Printable VersionDIANA PARKER
LHHS administrators started random searches of students for cell phones April 24 and ceased the practice May 3 at the request of Governing Board Vice President Jo Navaretta after a parent raised legal concerns.
In a letter to Superintendent Gail Malay dated May 9, Civil Deputy County Attorney James Schoppmann wrote, “Given the constitutional protections afforded to students, it is my opinion that random searches of students and/or their personal effects for cell phones are unlawful.”
Schoppmann's opinion acknowledged that there are some cases under which a school has the right to search students while on school property. However, officials must have “a reasonable suspicion that the search will yield evidence of a violation.”
“To be reasonable, a search generally must be based upon some level of individualized suspicion (specific to a certain student) of wrongdoing. Individualized suspicion helps protect the privacy of students from random or arbitrary acts of the District,” Schoppmann wrote.
Schoppmann said unequivocally that, “District personnel may not conduct random searches of a student's person or personal effects for a cell phone.”
He specifically cited the case of entire classes being searched as “impermissible.”
“A random search of an entire class for cell phones after a school official learns that one student in the class may be possessing a cell phone in violation of school rules is likely unreasonable.”
Whole-class searches were being conducted at LHHS without prior knowledge of any students having cell phones, Principal Kathy Cox said.
Schoppmann said there are cases where group searches could be justified.
“The cases that support widespread or group searches generally deal with searches conducted to protect the health or safety of students in the context of violence, danger, or criminal activity that is imminent or that has already occurred.”
He went on to write, “If extraordinary circumstances support a more general search, without individualized suspicion, a student's Fourth Amendment rights may not be diminished anymore than is necessary under the immediate circumstances.”
While Schoppmann acknowledged that the temporary confiscation of cell phones might be a justifiable consequence of a cell phone violation, he wrote that searching stored information in the phones is not permissible, unless specific evidence of wrongdoing is reasonably expected to be found.
“Just because a cell phone is lawfully confiscated from a student does not grant District personnel an automatic right to search the cell phone itself. Students do have a legitimate, yet limited, expectation of privacy, which is protected by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution of Arizona has a similar provision which protects persons, including Arizona students, from unreasonable search and seizures,” Schoppmann wrote.
Stored information was examined during an April 20 bomb scare that prompted the cell phone searches, Cox said.
Schoppmann called Cox's intentions in instituting random cell phone searches “noble” and acknowledged her concerns about how cell phone usage contributed to “unjustified panic” at the school.
“But the use of a cell phone by a student in crisis or emergency situation may also be helpful (i.e. directing or alerting law enforcement and/or gaining strength from loved ones),” he wrote. “That is why there are no easy answers to these issues.”
You may contact the reporter at dparker@havasunews.com.
Article Rating