Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Students cry foul over cell phone policy
Metro West Daily News ^ | 2006-07-08 | Eric Athas

Posted on 07/08/2006 9:00:35 AM PDT by www.saveourguns.org

FRAMINGHAM -- Fearing their wireless freedom may be in jeopardy, students at Framingham High School were fuming over a new school policy that allows administrators to seize cell phones and search their contents.

The policy, administrators say, is to improve security and stop the sale of drugs and stolen goods, but students said that the edict is an invasion of privacy.

"It's not anyone's business what is in students' cell phones," said Demitriy Kozlov, who will be a senior in September. "If they think someone's dealing a pound of coke or pot, then there is a reason to, but that doesn't happen here."

(Excerpt) Read more at metrowestdailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism
KEYWORDS: cellphones; discipline; privacy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last
To: Concho

Folks, this site is about freedom. If a parent wants their kid to have a cell phone a school that should be up to the parent.

Cell phones should be off during class? Absolutely. Who is arguing students should be able to use their cell phones during class? Between classes, at lunch, before and after school they should be able to call their friends, family, work, whatever.

Cell phones used to cheat on tests? Give me a break. If a teacher can't notice someone text messaging during a test they need a brain scan to see if they are alive.

Checking in and out 1,600 cell phones each day before and after school? Does this really need a comment?


21 posted on 07/08/2006 9:44:54 AM PDT by BigBobber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: digger48
Minors have no "Right to Privacy" Not from a parents point of view.

You're kidding, right? What kind of parent would deny his kid a right to privacy?
22 posted on 07/08/2006 9:46:05 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

Simple solution: students did just fine for hundreds of years without cell phones. They can survive without them now. No pagers or cell phone permitted, end of discussion.


23 posted on 07/08/2006 9:47:59 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org
"It's not anyone's business what is in students' cell phones," said Demitriy Kozlov, who will be a senior in September. "If they think someone's dealing a pound of coke or pot, then there is a reason to, but that doesn't happen here."

Now that we've heard from the local dealer, it might be time to remind him...

When in school, you can't claim rights incompatible with the primary function of the institution.

Deal on your own time, off school premises.

24 posted on 07/08/2006 9:48:51 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org
I taught there for 5 years. Great school.

They're never gong to be able to enforce this. It's a huge school.

They'll spend a disproportionate amount of time on this that could be spent on more pressing issues.

I've noticed in my career that simple-minded teachers and administrators like rules like this because they're very black and white and give them an opportunity to flex muscle over kids who aren't otherwise causing problems.

25 posted on 07/08/2006 9:49:01 AM PDT by Scarchin (www.classdismissedblog.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

They did fine without cars too. The genie's out of the bottle.


26 posted on 07/08/2006 9:49:53 AM PDT by Scarchin (www.classdismissedblog.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Cuban

What part of the constitution defines cell phones, and games as "rights" in schools? In church? In restaurants? in my living room?


27 posted on 07/08/2006 9:50:28 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
I should think that virtually any court would rule instantly that ''due process'' consists of rather more than some a&&wipe principal's diktat.

Managing brats produced by dysfunctional parents these days needs large doses of locally administered "due process"...

All responsible parents agree.
Deal with it.

28 posted on 07/08/2006 9:52:42 AM PDT by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
What kind of parent would deny his kid a right to privacy?

The best kind, one who truly cares what his kids are up to. It's hard to give guidance if you don't know when a correction is needed.

Good behavior should be as enthusiastically praised as wrong behavior is condemned.

29 posted on 07/08/2006 9:53:21 AM PDT by JimRed ("Hey, hey, Teddy K., how many girls did you drown today?" (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help m)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Military family member

freep mail to ya!


30 posted on 07/08/2006 9:54:16 AM PDT by SoftballMominVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
What kind of parent would deny his kid a right to privacy?

One who won't allow hiding things. If the parent is the one who is morally and legally responsible for his charge, then they have every reason to to expect total access.

31 posted on 07/08/2006 9:56:55 AM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

Like it or not, even pagers have been banned from schools. By and large policy is to keep them in the office until they are claimed. Don't think they can be "searched" without a warrant.


32 posted on 07/08/2006 9:57:29 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie
Courts have consistently held that students on school property have a lowered expectation of privacy.

Don't the rulings apply to school supplied lockers?

I would expect a cell phone to be treated as a personal diary, not to be searched with out a warrant.

Best thing to do is use phones that can hold the data under some secure form of encryption.

33 posted on 07/08/2006 9:59:06 AM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Military family member
Locker searches are legal as the lockers are the property of the school, not the student. Or at least that was how it was explained to me

My daughter brings a cell to school every day--for the same reason your son does. She has told me repeatedly tho that she seems them abused constantly by other students. Kids take pictures of tests to forward to others, send out answers via text mail and even turn them on when a teacher is going over answers so that someone not there can hear it. She is a good student and has been asked repeatedly to participate and always tells others to learn to study and be honest.

34 posted on 07/08/2006 9:59:26 AM PDT by SoftballMominVA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

What if some guy goes into the school and starts shooting, that didnt used to happen either.


35 posted on 07/08/2006 10:01:14 AM PDT by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Jakarta ex-pat
schools used to be all about education

Mandatory attendance laws were passed during the Great Depression, to keep younger workers out of the job market. This is the purpose of the schools.

Make attendance voluntary and they may get back to education.

36 posted on 07/08/2006 10:02:51 AM PDT by Mark was here (How can they be called "Homeless" if their home is a field?.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

Schools should legally be allowed to jam the cellphone signals on their property. imho


37 posted on 07/08/2006 10:03:10 AM PDT by ▀udda▀udd (7 days - 7 ways Guero ╗ with a floating, shifting, ever changing persona....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

"What kind of parent would deny his kid a right to privacy?"

Uh...the kind of parent that still thinks parenting is more important than being the kid's friend!


38 posted on 07/08/2006 10:04:53 AM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: G Larry
Uh...the kind of parent that still thinks parenting is more important than being the kid's friend!

Totalitarian parenting is not the same thing as good parenting. Why would a parent want to control every aspect of a kid's life like a control freak?
39 posted on 07/08/2006 10:06:39 AM PDT by AntiGovernment (A government that is big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take it all away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
''Reasonable suspicion'', eh? A priori, person X can have no possible 'reasonable' view of what might or might not be on person Y's cellphone. An unlicensed fishing expedition, no more, no less. However, mere searching presents no problem, afaic. Just keep the contents properly encrypted and Bob's your uncle.

The physical seizure is a huge problem. If seizing a cellphone by simple diktat is allowable, then name me any personal property that can not be similarly seized. Money? Sure, why not -- might be drug profits, after all. Car keys? Sure, why not -- might have drugs or (gasp!) guns stashed somewhere within the vehicle.

New Jersey v. TLO is/was a different kettle of fish entirely, and a poor citation for your argument against a student's property rights. When a person is seen smoking, and smoking is prohibited by rule in a given area, it is completely reasonable to postulate that said person has more cigarettes either on his person or otherwise readily available, as for instance in a purse. In any case, the purse was searched, not seized except during the search; only the then-discovered contraband was seized.

In the case of a cellphone, no such precursor action as illicit smoking exists, and there are therefore no grounds whatever for any seizure of any duration.

40 posted on 07/08/2006 10:07:33 AM PDT by SAJ (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson