# Can a teacher check a pupil's phone for "inappropriate content"?



## ASFKAP (17 Jan 2008)

Does a teacher have the right to ask a pupil (a minor) to hand over his phone to enable them to check the phones content for "inappropriate content" without a parent being present?


----------



## ClubMan (17 Jan 2008)

*Re: Teachers rights?*

Any use?

Phone Confiscated in Primary School


----------



## ASFKAP (17 Jan 2008)

Thanks for that, not exactly the situation I've been asked about. In this case the phone was not on and in the student's pocket, the principle asked him to hand it over for examination, once the "inappropriate content" was discovered the phone was confiscated. My question is really whether the teacher had the right to conduct this "search" without the parent present rather than the actual confiscation of the phone....
Thanks for the link though.


----------



## scuby (17 Jan 2008)

i wouldn't have thought so. would a guard not have to wait for a minor's guardian to arrive before doing so. and if the boy had his phone off and in his pocket, what gave the principal the right to take it, fair enough if it was on and he was messing with it in class... me thinks principal is walking on thin ice there.  But i am open to correction


----------



## tosh100 (17 Jan 2008)

*Who condones "inappropriate content"?*

Surely the issue here is the fact that there was inappropriate content on the phone and if the Principal prevented it from being distributed then I would suggest that most parents, and the parents of the pupil concerned, would appreciate his actions. There is a lot of inappropriate content out there that many parents are not aware of because they cannot or will not check their childrens phones.


----------



## seantheman (17 Jan 2008)

must say i'm with tosh on this one, the head obviously had a tip off in this instance, if this were my child i'd be more angry with him than the head.


----------



## ASFKAP (17 Jan 2008)

Thanks I'm aware of the moral argument regarding this issue but I just wondered what the legal position was. I had to go down to the school and receive a lecture when it happened and obviously was very disappointed and angry with my son for being so stupid. The school impounded the mobile for a month and made him agree not to bring it back to school before returning it, which was fair enough. 
I would have preferred if they'd contacted me first and let me be present when the phone was examined, the principle seemed to think he had the authority to effectively search my son without a parent present.


----------



## GWM80 (17 Jan 2008)

I think the pincipal should gave had another member of staff with him/her when doing this... I understand your looking at it from a legal point of view but is it really necessary seeing if you have a case against the school. Surely highlight your unhappiness with the principal and not to do this again??


----------



## ClubMan (17 Jan 2008)

To be fair the original poster hasn't said that s/he is looking to see if there is a case to be taken against the school as opposed to understanding the letter of the law in this situation. It's a tricky one - on the one hand privacy rights of individuals (including minors) are extremely important. On the other hand the school and principal have certain rights and obligations to the individual pupil, their parents/guardians but also the wider school community. In some cases attempting to cater to both can lead to conflicting goals. A certain amount of pragmatism on the part of the school authorities and the parents/guardians of individual pupils is presumably needed. It's also difficult to lead by example to the minors to expect and value fundamental rights while also adhering to general school rules and discipline without sending out mixed messages leading to confusion...


----------



## ASFKAP (17 Jan 2008)

Thanks, no I'm not planning any legal action or anything, the matter is closed now but at the time I just wasn't sure exactly what were my (and my sons) rights in this instance. The principle seemed to think he held ALL the cards not to mention the moral high ground....


----------



## Marion (18 Jan 2008)

What is the school policy on mobile phones? 


Marion


----------



## MrMan (18 Jan 2008)

I think that if teachers had to call a parent in for every instance similar to this not alot of teaching would get done. Firstly, how many parents would be able to make it to the school at short notice. If the search was literally your son being asked to hand over the phone rather than the principal actually taking it from your sons person than I don't see how it was inappropriate. If the principal had a tip off which he must of had, then your son was more than likely sharing this inappropriate content  with others ( as boys will do), so unfortunately I'd just let the principal have the moral high ground on this one and put it out of your mind.


