Moreno V. Hanford Sentinel, Inc.

Decent Essays
Scrava school of health,sciences and engineering is a public school who has been dealing with the problem of an increasing amount marijuana use. Principal lyons in order to less this problem, enforced a number of new preventive solutions such as regular usage of drug dogs. Although these methods worked, it also made students more sneaky about the usage and distribution of marijuana on school property. For example a group of kids made an exclusive facebook account where they could discuss drug deals. After awhile the school received a tip from an anonymous person about the facebook account and Cruman a junior who attended Scrava. The school was informed Cruman was planning a drug deal later that day. Cruman was brought into the principal office…show more content…
After receiving the anonymous tip Principle Lyon pulled Cruman into his office and pressured him to sign in to his facebook account for two and a half hours. This course of action took by the principle is unlawful and therefore the evidence obtained should not be used in court. In the case Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel Inc. Moreno had posted her personal views on her private social media account. Hanford reposted Moreno’s views and this lead to threats to Moreno. When this happened Moreno sued Hanford because when Hanford reposted such things it violated Morenos privacy. Crumans facebook account was a very private and exclusive account and when principle Lyon Pressured Cruman for two and half an hours to sign in was a serious violation. In the Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel Inc. case they said in order to prove a violation of privacy on social media you must establish 1. A legally protected…show more content…
In Klump v. Nazareth Area School District where the school district was found guilty for unreasonable searches and seizures because they had not seen any drug related texts before searching a student's phone. When the principal pulled Cruman into his office he had no proof or reason to suspect drug exchange except an anonymous tip which wasn't a credible source. Therefore just like in Klump v. Nazareth Area School District they had no proof or strong reasoning to search the belonging of the students. In Mapp v. Ohio the police searched Mapps house and found illegal objects. Yet they couldn't use any of the objects obtained because they were illegally obtained by violating her fourth amendment. This relates to Cruman because the principle had no search warrant of any sorts to search the facebook account. Therefore if the principle had no other reason to go through Cruman’s facebook then the information obtained was obtained illegally and cannot be used in court. The school had no search warrant to search Crumans private facebook and they also had no proof or knowledge of the facebook existed except an anonymous tip which had little
Get Access