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

[piasabird]

It does not matter if the student is a minor or not. FCC regulations should safeguard phone info from being searched unless there is a search warrant. I dont think schools should allow a cell phone in any classroom, because the student could use a cell phone to cheat on a test. This is besides the fact that cell phones are disruptive.

 

[PokerGuy]

try try again for you I guess.

Dufus, you're talking about one case, there are a multitude of similar cases all over the country. Occasionally some of them bubble up to the higher courts where they get noticed, but there's probably hundreds if not thousands of them. You of course are an expert and know that all of them are ruled on according to whether the judge is conservative or not.

 

[Vette73]

Dufus, you're talking about one case, there are a multitude of similar cases all over the country. Occasionally some of them bubble up to the higher courts where they get noticed, but there's probably hundreds if not thousands of them. You of course are an expert and know that all of them are ruled on according to whether the judge is conservative or not.

Then show me the case/s you are talking about. All the ones I find seem to be the conservative judges are the ones blocking it, not liberal as you implied.

I backed up my statements, you have not.

 

[khon]

Sounds like a clear violation of her 4th amendment rights. I don't even see what defense the school could offer. They might be entitled to confiscate her phone, but they had no legitimate reason to search through it, let alone punish her for what they found.

Personally I hope everyone involved gets fired, and she gets a decent settlement for what they put her through.

 

[Jaskalas]

It does not matter if the student is a minor or not. FCC regulations should safeguard phone info from being searched unless there is a search warrant. I dont think schools should allow a cell phone in any classroom, because the student could use a cell phone to cheat on a test. This is besides the fact that cell phones are disruptive.

Regardless of a phone's use in a school, the right of a person to carry one to and from school will become paramount to personal safety in the next decade.

Who is going to assault, rape, or murder another person, if all that victim has to do is press a button to instantly upload video or pictures of the criminal to the internet?

If we are always connected, a permanent record can be uploaded at any time. We can be secure knowing that the public will know of any crime committed against us.

Dark alleyways will be a thing of the past, all you need is your phone in hand. Ergo, Students need to be allowed to carry for their safety.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

an adult taking pictures of him/herself would not go to prison.

 

[DrPizza]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. The school has the right to confiscate the cell phone. And, I truly believe that if it was confiscated because it was being used, the school has the right to see what the recent activity was on the cell phone. I don't think they should be able to dig any deeper than that.

However, school administrators have the right to search through a book bag if there's suspicion that a student is breaking a school rule. I wonder if the courts will actually extend that to electronic searches in a cell phone? Clearly, the student was breaking a school rule, thus one part of this argument has already been satisfied.

The schools I'm familiar with don't operate in vacuums. They're very aware of current case law. We receive dozens of cases for the teachers to read over to help us see where the courts currently stand on issues. I believe lawyers were involved when our district crafted its code of conduct. One of the biggest cases lately was in NYC when they had a complete ban on cell phones in the school. The district lost the lawsuit, but within the opinions in that lawsuit was enough information for districts to revise or strengthen their own rules. For instance, in ours, if your cell phone is taken, your PARENT must pick it up at the end of the school day, not you. That's because the parent is told in person that if the student is using the cell phone again during class, it will be confiscated until the end of the school year. Some of you are reading this thinking "they can't do that." Oh yes they can & seem to be on very solid legal ground to do so. The reason the parent has to come in to pick up the phone is part of due process.

 

[DrPizza]

Regardless of a phone's use in a school, the right of a person to carry one to and from school will become paramount to personal safety in the next decade.

The right to carry one to and from school has already been decided in the courts, well, at least in New York State, but I think most anyone else will realize that the reasons for that decision will apply to their states as well. Thus, a school cannot ban cell phones completely. They *can* require that cell phones are kept in a locker, turned off, throughout the school day.

Re - my post above,

Here is my question: our school has a policy on cell phone use. Cell phones are allowed in school, but they must be turned off. If you are caught texting during school hours the first time, it will be confiscated and you can get it back at the end of the day; the second time, if your parent picks it up; the third time, you get it back at the end of the year.
My question is: according to the 5th amendment, a person cannot be deprived of their property “without the due process of law”. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, and therefore must be above the school rules.
Since the school rule, by taking the cell phone for the remainder of the school year, is violating the due process of law, it therefore must mean that the school rule is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.
Is this argument valid? What would you say to it?
Dear Jamie: “Due process” means the right to notice in advance and the right to be heard. In this case the school has already put you on notice by including in the code of conduct the rules regarding cell phones at school. You know the consequences if the rule is violated. The policy also advises you of the process to follow if you disagree with the action taken by the school – such as requesting a meeting with the principal, school board or School District representative. This is your right to be heard. Consequently, “due process” has been followed. All the best.

