It seems administrators have read the classic many times, and are using it for a policy handbook;
The local teachers union opposes a proposed policy that would allow Sioux Falls School District administrators to search employees’ private cell phones, purses and vehicles for suspected violations of district policy.
A school law expert from Ohio said the policy “certainly breaks new ground” and could open the district up to a lawsuit.
COULD?! This is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
But if challenged in court, a judge considering whether the search was appropriate would balance the employee’s Fourth Amendment rights against those of the district.
And don’t forget about the 1st and 5th amendments. I can’t believe the district is even considering this policy, oh, that’s right, administrators and board members allow lawyers to make all their decisions for them, very ignorant lawyers.
I have always wondered why it took so long for police to become involved in the case of the Patrick Henry Middle School teacher accused of having sexual relationships with students. School officials were suspicous of him to the point that they called him into a meeting to question him, but police did not become involved until sometime later. I wonder if this policy is being proposed in reaction to that case, as a way of giving school officials the ability to search a cell phone right away (I’m guessing they would have discovered huge amount of text messages had they done that at the time they met with the Patrick Henry teacher)
On the list of required reading: 1884, A Brave New World, Animal Farm.
We all know this is a reaction to a certain elementary teacher who read Bukowski’s ‘Women’ one too many times.
Jeff – Then they need to get a warrant. Everybody is reasonably suspicious. It’s like the graffiti artist a few years back. If the cops would have shown up to my place they would have found all kinds of stuff, spray paint, etc. That would have made me a suspect, even though I am just an artist who had nothing to do with it. I still have yet to figure out who was doing it. Laws are in place for these kinds of incidents, the school board needs to let them run there course instead of just assuming everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Interesting that you bring that up again. Just last week somebody asked me if you were the graffiti person.
If my employer thought they had the right to go through my cell phone, car and purse/wallet, I’m pretty sure I would start leaving them in the car and parking off campus.
Pretty soon they’ll think its acceptable to turn on the webcam on laptops remotely for their own entertainment.
The webcam thing has happened elsewhere. I’m always of the mindset that those things should have a physical on/off switch to prevent that from happening… but a post-it note over the camera is always a good idea just in case.
I’m under the view that there should be a certain expectation of privacy in purses and in cars… but on the flip side I suppose if they are on school property maybe that expectation goes out the proverbial window. Just like the school can suspend a kid for having a pellet gun or airsoft gun in their car, and just as they can search backpacks and lockers of students, maybe the same policy should be enforced on teachers too?
The cell phone thing seems a little far fetched to me though. You can’t smuggle contraband in or out of a school on a cell phone unless it happens to be locker room photos. If they are that worried about it, they should just enact a “no private cell phones” policy.
Many private employers do search bags when people go in and out of work though – that part wouldn’t really shock me or upset me. I’m not talking about a pat down or detailed search here… just a general visual check to ensure someone isn’t walking out with a laptop, or in with a gun etc.
Above all else though – I just think we need to be fair with the policies, so if there is a search policy for students it should also apply to staff. Just keep things on a level playing field.
Are you kidding? I suspect that the majority of Sioux Falls residents have never read anything “literary” in their life. The few on this post that have, you have my respect and admiration. Some very bright and informed citizens on this site.
On a second note, I recall when I was in high school there that every time the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition came out, the librarian would put it on the rack with the actual pictures cut out. Ha, ha! Always brings a smile to my face when I remember the disappointed faces in my class after rushing in to take a peek. Now days merely displaying the cover is probably grounds for suspension.
Of course this is a thoughtless fallout from the debacle at Patrick Henry Middle School.
But don’t for 1 minute think the district lawyers are fools here. It’s their clients who are fools. The lawyers see they can churn these files and potential cases at the taxpayers’ expense ad infinite. Bilking the taxpayer pays well enough in a recession.
Remember. 1. Follow the money.
2. If you want to get the mob; get their lawyers.
J2 – You have a point. Lawyers don’t care if you are guilty or not, they make a buck no matter what.
So all lawyers are greedy bastards… thanks for clearing that up.
Hope you never need one.
Costner, you are grumpy lately. Settle down.
We were talking about lawyers who eat at the trough of public money.
You really need to take a break from the inter-web-blog-forums. You and Sy are starting to get as angry as me, that worries me.
AG hasn’t been around lately and I’m trying to fill the void.
But it should be noted that public defenders and prosecutors eat at the trough of public money as well and I would argue they are the least concerned with personal wealth and most concerned with justice as far as lawyers are concerned.
Does the school have their own legal team or do they pay by the hour to a private firm? If the answer is the latter then your point about greed might have some merit, but even if that is true lawyers typically only do the bidding of their clients, so if anyone is to blame here it is Dr. Pam and her backup band.
wait. what? l3wis is banksy?
hmmm…I see a little dilema here…if it were a private employer, they could do whatever they want. These things could be required as of employment. Some jobs require drug testing, some pat downs at the end of the day, some require individuals not to speak publically on certaing topics or issues. Private employer can put these restricitons on. you still have freedom of speech. I can still tell my boss to fuck off without going to jail, but doesnt mean i can say whatever i want and keep my job.
So if its a government institution thats an employer, is this any different? Schools can still require drug tests for certain positions im sure…could they not also search any property that is on the premises? Is it unlawful search and seisure when you knowingly agree to it as a requirment of employment?
bam – you make a good point. But you can’t implement a policy to current employees.
Um… yes you can l3wis. Very easily in fact. Policies change all the time – the only requiremen in our lovely right to work state is that you actually tell the employee what the policy is, and assuming the policy is legal if they refuse to accept it they are free to quit, or if they refuse to abide by it they could be terminated.
School policies aren’t considered key points in terms of employment contracts so they are negotiated in. If the school decides all employees must wear blue on Wednesdays, they could very well mandate that as well and there really isn’t anything the employees could do about it other than complain.
Costner, you have a point. But do right to work laws apply to union members?
That probably depends upon the specific contract. Not sure you would make a blanket statement either way on that one, but I will have to defer to someone with more direct knowledge.