School Negligence Via Texting?

[Gravekeeper]

there is still alot of debate in canada on this one. many people believe that texts fall under the Fourth Amendment, myself included. (which is the same as the states word-wise)

Section 8 you mean. We don't have a Fourth Amendment as such. Though the spirit of both is the same ( though the wording isn't really ).

Still, the problem here is two fold:

1) Expection of privacy. You don't have this in school at the same degree as you do at home. At school you're operating within the school rules and regulations, and have a reasonable expection that articles such as notes or your cell phone may be confiscated if you violate said rules and regulations. Upon which point they may obviously be read by a teacher. Hence the school cliche of a teacher reading your note out in class.

It is also quite common for schools to have a policy of contacting the RCMP the moment any illegal activity comes to light. So that should likewise be expected by the student. My school for example had a liason officer. We called him Lurch due to the physical resemblance. He was also pretty cool. Unless you tried to swipe one of the joints he brought in for a narcotics discussion. -.-

Bottom line, he doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in school when willfully violating school rules.



2) Reason to believe that evidence of said violations or wrongdoings would be found on said cellphone. Which would be blatantly evident if said text message was the one on screen when the teacher picked up the phone. A teacher ( or principal or what have you ) is allowed to seize an item if there is suspicion of a crime. ( Aka yes, the principal can take your weed. You can't claim it was an illegal search because he pulled a dimebag out of your jacket after your classmates told him you were lighting one up in the bathroom. ).

This was ruled on by the supreme court in 98 or some such. So yeah, the kid's an idiot and he's kinda boned. ;p

[siead_lietrathua]

2) Reason to believe that evidence of said violations or wrongdoings would be found on said cellphone. Which would be blatantly evident if said text message was the one on screen when the teacher picked up the phone. A teacher ( or principal or what have you ) is allowed to seize an item if there is suspicion of a crime. ( Aka yes, the principal can take your weed. You can't claim it was an illegal search because he pulled a dimebag out of your jacket after your classmates told him you were lighting one up in the bathroom. ).

This was ruled on by the supreme court in 98 or some such. So yeah, the kid's an idiot and he's kinda boned. ;p

but then it just circles back to whether it was on the screen or if the vp had to unlock it. although they didn't seize it initially on a suspicion of crime, they seized it because he was using it in class. slight difference. but without more details everyone can keep bantering the same points for pages.

[Jester]

I just want to remind everyone, the incident actually occurred in Canada, so you can't 100% apply the American legal system to this situation.

I was unaware that the incident occurred in Canada. As I am neither Canadian nor a lawyer, perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how minors are viewed legally in Canada.

And that's a damn shame.

I don't fully agree.

I am not saying children should not have the same expectation of privacy. I am merely saying that children, people under the age of legal adulthood, should not have the same legal rights as adults, for several reasons, the most obvious being that they do not have the experience or mental tools necessary to make adult decisions.

This of course could lead to the debate of "how do you decide where to draw the line?" and people pointing out examples of 16 year olds who are mature and 24 year olds who aren't. I am not blind to this at all. But until a better system is devised, the government has draw the arbitrary borderline at the 18th birthday. Until that day, you are not an adult, and you are not afforded the same rights as an adult.

Yes, there are parts of this that suck. There are parts of every part of life that suck. But it's something that people have to deal with. And if you're under 18, you should be aware of this, so that it doesn't, as GK alluded to, bone you for your idiocy.

Hence the school cliche of a teacher reading your note out in class.

Not completely a cliche, as I not only witnessed it many times in school, but actually experienced it myself. Not just as a kid, mind you, but senior year of high school.

Bottom line, he doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in school when willfully violating school rules.

PRECISELY!

[Gravekeeper]

but then it just circles back to whether it was on the screen or if the vp had to unlock it. although they didn't seize it initially on a suspicion of crime, they seized it because he was using it in class. slight difference. but without more details everyone can keep bantering the same points for pages.

Still, the supreme court has ruled that a student does not have the same expectation to privacy inside of school as they might elsewhere and it all comes down to expectation of privacy. They've also ruled that a teacher can perform a basic search if there is suspicion. From the other articles I've dug up on the Toronto Star and Yahoo, the reason the cell was confiscated is because the kid refused to stop texting when the teacher told him to stop. The VP also knew the other kid that he was texting as a drop out from the school that was into crap. The VP recognized the kids name when he looked at the text. Which is what led to him calling the kid to the office to ask him to begin with.

Still, the school turned it all over to the police once they saw what was up. To quote the school: "Any damages suffered by the student or his grandparents "were due solely to (the student's) own negligence" and his "deliberate actions," said the school division - including violating the school's cellphone policy and communicating with people involved in criminal activity."

Which about sums it up. It was also the police that made him help them find the car, etc. Not the school. The grandparents can't pin that on the school board.

[smileyeagle1021]

Nothing in this world is so important that can't wait 50 minutes.

