Argumentative Essay about the 4th Amendment
Read the “School Cell Phone Policy” memo. Then click the link to the synopsis of the Klump v. Nazareth Area School District (2005) court case and read the facts of that case carefully. Pay special attention to the Nazareth Area High School’s cell phone policy as outlined in the court case.
Prompt: Write a well-developed argument essay in which you take a position on whether the actions committed by school employees as outlined in the court case violated the student’s Fourth Amendment rights.
My argument is that it did violate the student’s fourth amendment rights.
Consider whether adopting the cell phone policy found in the memo would have been sufficient to defend school officials against the counts initially filed against them in the lawsuit. Examine the court’s analysis of the case to decide whether different school rules would have affected the decision in this lawsuit.
Remember to establish a complete thesis statement, including a claim and reasons, and to recognize and address counterclaims. Use evidence from both source documents to support your ideas.
____________________________________________________________________
First Reading:
Community School District 233
Owendale, Michigan
“Anchored in Excellence”
Date: October 15, 2009
To: Parents/Guardians and Students of District 233
From: Dr., Superintendent of Schools
Subject: Cell Phones and Electronic Devices Policy
On October 4, the District 233 School Board met in a special session to discuss the widespread use of cell phones and other electronic devices on district campuses. It is estimated that this year over 70 percent of middle school and high school students in our district will carry a cell phone to school. The board’s special session was prompted by a general concern that irresponsible use of these devices is disruptive to the learning environment and can create discipline problems. The popularity of cell phones with cameras, Internet access, and text messaging has prompted school administrators to express concern about how to prevent privacy violations and cheating. Additionally, these devices are frequently damaged, lost, or stolen.
To date, there has been no official district policy regarding the use of such devices. Utilizing input from administrators, teachers, students, and parents, the board has now rectified that lapse in policy and wishes to propose that the Student Handbook be amended to include the following Cell Phones and Electronic Devices Policy:
The district strongly encourages parents/guardians and students to carefully consider whether it is necessary to bring cell phones and other electronic devices to school. If students do choose to bring these devices to school, they are subject to these policy guidelines:
-Cell phones and other electronic devices must be turned off and kept out of sight during the school day unless an individual teacher directs otherwise. Parents/guardians are reminded that in the event of an emergency, the main office is the most appropriate means of contacting your child.
-Cell phones and other electronic devices may not be used in any manner that would disrupt educational activities or assemblies.
-No electronic device may be used to photograph or record someone without his or her consent.
-Cell phones and other electronic devices must not interfere with the climate of trust and respect essential for an effective learning environment (refer to Ethics and Honesty Policy in the Student Handbook, pages 123–126).
-Teachers and administrators have the right to confiscate any device that is being used in a manner deemed inappropriate. Devices will be returned to the student at the end of the school day unless the student is a repeat offender (see disciplinary action guidelines below).
-Cell phones and other electronic devices may be used before and after school, but only within designated areas (these areas will vary by school).
-The security of electronic devices brought onto the school grounds is the sole responsibility of the student. The district will not accept responsibility for devices that are lost, stolen, or damaged at school or while traveling to and from school.
Students who violate the rules set forth above will be subject to the following disciplinary action:
First Violation: Student will receive a written warning, and the school will notify a parent/guardian about the violation.
Second Violation: The cell phone or other device will be confiscated and returned during a parent/guardian conference held to discuss the violation.
Third Violation: The cell phone or other device will be confiscated, the parent/guardian will be contacted, and the student will be assigned school service or suspended, depending on the individual circumstance.
Parents/guardians are an integral part of ensuring their children’s compliance with this policy. The board is asking that both parents/guardians and students review the policy carefully. Following this thorough review, both parties should sign and return the attached compliance acceptance form to acknowledge their observance of this amendment. Parents/guardians are encouraged to contact their school principal at 201-456-7890 or the district superintendent’s office at 201-456-7800 with questions or for any further information regarding the policy.
