19yr old sues High School over HS finding semi-nude/nude phots on cell phone

[Bateluer]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/21/pennsylvania.racy.photos/index.html?iref=obinsite

Hmm, after reading through the article, I think N.N. is fully entitled to file this lawsuit and I
hope the school pays out big time for it. The school was likely well within their rights to confiscate her cell phone, if she was using it in class. But the school administrators have no authority or right to paw through the phone's data, pictures, contacts, etc. If the phone is confiscated, policy should dictate that it be powered off and stored until the end of the period or day.

Given that the incident happened in January 2009 and she's 19 as of 29 Jul 2010, she couldn't have been younger than ~17.5 or so when this happened, so we're not talking about a 12 year old with nude pictures on their cell phone. The article doesn't specify if N.N.'s pictures were transmitted to anyone prior to the phone's confiscation either. Based on this, it looks like she just on semi-nude and nude photos of herself on her phone. To my knowledge, this is perfectly legal? When N.N. was called into the principal's office, the first thing I would have done when they told me they'd found the photos on my found would have been 'I want to see an attorney'.

(CNN) -- A 19-year-old Pennsylvania woman sued her former high school Thursday, claiming school officials invaded her privacy and violated her free-speech rights when they confiscated her cell phone, found semi-nude photos stored inside and turned the phone over to authorities.

The federal lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, says looking at photos on the woman's phone was like opening her mail or viewing private home videos.

"This search was much farther than what the law allows," said Valerie Burch, an attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "There was no reason to go looking for these pictures on her phone, and unless you have a very good reason, you can't go through someone's private things. We think it is a grave violation of her privacy."

Tunkhannock Area School District officials said they were reviewing the complaint and declined to comment further Thursday.

The lawsuit alleges that the trouble began after a teacher confiscated the cell phone of the student, identified in the suit only as N.N., when she broke school rules by making a call on campus in January 2009.

She was later called to Principal Gregory Ellsworth's office, suspended for three days and told that her cell phone had been turned over to authorities after Ellsworth found semi-nude and nude photos inside, the lawsuit says.

Wyoming County District Attorney George Skumanick Jr. later sent a letter to the school, the lawsuit alleges, threatening to bring child pornography charges against the student unless she completed a re-education course on sexual violence and victimization. N.N. took the class out of fear that she would be prosecuted, the complaint claims.

Skumanick could not be reached for comment.

When other students at the same high school were caught allegedly sending nude and semi-nude photos on their cell phones last year, Skumanick gave them a similar choice: taking re-education classes or facing charges.

"An adult would go to prison for this," Skumanick told CNN when discussing those incidents in 2009. "If you take the photo, you've committed a crime. If you send the photo, you've committed a different crime, but essentially the same crime."

The lawsuit says N.N.'s photos were never printed, distributed or uploaded on the Internet and were intended to be seen only by the student and possibly by her long-time boyfriend.

The lawsuit lists the Tunkhannock Area High School, Ellsworth, Skumanick, the teacher who confiscated the cell phone, a police detective, Wyoming County and several others as defendants.

In the lawsuit, N.N. says she wants damages, reimbursement for the re-education course she was required to take and the deletion of any stored copies of the photographs.

"We are aware of the lawsuit, and we do have an unofficial copy, but we haven't received any formal documentation. We have been in contact with our solicitor, who will be handling the matter, and as such we will have no further public comment at this time," Tunkhannock Area School District Superintendent Michael Healey told CNN.

Solicitor Frank Tunis said officials were reviewing the complaint but declined to comment further.

 

[MotF Bane]

I don't want to see the school (the taxpayers) have to pay a huge amount, but I would like to see the administrators and teacher involved fired.

 

[bamacre]

"We think it is a grave violation of her privacy."

I agree.

 

[Vette73]

Most courts, esp after Bushs appoitments, have cut students privacy rights a ton. If there was a rule that cell phones were not allowed I bet the conserative courts will rule against her.

She does not sound to bright either; If you have things like she did on her phone don;t use it against the rules that will get it taken from you.
I can see her being on COPs in a couple years. Mam we pulled you over doing 90 in a 25 school zone and we see 100pounds of drugs in your back seat in plain sight, yea you are gonna go to jail. Her- But I have RIGHTS!!!