----------



## Stifster (18 Jan 2008)

Given that the school is responsible for looking after the children from the minute they go into school to the minute they leave then I would think that the principal was in the right. In the same way I assume that they can search a lunch box or a locker.


----------



## collieb (18 Jan 2008)

If the student had a notepad or copybook, in their bag and the teacher thought there was 'inappropriate material' in it and so asked the student to hand it over for examination, would we expect the teacher to wait for a parent to be present?? Ok, a phone is not a copybook, but they are both the student's private property, and the fact they have brought it onto the school premises surely imposes responsibility not to use it inappropriately and also imposes responsibility on the school to ensure it is not used for any inappropriate purpose. BAck when I was in school it would more likely to have been a student pulled up over having a 'magazine' in their bag - would anyone have complained if teacher ordered someone then to empty their bag to show what was inside?? 

So yes, students have rights to privacy, but when they breach their own responsibility towards others, then I think the school has a right to take action. Obviously as long as they do not forcibly take the phone from the child. As for calling in the parent, would this not have just given the child opportunity to delete the material, or else wasted hours of everyone's time keeping the child under supervision until the parent got there. On balance, I agree with the taechers approach.


----------



## ubiquitous (18 Jan 2008)

ASFKAP said:


> Thanks I'm aware of the moral argument regarding this issue but I just wondered what the legal position was. I had to go down to the school and receive a lecture when it happened and obviously was very disappointed and angry with my son for being so stupid. The school impounded the mobile for a month and made him agree not to bring it back to school before returning it, which was fair enough.
> I would have preferred if they'd contacted me first and let me be present when the phone was examined, the principle seemed to think he had the authority to effectively search my son without a parent present.



I'd imagine the principal would have a duty of care to protect other kids in the school, by taking whatever steps are open to him/her to shield them from inappropriate content - either in your son's  phone or elsewhere.  I can't see how they could exercise this duty of care if they were unable to examine phones, schoolbags etc unless a parent was present.

You were right to be very disappointed and angry with your son. You will not do him any favours in the long run if you are seen to challenge, on procedural/legalistic grounds, those charged with authority over him, every time he does something wrong.


----------



## csirl (18 Jan 2008)

> Given that the school is responsible for looking after the children from the minute they go into school to the minute they leave then I would think that the principal was in the right. In the same way I assume that they can search a lunch box or a locker.


 
Someone on the other mobile phone thread mentioned the school being in parentis locus - I think this applies in this case also. From a legal point of view, the school staff are substitute parents while in charge of the child and have similar rights to a parent.


----------



## footsteps (18 Jan 2008)

Very difficult one!
My opinion would be that the principles actions potentially prevented other children being subject to receiving 'inappropriate' content to thier phone, so therefore he was guarding the rights of other children, as obviously some where along the long some one was not impressed leading to the Principle getting the information. 
If would have been a worse situation if he had got the guards as legal action may have to be taken depending on what the content was. (It happened with a parent looking at childs phone in Cork a year or two ago AFAIK) For example if it invovled a minor or violated some one elses privacy, or a child.


----------



## Billo (18 Jan 2008)

There are usually two sides to every story (especially with pupils). It would be difficult to determine who was right or wrong here without getting the teachers side of the story.

Rgds
Billo


----------



## ASFKAP (18 Jan 2008)

So no definitve legal opinion then but lots of moral opinions.
Maybe I should have pointed out what the inappropriate content was, it was happy-slapping clips which had been downloaded off the internet and were being 'Bluetoothed' between students at lunchtime. The principle said he had been tipped off that there was something going on so he picked one of the kids to see what was happening.....


----------



## John Rambo (18 Jan 2008)

ASFKAP said:


> So no definitve legal opinion then but lots of moral opinions.
> Maybe I should have pointed out what the inappropriate content was, it was happy-slapping clips which had been downloaded off the internet and were being 'Bluetoothed' between students at lunchtime. The principle said he had been tipped off that there was something going on so he picked one of the kids to see what was happening.....


