Student Discipline and Related Issues in the Evolving 21 st Century - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Student Discipline and Related Issues in the Evolving 21 st Century Doug Webb General Counsel The School District of Greenville County Fourth Amendment Issues in Education Overview of 4 th Amendment in Schools School Property
Overview of 4th Amendment in Schools School Property Personal Property Technology First Amendment in Schools/Social Media Weapons, Firearms, & Concealed Weapons on
Interaction with Law Enforcement Bonus: Web Accessibility
Don’t be overzealous. Bad consequences – Section 1983, etc. Use law enforcement when necessary and
Respect
When in doubt, school administrators
The requirements for a warrant and probable cause were
“special need” of the state to assure a safe and healthy
School officials need have only reasonable suspicion, a
Reasonable possibility instead of reasonable probability –
Must be able to articulate that suspicion.
In determining reasonable suspicion, a student’s freedom
The need to maintain order/collect contraband The need to discipline The need to ensure a level of safety for all students
Is the search justified at its inception?
Are there reasonable grounds for suspecting
Is the scope of the search reasonable?
Are the search measures reasonably related
South Carolina Law and Greenville County Schools’
S.C. Code of Laws §59-63-1150:“Notwithstanding any other
provision of this article, all searches conducted pursuant to this article must comply fully with the ‘reasonableness standard’ set forth in New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 328 (1985).”
GCS Policy JCAB: “District and school administrators and
purses, book bags, wallets, and satchels, with or without probable cause … All searches must comply fully with the ‘reasonableness standard’ set forth in New Jersey v. T.L.O.”
A well-stated policy that outlines search and seizure
Even though students have an expectation of privacy
The nature of an alternative school presents
This
The Supreme Court found that a strip search
S.C. Code of Laws §59-63-1140 and GCS
Greenville County Schools’Administrative
Use
Individual suspicion is not required.
A school administrator need only satisfy the lesser reasonable
S.C. Code of Laws §59-63-1120:
provision of law, school administrators and officials may conduct reasonable searches on school property of lockers, desks, vehicles, and personal belongings such as purses, bookbags, wallets, and satchels with or without probable cause.”
GCS Rule JCAB: “Because parking on school premises is a privilege,
the school retains authority to conduct routine inspections of the exterior of vehicles parked on school property at any time. In conducting an inspection of the exterior of a vehicle, school officials may observe those things inside vehicles which are in plain view. The interiors of student vehicles … may be searched whenever a school
school rules or federal or State law, as described in the ‘reasonableness standard.’”
GCS Administrative Rule EFE – “Individuals should not have an
1.
Obtain emails sent or received on District email.
2.
Monitor an individual’s use on the District’s systems.
3.
Confiscate and/or search District-owned software or equipment.”
More protection for student device – different
School
School
Should balance a student’s privacy interests
School can confiscate the cell phone/laptop/tablet if the device is knowingly in
direct violation of school policy.
If the issue is a potential criminal violation, law enforcement may become
involved and the school administrator can retain possession of the device on the reasonable suspicion basis until law enforcement arrives.
Schools must return personal electronic devices to students, but may establish
policies for the circumstances under which devices are returned.
While seizure of cell phone in violation of school policy may
ay be justified, a “wholesale fishing expedition” is not allowed. (Klump v. Nazereth Area School District).
Merely using a phone would not justify a search of the phone.
Whereas evidence of cheating, for example, might allow for a search (limited to that purpose) of a phone or device. – G.C. v. Owensboro Public Schools (6th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, 2013)(711 F.3d 623).
Always attempt to get 1) student to show you screen or 2) consent to view.
Should ask for consent if possible. Consider age of student and ability for
Allow student to type in password and then
Have witnesses to the consent or have it in
Schools may consider lack of consent in an
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) Schools Can: Limit speech based on a reasonable expectation that it
The disruption must be actual or reasonably foreseeable. Balancing Act for Schools: (1) The need for a safe and orderly school environment
(2) The protection for individuals to speak or engage in
Kowalski v. Berkeley County Schools, 652 F.3d 565 (4th Cir. 2011) –
“A student may be disciplined for expressive conduct, even
There must be a connection (nexus) between outside conduct
Evans v. Bayer (2010), a Florida magistrate judge held that student’s social networking website created to express dislike for a teacher was off-campus and protected speech.
Layshock v. Hermitage School District (2011) (3d Cir.), a student created a mock online profile of a principal and was suspended for ten days, placed in an alternative high school for the balance of the school year, and banned from extracurricular activities, including the graduation ceremony. Yet, the school district conceded that no disruption occurred. The court found that the district could not discipline the student merely because his speech was aimed at the school principal and was accessed on campus.