 

[PokerGuy]

There are two different issues at play here. First, if she was a minor at the time, even possession of the pictures (even taking them in the first place, even of herself) would be a crime in most states. Different areas have handled those cases differently as far as prosecution, but it generally is a crime that can be prosecuted.

The other question is, does the school have the right and/or obligation to go through her phone looking for data and pictures? I'd say that unless they have a very solid reason for doing so, they went way beyond the bounds of privacy expectations. My guess is that the school ends up settling this one out of court.

In this modern era of technology, smart devices like iphones etc, it's high time that all the devices that contain potentially private information have default encryption on them. That way if someone finds your phone, you don't have to worry about them having access to everything on it. Similarly, schools/airport TSA/police/whoever could also not just look around and find anything without a warrant or some serious encryption defeating technology.

 

[Vette73]

There are two different issues at play here. First, if she was a minor at the time, even possession of the pictures (even taking them in the first place, even of herself) would be a crime in most states. Different areas have handled those cases differently as far as prosecution, but it generally is a crime that can be prosecuted.

The other question is, does the school have the right and/or obligation to go through her phone looking for data and pictures? I'd say that unless they have a very solid reason for doing so, they went way beyond the bounds of privacy expectations. My guess is that the school ends up settling this one out of court.

In this modern era of technology, smart devices like iphones etc, it's high time that all the devices that contain potentially private information have default encryption on them. That way if someone finds your phone, you don't have to worry about them having access to everything on it. Similarly, schools/airport TSA/police/whoever could also not just look around and find anything without a warrant or some serious encryption defeating technology.

Look at it this way. Conserative courts have let stand when teachers took notebooks from studnets and read comics/stores about hurting others. That studnet was then arrested, stripped searched, jailed, etc... and the courts let that stand. Being that law/courts have not kept up with Tech I don;t see how they will see this search any different then reading a students notebook that was taken with consent of the rules being broken by the students.

Look at what the law has allowed and most coming from Conserative judges. being that we had a republican in the WH the last 8 years putting the same type of judges in power I doubt the courts will change much on it.

I don;t agree with it, but previous court cases have said other wise.

 

[StageLeft]

Didn't read article but if a phone is seized in school against school rules the administration is on zero ground morally or ethically to search it. I don't care if it's an 18 year old or a 10 year old, none of their fvcking business.

I'm offended at the brashness of some school officials and how they treat kids, like possessions. You are there to teach them history and math, everything @*#( off!

 

[nick1985]

It only took 4 posts to bring up Bush. Nice job P&N, you didn't let me down

 

[Vette73]

Didn't read article but if a phone is seized in school against school rules the administration is on zero ground morally or ethically to search it. I don't care if it's an 18 year old or a 10 year old, none of their fvcking business.

I'm offended at the brashness of some school officials and how they treat kids, like possessions. You are there to teach them history and math, everything @*#( off!

Nope; policy was to take phone if used on school grounds. She did that and it was taken. So that is still in line with school policy.

The search is what the question is about. Remember when student’s notebooks were taken away and read and they were charged with crimes if it had violent images or stories. The questions will be would looking in the phone be in line with protecting the school, like older cases, or would it fall into over the line and it would not protect the school to view.

I think its over the line, but conservative courts have let the schools have open searches. Heck the case of the middle school girl getting stripped searched had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be decided. And even then 1 judge, Clarence Thomas, said it was ok. His exact words… "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment," he wrote. So now with more conservative judges on the bench its not as clear as you or I would think it would be.

 

[PokerGuy]

Marlin, not sure why you're trying to put a conservative / liberal slant on it. You seem obsessed with conservatives.

 

[daishi5]

Nope; policy was to take phone if used on school grounds. She did that and it was taken. So that is still in line with school policy.

The search is what the question is about. Remember when student’s notebooks were taken away and read and they were charged with crimes if it had violent images or stories. The questions will be would looking in the phone be in line with protecting the school, like older cases, or would it fall into over the line and it would not protect the school to view.

I think its over the line, but conservative courts have let the schools have open searches. Heck the case of the middle school girl getting stripped searched had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to be decided. And even then 1 judge, Clarence Thomas, said it was ok. His exact words… "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment," he wrote. So now with more conservative judges on the bench its not as clear as you or I would think it would be.