So yes, kiddies, they can keep your cell phone for the rest of the school year. It'll be nice when more districts realize this. Take half a dozen phones for the rest of the year, don't back down to livid parents, and the problem tends to go away.

 

[PokerGuy]

I backed up my statements, you have not.

You have not backed up anything. You've listed one particular case where the judge sent the case to trial by jury (in other words, he didn't even rule on it one way or the other), and you've further assumed that the judge must be conservative simply because he was appointed by Bush. Total Fail.

You need go no further than this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2093482 for an example of a liberal judge (appointed by Clinton) ruling against student freedoms.

 

[Vette73]

You have not backed up anything. You've listed one particular case where the judge sent the case to trial by jury (in other words, he didn't even rule on it one way or the other), and you've further assumed that the judge must be conservative simply because he was appointed by Bush. Total Fail.

You need go no further than this thread: http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2093482 for an example of a liberal judge (appointed by Clinton) ruling against student freedoms.

I guess you missed this part...

"denied the student summary judgment and let it go to a Jury". he could have ended it but denied the request.
I also pointed out that C.Thomas a self described conserative said stripping a 13 year old at school was fine.

Oh and I see you think I would miss your example is that of a university student, not a public school which is required by states to go to. A university is not mandated and you are not forced to go to a single one. And she did not do the work required. If I don't do my job I get fired. Not sure why you think she should be able to decide what she does and does not but should still get degree for it. :awe:
But yea other then that you are right.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. The school has the right to confiscate the cell phone. And, I truly believe that if it was confiscated because it was being used, the school has the right to see what the recent activity was on the cell phone. I don't think they should be able to dig any deeper than that.

Why the hell is it any of their business?

 

[khon]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. The school has the right to confiscate the cell phone. And, I truly believe that if it was confiscated because it was being used, the school has the right to see what the recent activity was on the cell phone.

Two question:

#1. What is the purpose of seeing the recent activity ?
I ask because the school clearly prohibited use in general, not specific types of use, thus searching it for recent activity serves no purpose.

#2. What gives them the authority to search through the phone ?
The 4th amendment is pretty clear on this:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

This was an unreasonable search of her personal effects, which is plainly prohibited.

 

[hal2kilo]

In many ways they are.

Locos parentis sound familiar?

 

[nobodyknows]

I'm somewhere in the middle on this. The school has the right to confiscate the cell phone. And, I truly believe that if it was confiscated because it was being used, the school has the right to see what the recent activity was on the cell phone. I don't think they should be able to dig any deeper than that.

However, school administrators have the right to search through a book bag if there's suspicion that a student is breaking a school rule. I wonder if the courts will actually extend that to electronic searches in a cell phone? Clearly, the student was breaking a school rule, thus one part of this argument has already been satisfied.

The schools I'm familiar with don't operate in vacuums. They're very aware of current case law. We receive dozens of cases for the teachers to read over to help us see where the courts currently stand on issues. I believe lawyers were involved when our district crafted its code of conduct. One of the biggest cases lately was in NYC when they had a complete ban on cell phones in the school. The district lost the lawsuit, but within the opinions in that lawsuit was enough information for districts to revise or strengthen their own rules. For instance, in ours, if your cell phone is taken, your PARENT must pick it up at the end of the school day, not you. That's because the parent is told in person that if the student is using the cell phone again during class, it will be confiscated until the end of the school year. Some of you are reading this thinking "they can't do that." Oh yes they can & seem to be on very solid legal ground to do so. The reason the parent has to come in to pick up the phone is part of due process.

I agree. The kids are there to study and to learn, not to talk on phones or send nude pictures back and forth. How could people expect teachers to do there job in such an enviroment??

 

[woolfe9999]

I agree. The kids are there to study and to learn, not to talk on phones or send nude pictures back and forth. How could people expect teachers to do there job in such an enviroment??

What difference does it make what they are doing on their phones? If they are using phones for any purpose during class, they are being disruptive, and the phone should be confiscated. But why should the school be searching the contents of the phone? Does it matter if the student was sending nude pictures, clothed pictures, or texting?

- wolf

 

[tk149]

an adult taking pictures of him/herself would not go to prison.

I think he meant that if an adult posessed nude pictures of an underaged girl...

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Taking naked pictures of yourself being illegal for your own personal use/reasons/whatever because you are a minor is such bullshit. That is none of the government's business. I don't see how such laws can exist. Someone should organize a mass, nationwide "take a naked picture of yourself day" as protest. Even if people just pretend to do it, it gets the message across.

