New cell phone policy generates questions

Molly Jackson, Staff Writer

Jacksonville High School adopted a new cell phone policy on September 16 of this year. The previous policy vaguely stated that the punishment for a cell phone violation was “confiscation of the device and/or disciplinary consequences.” It is unclear what exactly the punishment was. The new policy states the following:

If students are caught with their cell phone out when not permitted, the following protocol will be followed:

1st time- Confiscated for the remainder of the day
2nd time- Confiscated for the remainder of the day
3rd time- Confiscated for the remainder of the day and student will be given a lunch detention
4th time- Confiscated from the student. Parent/Guardian must come pick up the phone. Phone will NOT be released to the student or anyone not on the students contact list.
5th time- .Confiscated from the student. Parent/Guardian and student must have an in-person conference with administration and then the parent/guardian will be given the phone to take home.
6th time- Confiscated from the student. Parent/Guardian and student must have an in-person conference with administration and then the parent/guardian will be given the phone to take home. The parent/guardian will be informed that the student WILL BE REQUIRED to turn in their phone to the office each morning and will be given it back at the end of the day. Parent will sign consent for student’s belongings to be searched for said phone.

The main cause of concern among students is the “6th time” consequences. The rule states: “Parents will sign consent.” But can the school force a parent to sign something? A search without consent could be a violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects a person from unreasonable search and seizure. This poses the question about what is reasonable and whether this applies to students or not. According to the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment does apply to public school students. However, the restrictions for a search are eased. In the case of schools, reasonable suspicion, a looser form of probable cause, is used. The Supreme Court in the case of T.L.O. v. New Jersey stated, “The warrant requirement . . . is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a . . . warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules (or of the criminal law) would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools.” Therefore, if a student were to violate school rules multiple times at Jacksonville High School then the administrators would have the right to search without consent due to reasonable suspicion.

Also, most parents and students at Jacksonville High School signed the first page of the student agenda which is a contract stating: “I agree to be responsible for following all of the rules and expectations of the school and understand the consequences for failing to follow the requirements…This handbook is applicable to all students upon the implementation of any change.” Students and parents have agreed already to follow school rules and any newly implemented rules. The questions remain:  Have we already given up our rights to privacy? Are we, as students, really protected by the Fourth Amendment?