Teens send each other naked pictures, get charged with child pornography

[Tribesman]

Oh, and they found the photos by searching a kids phone after they took it from him during school - 4th amendment be damned!

The 4th amendment doesn't apply by any stretch of the imagination .
That would require the initial action being taken against the reasonable expectation of privacy , since the clear policy was mobile phones would be siezed on premesis then the unreasonable search and seizure line is pissing in the wind . The next phase of the process where the police became involved is plain and simple too , the school is legally obliged to inform of illegal activity and since naked pictures of underage girls fits the definition child pornography and child pornography is a crime then tough luck .

So the state is telling them its better to have sex instead

Yes Rabbit the State told them to have sex

[Watchman]

For Great Justice too, no doubt.

[Goofball]

Good Lord. This is sublime in its ridiculousness...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I would question the need to prosecute in this instance. Doesn't seem like a good use of taxpayer dollars. At best we have minors engaging in inappropriate behaviors with females under the age of consent; no real pedo component here. Surely they have other more significant issues to pursue...


However....CR:

4th ammendment may not apply. Under 18s have few legal rights and, in the strictest sense, cannot own property in their own names. Therefore, if they used a cell phone on school property during school hours and it was a known school policy (signed off on by parents) that any such phones would be confiscated, then the school was operating appropriately. Same can be said for searching the phone if there were prior notice that all confiscated phones would be searched. Absent express or implied consent or a duly signed warrant, however, I do not think the cell phone material should be admissable.

HT:

The chap who visited Canada had it coming. Tourists and visitors are ALWAYS responsible for complying with local laws. The rule is, if in doubt, don't. Assuming that you will receive the same rights overseas as you would in your own country is a foolish assumption.

[Crazed Rabbit]

However....CR:

4th ammendment may not apply.

Yes, likely that is the case. However, it should apply. I find it abhorrent the government can compel you to do something and take your rights as you do what they say - in this example, the government compels kids to go to school and parents to get their kids to school, but suspends some of their rights.

I've been following this on Faux News for a while and it is hilarious seeing O'Reilly claiming that the government acted correctly.

Sheesh, what a tool. And must you call it 'faux news'? I don't go around saying 'communist news network' all day.

Yes Rabbit the State told them to have sex

I didn't say that. The incentives created by the government make the punishment for having sex less severe than seeing a photo of the same person naked. In short, the state is saying having sex is better than - or not as bad as - seeing a nude photo.

CR

[Tribesman]

Yes, likely that is the case. However, it should apply.

Hey if you don't like the constitution write a new one .
Hold on, you like the constitution when judges say it means what you want it to mean but you don't like it when judges say it means what you don't want it to mean

the government compels kids to go to school and parents to get their kids to school,

Stand up against your tyrannical government .
Exercise your rights , give your kids some home skoolin

[Crazed Rabbit]

Hold on, you like the constitution when judges say it means what you want it to mean but you don't like it when judges say it means what you don't want it to mean

I always love the Constitution - just not always the judges.

CR

[Lord Winter]

I always love the Constitution - just not always the judges.

CR

It wouldn't hurt to rewrite it, I'm just afraid of what it would look like after.

[woad&fangs]

The 4th amendment doesn't apply by any stretch of the imagination .
That would require the initial action being taken against the reasonable expectation of privacy , since the clear policy was mobile phones would be siezed on premesis then the unreasonable search and seizure line is pissing in the wind . The next phase of the process where the police became involved is plain and simple too , the school is legally obliged to inform of illegal activity and since naked pictures of underage girls fits the definition child pornography and child pornography is a crime then tough luck .


Yes Rabbit the State told them to have sex

The seizure was legal but the search was not. It could only be searched if there was reasonable suspicion of illegal activity on the phone. While it didn't say in the article, I'm guessing that there wasn't reasonable suspicion.

We covered a case like this in my American law class last year. Well, except what was found was a list of clients for a girls drug business in that case.

edit: I found a summary of the case http://www.aclu-il.org/legal/highsch...dseizure.shtml
The second part of the decision section is the relevant part

[Tribesman]

Thats easy Woad .
Leaving aside the obvious that the picture which the pupil must have liked may have been a screensaver and as such was in plain view , there is in all likelyhood that the phone (as most are now) was also a camera , since the ban on electronic devices would extend to unsanctioned use of cameras on premesis .
So there was a reasonable cause to examine if the cameraphone had been used in school .
Run that past your lecturer in law if you doubt that such a search can be defined as reasonable in scope or if the reasonable expectation of privacy had been violated.

[Lord Winter]

That case doesn't really apply, they were in trouble for smoking and the princeple searched the phone for evidence relating to the said smoking. In the process he found all the pot stuff. There's pretty obvious reasonable cause in that search.


Here it sounds like someone was texting, there phone was taken away, and then some teacher went through it for no appearent reason. Now the extent that a teacher conducted a formal search is a different point, for example if they were to hear people talking in a bathroom then discover smokers, that's not a violation. Were if they were to go through every locker it would be. I don't really see a big 4th addmendent issue here. It's more a matter of if a teacher looking through a confiscated phone is ethical. Personally I would say that its wrong, but that doesn't disquallify its abillity to be used in court. (Unless if it was confiscated to be searched then theres another layer. All it is really is a set of fine lines.)

I think the focus would be better deserved on the hyberbole of the charges.