4 ms·

There doesn't appear to be a claim in the complaint regarding any child pornography laws yet. But who knows--that may change if new photos turn up during discov

by cduan 17y ago

There doesn't appear to be a claim in the complaint regarding any child pornography laws yet. But who knows--that may change if new photos turn up during discovery. Here's some thoughts on the Fourth Amendment illegal search claim, at least: There is this 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, that held it illegal for the police to use a thermal scanner to detect heat lamps in a guy's house (the heat lamps being used to grow marijuana). The Supreme Court held, in an opinion by Justice Scalia: "Where...the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant." Seems to me this case falls pretty squarely within the Kyllo rule. Maybe webcams are in public use, but a spy program connected to a webcam and operated by someone other than the possessor of the computer would probably not be. The webcam photos were of the inside of a home, and those photos could not have otherwise been taken without going inside the home.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
There is this 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, that held it illegal for the police to use a thermal scanner to detect heat lamps I don't think that's precisely correct. It's not illegal -- the cops aren't going to be sent to jail. It just makes the evidence inadmissible. And that subtlety makes all the difference in this application.
- dpatru 17y ago
  An unlawful search is illegal. Whether the cop go to jail depends on if they're convicted of a criminal law. Usually an illegal search is brought up as a defense by the person who was searched and is now being charged with evidence obtained in the search. The issue in these cases is whether the fruits of the illegal search should be used against the person who was searched. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) An illegal search is in all cases a violation of a right and therefore the person who was searched has a legal remedy. This is the basis of the suit by the students against the school (see the pdf at the bottom of the article.)
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    An unlawful search is illegal. Whether the cop go to jail depends on if they're convicted of a criminal law. As far as I'm aware this never happens, or at least I've never heard of it. But then, IANAL. Not that I disbelieve you, but I'm curious. Can you cite some real-life cases where officers that poked their noses where they ought not have later been prosecuted and actually been punished? My guess is that they'll be protected by qualified immunity. (but then, that immunity probably isn't available in the case at hand) Anecdote: I have a friend who was handing out pamphlets in front of the post office on Tax Day. He was arrested and later sued for 1st Amendment violations. He won his case against the town, but the prosecution against the officers failed because they thought they were doing the right thing (with no acknowledgment of the fact that their job makes it critical for them to have this knowledge).
    - cduan 17y ago
      Fair enough, I should have been more precise with my language. Section 1983 says that a violation of a constitutional right gives rise to a civil remedy for damages. A violation of the Fourth Amendment right is such a violation of a constitutional right. If the school officials, being officers of the state, did not comply with the rule in Kyllo, then they would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so they could be liable for damages under section 1983. The officials could defend on the grounds of qualified immunity. However, to win on this defense, the officers must show that the law was not "clearly established." The argument I would make is that Kyllo is clearly established, so qualified immunity would not apply. The Wikipedia article on section 1983 provides some examples of its uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983
furyg3 17y ago
That's with regard to a crime, however, not a school policy. You may very well be allowed to die your hair blue, have a "legalize weed" bumper sticker on your guitar case, or an explicit novel in your backpack off campus, but if you do any of those things on-campus you violate school rules and can be punished. Furthermore, even things you do off-campus can violate your school's code of conduct (writing about how much your teacher sucks publicly on Facebook), and you can be punished at school.
- scott_s 17y ago
  The school, however, can not violate the law in order to learn about actions which are against the school's code of conduct.
- timwiseman 17y ago
  Where the lines are drawn as to what activities done off-campus that can be punished on campus (such as talking badly about your teacher) is a legally contentious issue right now. Here is a basic writeup of one currently ongoing case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/student-suspended-for-slamming-teacher-on-facebook-can-sue.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/student-susp... (And obviously, IANAL).
protomyth 17y ago
There is a small sentence at the bottom of the complaint that says they will amend if any qualifying picts / information is produced.

by cduan 17y ago

CWuestefeld 17y ago

There is this 2001 case, Kyllo v. United States, that held it illegal for the police to use a thermal scanner to detect heat lamps I don't think that's precisely correct. It's not illegal -- the cops aren't going to be sent to jail. It just makes the evidence inadmissible. And that subtlety makes all the difference in this application.

dpatru 17y ago
An unlawful search is illegal. Whether the cop go to jail depends on if they're convicted of a criminal law. Usually an illegal search is brought up as a defense by the person who was searched and is now being charged with evidence obtained in the search. The issue in these cases is whether the fruits of the illegal search should be used against the person who was searched. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusionary_rule) An illegal search is in all cases a violation of a right and therefore the person who was searched has a legal remedy. This is the basis of the suit by the students against the school (see the pdf at the bottom of the article.)
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  An unlawful search is illegal. Whether the cop go to jail depends on if they're convicted of a criminal law. As far as I'm aware this never happens, or at least I've never heard of it. But then, IANAL. Not that I disbelieve you, but I'm curious. Can you cite some real-life cases where officers that poked their noses where they ought not have later been prosecuted and actually been punished? My guess is that they'll be protected by qualified immunity. (but then, that immunity probably isn't available in the case at hand) Anecdote: I have a friend who was handing out pamphlets in front of the post office on Tax Day. He was arrested and later sued for 1st Amendment violations. He won his case against the town, but the prosecution against the officers failed because they thought they were doing the right thing (with no acknowledgment of the fact that their job makes it critical for them to have this knowledge).
  - cduan 17y ago
    Fair enough, I should have been more precise with my language. Section 1983 says that a violation of a constitutional right gives rise to a civil remedy for damages. A violation of the Fourth Amendment right is such a violation of a constitutional right. If the school officials, being officers of the state, did not comply with the rule in Kyllo, then they would be in violation of the Fourth Amendment, so they could be liable for damages under section 1983. The officials could defend on the grounds of qualified immunity. However, to win on this defense, the officers must show that the law was not "clearly established." The argument I would make is that Kyllo is clearly established, so qualified immunity would not apply. The Wikipedia article on section 1983 provides some examples of its uses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_1983

furyg3 17y ago

That's with regard to a crime, however, not a school policy. You may very well be allowed to die your hair blue, have a "legalize weed" bumper sticker on your guitar case, or an explicit novel in your backpack off campus, but if you do any of those things on-campus you violate school rules and can be punished. Furthermore, even things you do off-campus can violate your school's code of conduct (writing about how much your teacher sucks publicly on Facebook), and you can be punished at school.

scott_s 17y ago
The school, however, can not violate the law in order to learn about actions which are against the school's code of conduct.
timwiseman 17y ago
Where the lines are drawn as to what activities done off-campus that can be punished on campus (such as talking badly about your teacher) is a legally contentious issue right now. Here is a basic writeup of one currently ongoing case: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/student-suspended-for-slamming-teacher-on-facebook-can-sue.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/02/student-susp... (And obviously, IANAL).

protomyth 17y ago

There is a small sentence at the bottom of the complaint that says they will amend if any qualifying picts / information is produced.