J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District (2011) (3d Cir.), a student created a fake Myspace page depicting her school's principal, with a photo she had copied from the school Web site, as a pedophile and sex addict. The student did not intend for the speech to reach the school and took steps to render the profile “private” so that only accepted friends could access it. The only reason that the hard-copy printout of the page came into the school was that the principal himself requested a copy. The court viewed this as insufficient to create a school nexus.
Nixon v. Hardin County Board of Education (W.D. Tenn., 2013): middle school student required to attend alternative school for 10 days and participate in counseling as a result of threats (shoot in face/kill) on social media site that were directed at another
judgment on the 1st Amendment claim should be granted because the speech was not made at school, directed at the school, involved the use of school time or equipment, nor was there a disruption of school activities and only involvement with school was that both students attended the high school.
Bradford v. Norwich City School Dist. (N.D. New York, 2014): student was suspended for violating the school code of conduct based on an out-of-school text-message conversation with another student which contained threats and descriptions of violent acts against a third student. In granting the school district’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that (1) the speech would come to the attention of school officials and (2) the text-message conversation would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.
Bradford v. Norwich City School Dist. (N.D. New York, 2014): student was suspended for violating the school code of conduct based on an out-of-school text-message conversation with another student which contained threats and descriptions of violent acts against a third student. In granting the school district’s motion for summary judgment, the District Court held that it was reasonably foreseeable that (1) the speech would come to the attention of school officials and (2) the text- message conversation would materially and substantially disrupt the work and discipline of the school.
Sagehorn v. Independent School District No. 728. (D. Minn., 2015): student was suspended then told he would be expelled if he did not withdraw from school district as a result of a website post responsive tweet in which he admitted to having “made
The District Court held that student adequately pleaded 1st Amendment violation and denied the school district’s motion for judgment on the pleadings - the post was made off-campus, outside school hours, and there was no indication that any disruption was caused by student’s post.
Visitors to School:
Check in at the school office Screened through the National Sex Offender Registry Given a visitor’s badge to be worn at all times Criminal Background check for chaperones
Specific Weapons Not Allowed(S.C. Code of Laws §16-23-430):
While on any elementary or secondary school property, cannot carry on person:
A blade over two inches long A blackjack A metal pipe or pole Firearms Any other type of weapon, device, or object which may be used to inflict
bodily injury or death.
However, this does not apply to a person authorized to carry a concealed
weapon so long as the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and appropriately secured. 16-23-420
Must be 21 years of age to be issued a concealed weapon
Even with a permit, individual is not authorized to carry
Office of a public school district (S.C. Code §23-31-215(M)(4)); School athletic event (S.C. Code §23-31-215(M)(5)); Place clearly marked with sign prohibiting carrying of a
concealable weapon on premises (S.C. Code §23-31-215(M)(10)).
“No Concealable Weapons Allowed” Sign: public employer
can prohibit a person from carrying concealable weapon upon the premises (S.C. Code §23-31-220 and sign requirements of S.C. Code §23-31-235).
The reasonable suspicion doctrine only applies to school officials,
Police officers are required to follow reasonable suspicion
Searches of students must be school-led and initiated if the search
Officers can act under the umbrella of Administrator if the school
explain to officer the need for assistance, i.e. concern for safety
School officials may question students within reason (in loco
Should be conducted discreetly. Avoid unnecessary embarrassment to person questioned. Witness present if possible If not potentially criminal in nature, and no other
.
apply
fighting, threats, drugs and weapons
Law Enforcement about Non-School Related Matters
Principal
his/her designee shall cooperate with law enforcement
Ask if questioning can occur away from campus Also make a reasonable effort to contact parents and request
their presence unless doing so would interfere (see below) with a law enforcement investigation
Delaying would harm others, parent suspected of criminal
activity, or law enforcement must interview to preserve evidence
If parent request being present, then inform law enforcement
and request for interview to be delayed
Document Incident
Surveillance cameras may not be used in areas where there is
Examples: cannot use in bathrooms, gym locker/changing
Cameras are generally acceptable in hallways, parking
Recording conversations (in South Carolina): One party can consent to the recording of a wire,
Illegal for someone to record conversation of others
Have reasonable suspicion for the individual search. Work with law enforcement to conduct searches when needed. Personal electronic devices have greater protection. If unsure about a search, principal should first contact his/her
Emphasize less intrusive searches. Get consent, if possible and appropriate. Involve parents, if possible and appropriate. Have witnesses (educators) at search. Use trained personnel to search (same gender). Give students advance notice of searches (if practical). Clearly document need for searches. Again, don’t be overzealous.
OCR is investigating school district websites,
Title II ADA/504
Adequate access for hearing and visually impaired Limited mobility (not reliant on use of mouse)
OCR is looking for contrast in images, ALT tags for
Resolution Agreements
Consultant, time period, etc.