We created a huge number of rules in our constitution based on the belief that a government with unlimited power will abuse the power and must be resisted. Then we raise our children in a school system where we give the administrators almost unlimited power. I hate it, but schools are almost "right free zones."

 

[StageLeft]

We created a huge number of rules in our constitution based on the belief that a government with unlimited power will abuse the power and must be resisted. Then we raise our children in a school system where we give the administrators almost unlimited power. I hate it, but schools are almost "right free zones."

In many ways they are.

 

[Vette73]

Marlin, not sure why you're trying to put a conservative / liberal slant on it. You seem obsessed with conservatives.

I am basing that off of recent court cases. It has always been conserative judges that allow wide searchs by schools. Even C.Thoams said it was ok for a school to strip search a 13 year old girl.

If you think I am wrong go look up cases and you will see I am stating facts based on court rulings. No more no less.

 

[Vette73]

We created a huge number of rules in our constitution based on the belief that a government with unlimited power will abuse the power and must be resisted. Then we raise our children in a school system where we give the administrators almost unlimited power. I hate it, but schools are almost "right free zones."

Yep I agree 100%. The year after I left my HS they shut down the school newspaper and there was nothing anybody could do.

And like I said above I base what I have said on cases seen by conserative judges. They have alwasy been the ones that give schools these powers. And one of the latest that burns me is C.Thomas thinks its ok to strip search a 13year old girl and so on.

So to me and many here it seems this case is a no brainer, but conserative court cases say she may not win.

 

[Red Dawn]

It only took 4 posts to bring up Bush. Nice job P&N, you didn't let me down

And you have a problem with that?

 

[halik]

pics?

 

[nick1985]

And you have a problem with that?

Not at all. This thread is obviously about Bush and Republicans. Carry on

 

[Jaskalas]

This is a criminal invasion of privacy.

 

[PokerGuy]

Not at all. This thread is obviously about Bush and Republicans. Carry on

But...but....Boooooooooooooosh!

 

[Red Dawn]

Not at all. This thread is obviously about Bush and Republicans. Carry on

So he shouldn't have mentioned Bush Court appointees?

It's only logical Bush would be brought up as the erosion of our rights really got into high gear under his watch. Unfortunately the Liberals, while criticizing it publicly have actually embraced it and the Obama Administration has followed suit.

 

[Bateluer]

Evidently this was not a smartphone type device either, because I would have locked it before I turned it over to the administrator. If it wasn't returned at the end of the day, it'd be remote wiped as soon as I got home.

 

[PokerGuy]

So he shouldn't have mentioned Bush Court appointees?

It's only logical Bush would be brought up as the erosion of our rights really got into high gear under his watch. Unfortunately the Liberals, while criticizing it publicly have actually embraced it and the Obama Administration has followed suit.

What marlin so conveniently ignores is that the liberal judges are just as happy to take a away the rights of students in public schools when it comes to PC issues. Students can't wear shirts that say "pro-life" etc. It's not liberal/conservative, it just depends on the issue which side is for/against allowing it in school.

 

[Vette73]

What marlin so conveniently ignores is that the liberal judges are just as happy to take a away the rights of students in public schools when it comes to PC issues. Students can't wear shirts that say "pro-life" etc. It's not liberal/conservative, it just depends on the issue which side is for/against allowing it in school.

Oh really. This case where the student was told not to wear a pro-life shirt the Judge, Oliver W. Wanger who was put on the bench by Bush, is the one that denied the student summary judgment and let it go to a Jury.

http://www.firstamendmentcoalition.org/2010/07/pro-life-t-shirt-censorship-case-to-go-to-jury/

try try again for you I guess.

 

[dfuze]

School way overstepped their authority. But while they deserve to be punished, the money will just come in the form of higher insurance rates which then get passed down to the taxpayer.

Reminds me of the school who turned on the cam in the laptop to spy on students.

 

[Acanthus]

School way overstepped their authority. But while they deserve to be punished, the money will just come in the form of higher insurance rates which then get passed down to the taxpayer.

Reminds me of the school who turned on the cam in the laptop to spy on students.

This.

Although i would be happy with the teacher and administrators involved in the violation of civil liberties to be fired.

The civil case is negative for all though. Well... i guess not for the student.