Sincerely,
Dr.
Second Reading
Background
This summary presents the constitutional issues considered in a lawsuit that a student and his parents brought against a Pennsylvania school district. The school district, the defendant in the lawsuit, was asking the court to dismiss a number of the original counts in the suit. The US District Court addressed constitutional rights as it considered which counts were valid.
Klump v. Nazareth Area School District (2005)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TOBY KLUMP, LEIGH KLUMP and CHRISTOPHER KLUMP,Plaintiffs
vs.
NAZARETH AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT; VICTOR J. LESKY, Superintendent; MARGARET GRUBE, Assistant Principal; and SHAWN KIMBERLY KOCHER, teacher, Defendants
Facts of the Case
Plaintiffs Toby Klump and Leigh Klump are the parents of plaintiff Christopher Klump, who was a student at Nazareth Area High School, operated by defendant Nazareth Area School District.
Plaintiffs filed a 10-count lawsuit against the school district, superintendent, assistant principal and teacher alleging several federal and state claims. Before the court is defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. …
The events giving rise to plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint occurred on March 17, 2004. At that time, plaintiff Christopher Klump was a student at Nazareth Area High School.
The high school has a policy which permits students to carry, but not use or display cell phones during school hours. On March 17, 2004 Christopher’s cell phone fell out of his pocket and came to rest on his leg. Upon seeing Christopher’s cell phone, Shawn Kimberly Kocher, a teacher at the high school, enforced the school policy prohibiting use or display of cell phones by confiscating the phone. These events occurred at approximately 10:15 a.m.
Subsequently, Ms. Kocher, along with Assistant Principal Margaret Grube, began making phone calls with Christopher’s cell phone. Ms. Kocher and Ms. Grube called nine other Nazareth Area High School students listed in Christopher’s phone number directory to determine whether they, too, were violating the school’s cell phone policy.
Next, defendants Kocher and Grube accessed Christopher’s text messages and voice mail. Finally, defendants Kocher and Grube held an America Online Instant Messaging conversation with Mr. Klump’s younger brother without identifying themselves as being anyone other than the primary user of the cell phone, Christopher Klump.
On March 22, 2004, Christopher Klump’s parents, plaintiffs Toby Klump and Leigh Klump, met with Ms. Kocher, Ms. Grube, and Assistant Superintendent Diane Dautrich regarding the events of March 17. During that meeting, Ms. Grube told Mr. and Mrs. Klump that while she was in possession of their son’s phone, Christopher received a text message from his girlfriend … [including ] a reference [Ms. Grube interpreted as drug-related] … and prompted her subsequent use of the phone to investigate possible drug use at the school.
Based upon the foregoing facts, plaintiffs [the student and his family] filed a Complaint in the Northampton County Court of Common Pleas. The lawsuit was removed to federal court by defendants on July 29, 2004. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges ten causes of action stemming from the violation of various state and federal protections.
…
Counts VI, VII and VIII assert claims based on rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and by the Pennsylvania Constitution. Count VI, against defendants Grube and Kocher, alleges violation of plaintiff Christopher Klump’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Count VII alleges that defendants school district, Lesky, Grube and Kocher violated plaintiffs’ similar rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Count VIII, against the school district, avers a violation of plaintiff Christopher Klump’s Fourth Amendment rights, without specifying which particular rights.
…
Search and Seizure by Defendants Grube and Kocher
In Count VI, plaintiffs assert a violation of Christopher Klump’s Fourth Amendment rights by defendants Grube and Kocher. Plaintiffs aver that by accessing Christopher’s phone number directory, voice mail, and text messages, and subsequently using the phone to call individuals listed in the directory, defendants Grube and Kocher violated Christopher’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, plaintiffs assert that defendants are liable for damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.25.
