[lightedman]

Send them back with a legal-looking note "I paid for this phone, legally it is mine and not the child's. As you are a government institution, any request to view it either comes with a warrant, or pre-reading payment of $1,000,000 for every character in the message which you intend to read. Your receipt and acknowledgement of this letter counts as a binding agreement to these terms."

If they want to play a foolish game, play it right back and watch them falter. My father had lots of fun doing this when I was in school, as most admin-level people don't know what truly is legal and what is not.

[dbrueck]

I really like this because it cuts to the heart of the matter of somebody at that school deeply misunderstanding the limits of their authority, and having it thrown back at them could help them learn, or at least be an amusing way to deal with the situation.

[mlyle]

The exact limits of a public school's authority to search mobile devices, to handle events that have partially occurred outside school, has not been established.

Here's a nice summary:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1159120.pdf

[vorpalhex]

If they search my mobile device, they will deal with police and the court system. Whether the phone is in my posession or my kids is irrelevant.

[mlyle]

As the document shows, many instances of schools searching students' mobile devices without a warrant have been shown to be constitutional in appellate courts.

[willcipriano]

> been shown to be constitutional in appellate courts.

So has civil asset forfeiture but that doesn't actually make it constitutional.

When a agent of the government wants to search mine or the property of my child, I'm going to make them get a warrant every time. I have nothing to hide, but it's not worth the risk of something being misunderstood or misinterpreted and ending up with consequences from this fishing expedition. They can "particularly describe the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" along with their probable cause on the outset or not search at all. Terrorism isn't a sufficient reason to throw out the constitution, it's laughable to suggest name calling is.

My kid isn't old enough yet but stuff like this, monitoring software on laptop used for school (but purchased by parents) pushes me towards homeschooling.

[mlyle]

> So has civil asset forfeiture but that doesn't actually make it constitutional.

I don't feel like semantic arguments. If an agent of the state engages in behavior that appellate courts have declared to be legal, you are unlikely to get redress by reporting this act to the police.

[vorpalhex]

So that isn't what the document says. Out of 5 cases, only two were constitutional. Both of those were allowed to confirm that a disallowed activity had happened during school.

Specifically in Mendoza vs Klein ISD (from the paper) we see that the continued search of the phone after confirmation of texting in class was ruled unconstitutional.

[mlyle]

Yes, this pretty clearly establishes there's bounds: the search has to be tailored in scope to address a reasonable suspicion of a violation of school policy.

Can a school have a policy about cyberbullying outside of school, and pursue a search in that case? This is untested.

As I said:

"The exact limits of a public school's authority to search mobile devices, to handle events that have partially occurred outside school, has not been established."

[lightedman]

There's a key word.

"My"

As in not the student.

MY phone.

Whether or not they have it is no excuse. It is MY device. MY rights have been firmly established.

[mlyle]

I believe the comment has been edited since I replied, but... in any case.

> Whether or not they have it is no excuse. It is MY device. MY rights have been firmly established.

If your student takes "your" backpack to school, and there's a reason to search it, the fact that it is "your" property will not affect things much.

This is a highly dubious legal theory. Fourth amendment decisions about search of property on one's person basically never have to do with actual ownership.

(There are some exceptions, but generally to the detriment of the rights of the person/property being searched).