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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: ▀udda▀udd

I think that causes more problems than it solves.


41 posted on 07/08/2006 10:13:54 AM PDT by Scarchin (www.classdismissedblog.com.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Husker24
What if some guy goes into the school and starts shooting, that didnt used to happen either.

Armed teachers or security guards? Oh, wait; the majority of teacher types have been inculcated with the irrational liberal fear of firearms.

42 posted on 07/08/2006 10:14:35 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 35 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Generally speaking, I quite agree. When 'due process' (sic) becomes nothing more or less than some principal's whim, I disagree, and sharply.

The proper Constitutional approach is simply to ban the use of cellphones on campus. Inconvenient to some, no doubt, but why not follow the Constitution instead of engaging in piecemeal and arbitrary abridgement?

Your argument is too close to ''the ends justify the means'' for my tastes, sorry.

43 posted on 07/08/2006 10:18:30 AM PDT by SAJ (r)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment

There is NOTHING "totalitarian" about this!

Using extremist terms like "control every aspect" and "control freak" only demonstrate the weakness of your position.

You seem to illustrate that your approach to "good parenting" means "no parenting".


44 posted on 07/08/2006 10:31:29 AM PDT by G Larry (Only strict constructionists on the Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
''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.

The law says otherwise.

Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a determination of whether the search was justified at its inception and whether, as conducted, it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. Under ordinary circumstances the search of a student by a school official will be justified at its inception where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. And such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction.

If seizing a cellphone by simple diktat is allowable, then name me any personal property that can not be similarly seized.

That is not the standard in play - it is perilously close to a simple strawman argument. You keep going on about property "seizure", when that's not even remotely the issue - the only property being "seized" is that done pursuant to a search. No search = no seizure. Additionally, there must be a "reasonable suspicion" that searches will reveal evidence that the law or the rules of the school are being violated. At no point is the school asserting that cellphones are not the property of the student, nor are they claiming carte blanche to simply steal cellphones. Instead, they reserve the right to search cellphones in accordance with reasonable suspicions that infractions are or have occurred. Simply taking a student's car keys - or his cell phone - for no reason other than that they claim they can does not in and of itself reveal evidence of infractions, and hence it is not permissible, in and of itself. But, since that's not what they're doing, it's not a problem.

In the case of a cellphone, no such precursor action as illicit smoking exists...

That is not for you to determine - the reasonableness of searching am individual student's particular cell phone is based on the totality of the circumstances in that unique situation, per TLO. To make a blanket assertion that such a search is never justified, in addition to being a misunderstanding of the law, is simply silly.

45 posted on 07/08/2006 10:36:04 AM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AntiGovernment
It is an invasion of privacy to seize phones without a good reason.

Not if you are an underaged student over whom the school acts in loco parentis. The school has a very compelling interest in mimimizing disruptions to education; high school students have no legitimate need to talk on the phone during school hours. The students have quite literally no reasonable expectation of privacy to keep their cell phones at school.

46 posted on 07/08/2006 10:42:59 AM PDT by jude24 ("I will oppose the sword if it's not wielded well, because my enemies are men like me.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Federal law actually forbids the possession of any firearm on any school property, private or public, even by a police officer responding to a school shooting. That absolutely prohibits armed teachers or security guards. School officials also cannot cause any physical harm to any student, even if armed, dangerous, and on a rampage.

School rules prohibiting wireless communication devices, however, do not apply to security guards, administrators, educrats, and certain authorized teachers with specialized security training. Anyone else found in possession of any such device automatically is considered a drug dealer and punished as such. Or so it was when I was in school. With cellular-telephone mania nowadays, things might have changed in the past decade.


47 posted on 07/08/2006 10:51:26 AM PDT by dufekin (The New York Times: an enemy espionage agency with a newsletter of enemy propaganda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dufekin
Federal law actually forbids the possession of any firearm on any school property, private or public, even by a police officer responding to a school shooting. That absolutely prohibits armed teachers or security guards. School officials also cannot cause any physical harm to any student, even if armed, dangerous, and on a rampage.

Uh, no - this is totally incorrect, in just about every aspect. Law enforcement officers acting in an official capacity are exempt from the Guns in Schools act. So are individuals whose contract with the school or school district permits them to carry guns on school property - this is usually taken to mean private security guards, but it could also mean teachers if the school so desired it. Finally, teachers and school officials do not abandon their right to self-defense merely by entering into the building in the morning - teachers and other school officials have the right to defend themselves against harm from a student, including the use of deadly force if so warranted, just liek any other citizen.

48 posted on 07/08/2006 11:30:12 AM PDT by Senator Bedfellow (If you're not sure, it was probably sarcasm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

My kids both take cellphones to school. Per district policy, they are turned off during school hours. The district actually just started allowing this last year. There are so many kids in afterschool programs and sports, that they need a way to contact their parents outside of school hours. It seems to work here.


49 posted on 07/08/2006 11:33:59 AM PDT by Raebie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org
The rule complies with federal law, which says a school can conduct searches when there is "reasonable suspicion" that a student has contraband.

Huh? A search justified by a suspicion of contraband could obviously only apply to locations where such contraband might be found, like a locker or backpack, and would not include the memory of a cell phone.

50 posted on 07/08/2006 12:48:26 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org
I've been teaching in a college for nine years, and have never had a problem with cell phones. At the start of the semester, I ask my students to behave responsibly. I also ask them to only take phone calls from their wives, husbands, or the day care where their children are located, and to ask these people to only call them during class hours in the event of a significant situation affecting a family member.

I have no need or desire to be big brother, the thought police, or the keeper of my student's cell phones.

51 posted on 07/08/2006 1:00:47 PM PDT by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: apillar

Educrats hate to be defeated by such primitive technology. Their only course of action at that point would be to force the student to reveal the code under threat of explusion or the like.


52 posted on 07/08/2006 1:21:33 PM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Unfortunately, there are too many of us who need those same phones to keep inouch with our children, as I do with my son.

If an after school activity requires he stay later or if that same event ends early, then he needs to get in touch with me, as his source of transportation. Since the school no longer has a pay telephone, it's either a cell phone or have him wait a couple of hours.

Taking the cell phone away from the students is the same thing as government regulation. Instead, I have tried to teach him that the cell phone is for emergency purposes only. It is a pay-as-you-go phone. He is to keep the phone off during school hours. If not, then he loses the phone and the after school activities. This happened once and has not been repeated again.

53 posted on 07/08/2006 2:25:31 PM PDT by Military family member (GO Colts!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Starwolf
Unfortunately, there are too many of us who need those same phones to keep inouch with our children, as I do with my son. This is crap. Parents managed to get those critical messages to their kids in schools long before cellphones came along.
54 posted on 07/09/2006 7:41:29 AM PDT by www.saveourguns.org (www.freecitizen.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: www.saveourguns.org

Think you posted this response to the wrong person.

That said, there was a time when school cared about thier students, and critical and even less critical messages got passed betweeen students and parents as needed. That time is long past.


55 posted on 07/09/2006 2:41:32 PM PDT by Starwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


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