation of school policy.  If that evidence is found, the offending student may be subject to an administrative sanction by the school (e.g., detention, suspension, etc).  For example, if a credible student tells a principal that another student at school has a phone in the classroom that includes the answers to the algebra exam, then a search may be allowable given these circumstances.

This ability to search can be contrasted with that of law enforcement, who are required to abide by a higher standard.  School (or other) police officers must have probable cause that evidence of a crime exists in order to conduct a search of property.  To be clear, mere suspicion is not enough for law enforcement officers.  They must be able to articulate to a judge that probable cause existed (either before the search is conducted or after at trial).  For example, if a credible student informs a school resource officer (a sworn police officer) that another student has a gun in his or her backpack, clearly the officer would be able to search the backpack.

If we apply these principles to the issue of cell phones in the classroom, we know that educators or law enforcement officers can in fact search a cell phone under some circumstances.  Either way, there has to be some articulable level of knowledge that the cell phone contains evidence of a violation of school policy or criminal law (depending on who is performing the search).  In the opinion of many, simple possession of the phone in the classroom, while in itself a violation of school policy, does not provide license to search that phone by anyone.

Always remember that neither Sameer nor I are attorneys, and so this should not be interpreted as legal advice.  Furthermore, these are very complicated issues that cannot be adequately covered in a short blog posting.  There are many exceptions to the basic principles outlined above.  As always, consult an attorney who specializes in school and/or privacy law.  Even they, however, often disagree as to how these laws and court rulings can or should be interpreted.   Case law and precedent are currently being formed as schools and courts wrestle with these issues.  If you are aware of any incidents that have gone to court related to this topic, please pass them along so that we can analyze and distill what can be learned from them.

Tags: , , , , , .
Subscribe to this blog via RSS or Email.

Email This Post Print This Post

The sexting case in Virginia, and the need to identify and share best practices

Article posted by in July 20, 2009 at 9:46 am.
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (5 votes, average: 4.20 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Justin and I have both blogged about the case where an assistant principal in Virginia was charged with possession of child pornography after trying to investigate a sexting case through the collection of evidence where a student emailed the evidence (a sexually-explicit picture of a minor) to his office computer.  The charges were eventually dropped, and the latest update is that the county school board has decided to remunerate him for his legal fees – which totaled to $167,621.64.  While I think the entire ordeal is highly regrettable, I’m pleased that the administrator will be able to recoup his legal expenses – a nontrivial gesture that should help him as he tries to move forward with his life.  The concern is that the entire ordeal will likely have a chilling effect on the way school administrators and educators do their job in safeguarding the youth under their care.  In fact, that is the general sentiment expressed by the school professionals with whom we share the story.  We have to push through the tendency to do nothing, or pass the responsibility to someone else, or trivialize the potential outcomes.  As mentioned in weeks past, my hope is that when an adult at school learns about sexting evidence, they immediately contact their school district attorney and local law enforcement.  These persons can then thoroughly investigate the case before advising that adult as to how best to discipline those involved.  With all of this said, we have got to communicate across counties and states to figure out exactly what policies districts are crafting (and how they are enforcing them) when it comes to students and cell phones in general.  I feel this is slowly happening with cyberbullying prevention and response strategies, but not with the issue at hand.

Tags: , , , , , .
Subscribe to this blog via RSS or Email.

Email This Post Print This Post

An Extreme Example of Misinterpretation

Article posted by in April 21, 2009 at 2:10 pm.
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 3.67 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

An article was published in the Washington Post over the weekend describing one teacher’s harrowing introduction to sexting. As they are known to do, parents and prosecutors evidently jumped to some conclusions and misinterpreted the actions this teacher was taking in investigating and dealing with a case of sexting about a year ago.  As a criminologist, I am keenly aware that the Court of Public Opinion does not operate under the assumption that one is “innocent until proven guilty.” These are very difficult situations to deal with and one can easily get caught up in assuming the worst.  As the author points out: “…my experience is a warning for all educators who find themselves trying to negotiate the slippery terrain where rapidly advancing technology intersects with risky adolescent behavior.”  Interesting read but scary story…what do you think?  What could he have done differently?

Tags: .
Subscribe to this blog via RSS or Email.

Email This Post Print This Post