Phone Patrol School

These companies have found a niche market. The need for cell phones should have been something our forefathers forecasted. The ability to stay connected should have been noted as an inalienable right. But instead of being allowed the same rights as those with higher socioeconomic status, kids attending “scan schools” have to pay a fee that they may or may not be able to afford for (Prose 30). While some may argue that the need for storage of cell phones and the service provided by these private companies has all the making of capitalism, the reality is that these companies have been taking advantage of a situation. Cell phones have become more than luxury item and for many a basic necessity for life. Prose notes that in more affluent areas bans against cell phones exist but as long as students “aren’t caught” authorities at these institutions of learning have been known to turn a blind eye. The private companies supply a service to meet a demand to a tune of $4.2 million a year (Prose 31). Prose writes, “Most of this from poor kids, and in a city that is slashing its school budget,” (31). When one sees such statements, how can he or she not think of these companies as predatory instead of just business savvy? According to Prose, the disallowance of cell phones in schools does not keep the violence from happening because if a will to bring weapons into the school exists then it will happen

Many years ago, the United States Constitution was created as a guideline for the newly formed government to run this country as well as secure protection rights of all citizens. Since then, there have been many incidents that question the violation of citizens’ rights under the Constitution, such as the violation of the fourth amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures especially in the school system and on college campuses. The fourth amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (O’Brien, 2014). As this pertains to those citizens who are students, whether it be in the primary, secondary, or post-secondary setting, the question that unveils itself is whether or not students are entitled to their constitutional rights, in this case, the fourth amendment’s rights, while in the school environment.

Students have rights just like everyone else, even if they are in a school environment. It can be humiliating and dangerous to a student's well-being to have their property searched and violated. Some students are even willing to sue if they feel they were unjustly searched. Dear faculty of high schools across America I implore you to think before you decide to search through and violate a student's cell phone; I believe that this practice is harming students.

According to Akash Bagaria, “If the device is not school-owned and is not being used on school campus, schools should not monitor a student’s online activity. If an issue arises, the student’s parents could manage it.” However, it is still important that school officials and police officers need to check people’s phones because their job is to keep people safe. According to California resident Chris Eddy, “The police now have better means to find out if you’re guilty.” Posting good things online can keep you out of

When is a search and seizure reasonable? John Vile clearly explains the origination of the Fourth Amendment and why it was created at the time of the creation of the Constitution, ¨Like the amendment that precedes it, the Fourth Amendment was largely motivated by abuses of the British when they ruled America. They had used general warrants, or so-called writs of assistance, in tracking down customs violations in the colonies. A number of states subsequently adopted provisions against such warrants, and ratifying conventions in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina all proposed amendments dealing with the subject¨(Vile). At first, the forefathers of our country created the Fourth Amendment so that the British could not infringe on the colonists privacy. The thought of privacy within schools was not even something that was of concern at the time of the creation of the Constitution. As time has gone on, our country has made advancements that our founding fathers could never have foreseen, and has left our current government to interpret the Fourth Amendment themselves. The Fourth Amendment is detrimental when it comes to someone’s privacy, especially in a school environment. It is valuable to students and teachers alike, without it teachers and staff members would be able to search a student’s belongings without a reason or warrant. The Fourth Amendment is definitely viable in the school environment because it places regulations on what the staff in the schools can do without

It cannot be disputed that schools often have to place the privacy of one student, below the overall need to secure the safety of a student body as a whole. If students know that their belongings can be searched, it will discourage them from committing illegal activities at school.

The Fourth Amendment defends people from being neglected by an authoritative and controlling government. Conflicting to popular belief, the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Over the years, the courts have translated the Fourth Amendment, along with other Amendments such as the ninth, to protect privacy in many situations. In question, is there a limitation for those rights to be exercised at school? Is a student protected from unreasonable searches and seizures at school? New Jersey v. T.L.O., (1985), a case where a 14-year old girl female student caught smoking in the bathroom at school was searched at school, and the evidence collected was used by the state in her delinquency trial in juvenile court.

I believe that the government has good reasoning to want to go through our phone conversations and e-mails, but that doesn’t make it right. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and sets out requirements for search warrants based on probable cause as determined by a neutral judge or magistrate. This means that they can’t just go against the United States Bill of Rights and dig through people’s electronic devices. Part of the first amendment states you have the freedom of speech. If you have freedom of speech and the government is watching and listening to your conversations and you accidentally say something that sounds like terrorism but you happen to be joking, they can arrest you because they are suspicious. Both

When the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court they ruled in a 6-3 margin in favor of the State of New Jersey. They agreed that the student’s 4th Amendment had not been violated and the search of personal possessions can apply to school officials, as long as the search is reasonable.

This Amicus Brief is on behalf of the Bristol School District. Suzie and her boyfriend Cyrus are both students at a high school in Bristol, Virginia. Suzie sent inappropriate photos of herself to her boyfriend, Cyrus, but shortly after that their relationship soured. Cyrus forwarded some of the photos to upperclassmen in the school. Suzie and her parents were upset with Cyrus and demanded the principal take action. The principal confronted Cyrus, but he denied the allegations. Principal Sheevers told the school security guard to frisk Cyrus for his phone, but the security guard was not able to find Cyrus’s phone. Principal Sheevers proceeded to Cyrus’s locker and opened it and found his cell phone. Principal Sheevers found the photos on Cyrus’s phone and suspended him for two weeks. Cyrus sued the school for accusing the school of violating his fourth amendment. The search of Cyrus’s cell phone by the school principal was not a violation of his

Until now, many people argued that searching of historical cell phone records affects people’s privacy, but some other argue that the fourth amendment gives extreme protection for people’s privacy and it puts the country’s safety at risk. In general, it’s obvious that the fourth amendment gives extreme privacy to people since searching for the call history of a person to find just the location and time of call of a person without getting deep into its contents doesn’t touch the privacy of a person but at the same time gives an important information for

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

Many children have found themselves to be victims of cell phone abuse. Students often use cell phones to spread rumors and misinformation. This misinformation can be difficult for the victim to digest and can be quite stressful for a young child to comprehend. This act of misinformation has resulted in the death of several children after their private information and unsubstantiated information had been spread with the use of cell phones. State and local officials have begun to develop laws that establish strong consequences for the spread of personal information. These consequences include fines, jail time and possible sex offender status.

It is not the Principal's responsibility to go through the kids phone. In addition, If a kid is talking bad about some other kid on the internet and it is not at school the principal should not go through the kids phone because it was off school property. Schools do not have the right to monitor what students do online outside of school. I think that if something happens off school property that the principle should not be able to go look through the kids phone. The kids parent is responsible for the kid off school property. Furthermore, Police officers should have a warrant before they go through

Picture this, there has been a school lockdown, the suspect cut the landlines so no one could call the police for a rescue. However, the suspect was captured by the police much faster than he imagined. The last scene wouldn’t have happened if it was one decade ago, because cell phones were not popular in schools then. When it comes to cell phones, some people think they should not be permitted in schools, and other people think they should be permitted in schools. I agree with the latter opinion for the following reasons: Cell phones are an efficient way to communicate when emergencies occur in school; cell phones can be a great tool for learning during school hours; and the current prohibitive rules on cell phones are merely fruitless