N.N., Plaintiff, v. TUNKHANNOCK AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-1080.

Is searching a students cell phone

an invasion of privacy?

Important Facts:

• High school senior girl breaks school rule by making a call in school from her cell phone

•Teacher confiscates phone while it is ringing

•School handbook has a cell phone policy and consequences listed

•School officials examine contents of phone

Facts Continued….• There are inappropriate ”explicit” contents

stored on phone

• Principal brings student to office with school nurse to discuss and doesn’t return phone

• Student expresses outrage and gets a 3 day suspension (she serves suspension)

• Phone was turned over to the police

• A detective told the student that she should have waited until she turned 18 and she could have sent them to Playboy

District attorney

• DA takes matter very serious and wrote the child a letter stating that she must attend a re-education course on sexual violence and victimization or face charges for child pornography

The Arguments (defendant):

The student broke the school rule and attempted to place a call on her phone against school policy (which is stated in the school handbook).

Considered to be child pornography since she was only 17.

The phone contained “explicit” photographs of the student (who is a minor) stored within the phone memory.

The Arguments(plaintiff):

• This was the student’s first offense. Punishment did not fit the crime.

• The contents of her phone were personal and not for other uses.

• Photos were not immediately visible.

• They were not taken in or during school hours.

• They were never printed or put on the internet.

• Photos were not shared with any other student.

Laws:

Violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution:

Unreasonable Search and Seizure by School Defendant

And Illegal Retention of the photographs

Violation of the First Amendment: expressive conduct

Violation of Article I, Section 8: right to be free from Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Invasion of Privacy

Relief asked for:

• A judgment declaring violations of all laws stated previously

• An award for damages for violating the plaintiffs’ rights (against district and county)

• Order to turn over and/or destroy all copies of Photos

• An award for the costs incurred in this litigation

• Other relief as the Court deems just and proper

The Verdict:

• The school district/defendant motion for judgment was denied

• Found in favor of the plaintiff

• Plaintiff awarded $33.000

Implications:

• What right does a person have to search without reasonable cause?

• What is next? Why not search the principals phone or email?

• Is anything really personal or is that just what we hope for? Nothing is private.

• Technology can be a positive and valuable resource. Taking it away can limit growth.

My feelings:

• I am in favor of the plaintiff.

• There was no reason to search the phone contents!

• I agree with the decision.

Resources:

• www.aclu.org/.../aclu-settles-student-cell-phone-search-lawsuit-north...

• www.aclupa.org › Legal › Legal Docket

• ADF Alliance Alert » ZZ: N.N. v. Tunkhannock Area School Districtwww.alliancealert.org/tag/zz-n-n-v-tunkhannock-area-school-district/

The End!