the highlight of my day

[sk]

and just look at the havoc its done to your spelling!!!!! OMFG!!

 

 

 

...just kidding, sort of...

 

no shit had i not done drugs i may have learned how to spell

[sk]

And you turned out just fine.

 

I spend a few minutes every day thanking my lucky stars

[archenemy]

Well today I'll thank my lucky stars for women like you!

[sk]

Well today I'll thank my lucky stars for women like you!

 

*blush*

[RuMR]

group hug

 

now where did i put that little vomit gremlin again??

[astrov]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0325_ZS.html

thanks for the link - i'd heard of this case before but didn't remember the specific details

 

Hi Ivan. This is from the opinion's syllabus, so it's more of a coherent distillation of the (constitutional) law than an expression of the law itself. Long and short of it is that if this case is still controlling, your search of the i-pod wouldn't fly under 4th Amendment. The search was not justified "at its inception" since the offense which you had "reasonable suspicion" to believe was going on (disrupting class) was a foreclosed possibility as soon as the i-pod was taken away. Unless you had some "reasonable" (that is, articulable) suspicion that search of the i-pod would turn up evidence of violation of the law or of school code, you shouldn't have searched it. This is not to say that the law forbids a search; rather, just that if the 4th Amendment exclusionary rule is deemed to apply, the evidence of commission of crime you gathered couldn't be used in a prosecution of the girl et al. It would of course be up to you and the prosecution to argue that the girl's reluctance to hand over the i-pod (before turning it off) gave you grounds to believe that it contained fruits of criminal activity. (After all, maybe she didn't want the batteries to die?) I don't really know the cases, or the law in Washington. Hell, I don't really know anything. I just thought it would be interesting to talk about this in addition to the "should we let our kids do drugs" aspect.

 

"2. Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a determination of whether the search was justified at its inception and whether, as conducted, it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. Under ordinary circumstances, the search of a student by a school official will be justified at its inception where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. And such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Pp. 337-343."

[rob]

someone better call perry mason

[dt_3pin]

And such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search, and not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Pp. 337-343."

 

Ivan's search obviously passes constitutional muster, as it was narrowly tailored to ferret out secret Bon Jovi collections. As the initial search complied w/ the 4th amendment, I believe his subsequent discovery of the panties and blow pictures was constitutional under the plain view doctrine.

 

But really, Jay-Z tells you everything you ever need to know about search and seizure law:

 

Glove compartment's locked

So's the trunk in da back

You wanna look around

You gonna need a warrant for dat

[Weekend_Climberz]

group hug

 

now where did i put that little vomit gremlin again??

 

With the assist:

 

[ashw_justin]

You could reason that this is no different than a teacher opening up a passed note to read what it says. In that light an on switch is no different than a piece tape holding a note closed.

 

But clearly the kid misjudged you, expecting you to respect her privacy. Guess she should have known better how to 'cover her ass.'

[sk]

You could reason that this is no different than a teacher opening up a passed note to read what it says. In that light an on switch is no different than a piece tape holding a note closed.

 

But clearly the kid misjudged you, expecting you to respect her privacy. Guess she should have known better how to 'cover her ass.'

 

it's not like he haxored the password on it...

[tvashtarkatena]

 

pictures of your students prancing around in their underwear, getting frisky w/ one another, drinking beer and snorting coke - priceless! if only i could share w/ the group w/o crossing some sorta ethical boundary....

 

TR?