Defendants aver that plaintiffs cannot prevail on their Fourth Amendment claim because the search was justified at its inception and was reasonable in scope. … Finally, defendants argue that defendants Grube and Kocher are entitled to qualified immunity from section 1983 claims unless plaintiffs can prove that these defendants violated a clearly-established constitutional right and that a reasonable person in the same position would have known that their conduct violated a constitutional right. …
Plaintiffs dispute defendants’ assertion that the search was justified at its inception, arguing that there were no exigent circumstances justifying defendants’ search. Plaintiffs also argue that their factual averments regarding defendants’ search of plaintiff Christopher Klump’s cell phone adequately detail defendants’ misconduct. Finally, plaintiffs argue that defendants Grube and Kocher knew or should have known that their search was unconstitutional. Plaintiffs aver that knowledge of the improper nature of their actions is evidenced by the fact that Ms. Grube and Ms. Kocher deleted the messages and phone calls they made from the cell phone’s memory card.
Initially, the parties disagree whether the text message from Christopher’s girlfriend was received while defendants were in possession of the phone, as averred by defendants, or was discovered only after defendants had accessed Christopher’s stored text messages, as plaintiffs contend. Therefore, plaintiffs dispute the factual premise by which defendants reach their conclusion that the search was justified at its inception. …[W]e must accept all of the allegations of plaintiffs as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of plaintiffs. Regardless of the persuasiveness of defendants’ analysis, we cannot rely on their factual summary, which differs materially from plaintiffs’.
Although students are protected by the Fourth Amendment, the probable cause requirement does not apply to students at school. (New Jersey v. T.L.O, 1985) The Supreme Court has held that a student search must nevertheless satisfy the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment. In the context of searches conducted by school officials, this means that the search must be justified at its inception and reasonable in scope. (New Jersey v. T.L.O.) To be justified at its inception, there must be “reasonable grounds for believing that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school.” (New Jersey v. T.L.O.)
Here, defendant Kocher was justified in seizing the cell phone, as plaintiff Christopher Klump had violated the school’s policy prohibiting use or display of cell phones during school hours. In calling other students, however, defendants Grube and Kocher were conducting a search to find evidence of other students’ misconduct, which they may not do under the standard articulated above. They had no reason to suspect at the outset that such a search would reveal that Christopher Klump himself was violating another school policy; rather, they hoped to utilize his phone as a tool to catch other students’ violations.
Further, we must accept plaintiffs’ allegation that the school officials did not see the allegedly drug-related text message until after they initiated the search of Christopher’s cell phone. Accordingly, based upon the averments of the Complaint, which we must accept as true at this stage, there was no justification for the school officials to search Christopher’s phone for evidence of drug activity.
Moreover, the law in this area is not as unsettled as defendants suggest. It is clear, based on the case law cited by defendants, that students have a Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures by school officials. (New Jersey v. T.L.O.) Although the meaning of “unreasonable searches and seizures” is different in the school context than elsewhere, it is nonetheless evident that there must be some basis for initiating a search. A reasonable person could not believe otherwise. Accordingly, we deny defendants’ motion to dismiss Count VI against defendants Grube and Kocher on the basis of qualified immunity.
Although paragraphs 100, 101 and 102 of plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint are not particularly clear, it appears that plaintiffs are asserting in these paragraphs that because the defendant school employees Grube and Kocher are liable for violating Christopher Klump’s rights to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures under both the United States Constitution (Count VI) and the Pennsylvania Constitution (Count VII), defendant school district is equally liable for those violations. We believe that this is sufficient to state a claim in Count VIII.
Decision Regarding Constitutional Issues
Accordingly, remaining in this lawsuit are the following claims:
(4) in Count VI, the claim of plaintiff Christopher Klump against defendants Grube and Kocher for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights
(5) in Count VII, the claim of plaintiff Christopher Klump against defendants school district, Lesky, Grube and Kocher for violation of his rights under Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution;
(6) in Count VIII the claim of plaintiff Christopher Klump against the school district for violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. …
t is essential for schools to balance the need for maintaining discipline with respecting the rights and privacy of students, ensuring that policies are in compliance with the law