And I agree, what is described in the article is a severe violation of the student's privacy. The school has no business looking through the phone.

 

[MotF Bane]

Taking naked pictures of yourself being illegal for your own personal use/reasons/whatever because you are a minor is such bullshit. That is none of the government's business. I don't see how such laws can exist.

And I agree, what is described in the article is a severe violation of the student's privacy. The school has no business looking through the phone.

Charge all of them with possession and looking at child pornography!

 

[Dekasa]

Firstly, I see the confiscation as being completely legal/warranted.

Secondly, if schools can look through a locker or bookbag when they have suspicion, I see no reason they can't look through a cell phone's data. Considering a big reason cell phone usage isn't allowed in class is because they can take pictures of a test and send it off, looking through recent pictures makes sense. They can see if pics were taken and who they were sent to. If they found what's technically "child pornography" they're ethically required to report it to the police.

While it sucks to be the student, everyone <18 should know that currently it is illegal to take or have naked pictures of yourself, your boyfriend/girlfriend, or anyone else under 18.

Oh, and follow school rules.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

an adult taking pictures of him/herself would not go to prison.

I'm not sure I quite understand this underage naked photo thing. I've seen naked photos of children in textbooks, photographs taken for artistic reasons, photographs parents take, and paintings. WTF is the big deal? As long as there is nothing sexual about the images or evidence that the subject was harmed in any way.

 

[woolfe9999]

Firstly, I see the confiscation as being completely legal/warranted.

Secondly, if schools can look through a locker or bookbag when they have suspicion, I see no reason they can't look through a cell phone's data. Considering a big reason cell phone usage isn't allowed in class is because they can take pictures of a test and send it off, looking through recent pictures makes sense. They can see if pics were taken and who they were sent to. If they found what's technically "child pornography" they're ethically required to report it to the police.

While it sucks to be the student, everyone <18 should know that currently it is illegal to take or have naked pictures of yourself, your boyfriend/girlfriend, or anyone else under 18.

Oh, and follow school rules.

Lockers are school property on loan to the students. Different set of rules.

Book bags can be searched, *when* there is some suspicion. Presumably, so too can phones, *when* there is suspicion. Sure, a student can take a picture of a test, but that isn't why this student's phone was confiscated. There was no suspicion of anything so far as we know. The question is, if a student's phone gets confiscated because they are using it when they shouldn't be, but there is no suspicion of anything else in particular, can the school search the contents of the phone? I think there has to be some degree of privacy afforded to students of public schools, even if limited, and accordingly, the answer in this case should be no.

- wolf

 

[JSt0rm]

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

And it only took 8 posts to have you show up and defend bush. Remember I looked back at your postage history in P&N and 90% was defending bush and his policies. :\

 

[nick1985]

And it only took 8 posts to have you show up and defend bush. Remember I looked back at your postage history in P&N and 90&#37; was defending bush and his policies. :\

Where did I defend Bush in post #8? I just said its amusing that 4 posts into a thread about a girl suing a high school over naked pictures, Bush was brought up. No defense of Bush was present.

Remember, I looked at your posting history and discovered you are a damn fool.

 

[OutHouse]

I think the police/DA/courts are confused of what constitutes child porn. Sally Mann is a perfect example. why hasnt she been charged with kiddy porn? because its not kiddy porn. Even the FBI says her pictures of her naked kids are not kiddy porn and is why they didnt go after her.

the pics this woman took of herself was NOT PORN!

STEVEN CANTOR - I still wonder if maybe you somehow managed to slip under the radar or something. We have never really discussed it, but why do you think there was ultimately so little fanfare around your exhibition and subsequent book of those pictures?

What separated you from Jock Sturges at the time? The fact that you were the kids' mother?

SALLY MANN - I don’t think I slipped under the radar, I know I was very much in the radar but they chose not to come after me. One of the first things I did when I heard about Jock’s situation was to make an appointment with the head of the FBI agency that had conducted that raid. I went up to Quantico with Larry and the kids and we met with him, showed him the prints and asked him point blank if they were going to come after me. He said he was familiar with the work, it had been brought to his attention and, no, they were not going to do anything to me. He made some comment similar to Justice Potter Stewart’s to the effect that he knew child pornography and this was not it.

 

[OutHouse]

I'm not sure I quite understand this underage naked photo thing. I've seen naked photos of children in textbooks, photographs taken for artistic reasons, photographs parents take, and paintings. WTF is the big deal? As long as there is nothing sexual about the images or evidence that the subject was harmed in any way.

exactly. the Denver art museum has paintings 300 years old that have naked kids in them. i really dont understand how the DA could charge her with child porn.