As a slight off topic, that is bull, there are a LOT of things in this world that can wait 50 minutes. When I know my mother is having surgery, my phone is on (granted on vibrate) and I will be unapologetic when I run out of the classroom to answer it.
That said, I highly doubt there is anything that important being texted

[AdminAssistant]

In a situation like that - a loved one in surgery, a loved one near death, etc. - then you either shouldn't be in class or you can tell the teacher, hey, I've got a situation, I need to keep my phone on.

[Rageaholic]

I don't fully agree.

I am not saying children should not have the same expectation of privacy. I am merely saying that children, people under the age of legal adulthood, should not have the same legal rights as adults, for several reasons, the most obvious being that they do not have the experience or mental tools necessary to make adult decisions.

I agree to an extent that children shouldn't have the same legal rights (like no driving until a certain age), but let's face up, public school administrators can take it too far. If you're a kid, you have to have permission to use the bathroom. THE BATHROOM! Something that should be a basic right for everyone is treated as a privelege.

As for cell phones, I never understood why so many people get up in arms about it. Can they be annoying? Yes. I have stories. But it's not like people can't be assholes without cell phones. Students can find ways to cause a disruption without cell phones. My brothers high school outright banned cell phones on school property period. Call it what you will, but I see that as nothing more than a control freak move.

[Jester]

...public school administrators can take it too far.

No argument there.

If you're a kid, you have to have permission to use the bathroom. THE BATHROOM! Something that should be a basic right for everyone is treated as a privelege.

This I actually understand, especially for younger kids. It is to maintain discipline and avoid chaos in the class, especially if more than one child needs to go. "Yes, Heather, you can use the bathroom, but not until Claudia gets back from going."

This idea was basic even when I was a young kid in school. Should a teacher deny a kid the use of the bathroom when they really needed to, that teacher should and would usually be disciplined for their idiocy. (And yes, such things have happened.) But overall, I get rules like this, especially when you have one adult responsible for maintaining control of a class of 30 or more children.

Students can find ways to cause a disruption without cell phones.

As a former class clown, I excelled at that. And no one had cell phones back then, kids or adults.

Call it what you will, but I see that as nothing more than a control freak move.

Well, I have no doubt that the school administrators saw it as a way to maintain order, what with cell phones becoming so prevalent. Personally I see it as an extreme kneejerk reaction, but I know where that reaction comes from. After all, just what a teacher needs....a portable electronic way for kids to goof off and not pay attention on multiple levels.

[Fire_on_High]

Kids will goof off give any excuse.

That said, humiliation is a good tool for soliciting desired behaviours. Humiliate someone once, and chances are they'll go to considerable lengths to avoid it again. You may not be able to make someone pay attention, but you CAN humiliate them out of having distractions, at which point paying attention becomes the preferable alternative over boredom.

[Nyoibo]

public school administrators can take it too far. If you're a kid, you have to have permission to use the bathroom. THE BATHROOM! Something that should be a basic right for everyone is treated as a privelege.

One of the reasons is because the teachers have a duty of care and must know where all the children in their care are, if kids are just getting up and walking out without notifying the teacher then how are they to know where the kids are, think about it, what would the uproar be like if someone went into a classroom, asked a teacher where a student was and the teachers reply was "Wouldn't have a clue"?

[Gravekeeper]

Call it what you will, but I see that as nothing more than a control freak move.

Cept they're banned from a lot of work places as well for similar reasons ( aka they can be disruptive and distracting ). -.-

Can't have one in my office, gotta keep it in your locker.

[Rageaholic]

Cept they're banned from a lot of work places as well for similar reasons ( aka they can be disruptive and distracting ). -.-

Can't have one in my office, gotta keep it in your locker.

So?

It sounds like a lot of workplaces are run by control freaks too. Doesn't make it any less control freakish.

One of the reasons is because the teachers have a duty of care and must know where all the children in their care are, if kids are just getting up and walking out without notifying the teacher then how are they to know where the kids are, think about it, what would the uproar be like if someone went into a classroom, asked a teacher where a student was and the teachers reply was "Wouldn't have a clue"?

Perhaps for elementary school kids, but by the time you get to middle and high school, is all that control really necessary?

Also, there's a difference between alerting the teacher and having to ask for permission to use the bathroom. Alerting the teacher is just common curtiousy, but with asking permission, they can and will say no.

[insertNameHere]

Actually I bet if the kid had a picture of his gentials the principle could also get hit with possession of child pornography

[Gravekeeper]

So?

It sounds like a lot of workplaces are run by control freaks too. Doesn't make it any less control freakish.

Rules like that are often made as a reaction, not a proaction. IE the problem exists, therefore the rule is created. People were texting instead of doing their damn job. Now they're not allowed to have their cell at their desk. Its not about being a control freak, its about having employees ( or students ) that lack the responsibility to have said cell phone with them. Hence the rule gets created. -.-

Also, in my office, you do need to alert the supervisor and ask permission if you have to run to the washroom or what have you, because we deal with a constant traffic situation. If two or more people wander off at the same time, we're suddenly in deep shit.

[Rageaholic]

I never liked the idea of blanket rules for the sins of a few.