 
If you wanted a "definitive legal opinion" then why didn't you go to a solicitor rather than posting on a site called Askaboutmoney? Happy-slapping is a disgraceful activity and I would be more concerned about my son being into this kind of thing rather than whether a teacher can ask to see a mobile phone. Maybe it's just me but I find your attitude a little odd.


----------



## mercman (18 Jan 2008)

John Rambo you are 100% correct. I have heard so many of these cases in some of the most 'snobby' schools in this country and as well as the not so snobby, when parents after incidents described choose to attack the teachers of the Head, instead of stepping back and assessing the situation. Most teachers are trying to do the best for the kids they are educating and also to make sure the environment of the school is safe for all the pupils. There is a fine line between right and wrong. However in this case, I would be thanking the school for highlighting the matter and then deal with my son for hanging around with such a crowd of degenerates. Happy Slapping - bet a different view would occur if God for Bid a child suffered a fractured skull or ruptured spleen from a Happy Slapping incident. And I'm not a prude.


----------



## lorna (18 Jan 2008)

John Rambo and Mercman, you are absolutely right and ASFKAP get a grip on what the real problem is ! not the teacher, your son and his likeminded loser mates are whom you should be focusing on. If I found any of my kids were involved in something like this, I can tell you now they would never ever do it again and I would shake that teacher's hand and donate a gift to the school funds with a suitable written apology from your son and your son should be grounded for a few weeks. I would be absolutely mortified if this was my son and I certainly wouldn't be advertising it on the internet for everyone to read ! - maybe this says something about YOU and why your son has got involved in something like this.
this sounds like behaviour imported from the UK to Ireland.


----------



## Billo (18 Jan 2008)

ASFKAP said:


> So no definitve legal opinion then but lots of moral opinions.
> Maybe I should have pointed out what the inappropriate content was, it was happy-slapping clips which had been downloaded off the internet and were being 'Bluetoothed' between students at lunchtime. The principle said he had been tipped off that there was something going on so he picked one of the kids to see what was happening.....



The picture is slowly becoming clearer. Did he pick one of the kids at random,do you think, or the likely ringleader ?


----------



## ASFKAP (18 Jan 2008)

Again allow me to clarify, there was neven any suggestion of happy-slapping at the school before or after the incident, and even the principle agreed that the fact that a great many students had these clips on their phones did not necessarily suggest such a campaign was about to start. The clips were put together with a backing (track and quite professionaly too) and taken off Youtube and similar. For the record I have already said I was shocked and disappointed with my son for having this offensive material on his phone and dealt with it accordingly yet some of you seem very quick to condemn me for asking a simple question!


----------



## REMFAN (18 Jan 2008)

John Rambo said:


> If you wanted a "definitive legal opinion" then why didn't you go to a solicitor rather than posting on a site called Askaboutmoney? Happy-slapping is a disgraceful activity and I would be more concerned about my son being into this kind of thing rather than whether a teacher can ask to see a mobile phone. Maybe it's just me but I find your attitude a little odd.


 
The OP is entitled to ask for a legal opinion, definitive or not on the Askaboutlaw forum of this website.

Happy-slapping is disgraceful but the OP did not ask to be judged by others.


----------



## ASFKAP (19 Jan 2008)

Thank you for the support Remfan, as I pointed out in several posts I did not condone or support my son's behaviour, nor did I ask to be judged on my parenting skills, I've already said I was embarrased about the incident but one or two members on here would obviously like me to wear sackcloth for having the temerity to ask for advice on here. 
Regarding my son's guilt (and he was clearly guilty in this case) even people guilty of far more serious crimes have legal rights especially minors, I just wanted clarify what his (and my) rights were in this instance.
Originally I thought of asking my brother who happens to be a barrister but I was too embarrased by the incident , I wish I had now as I'm fairly confident he wouldn't have been so quick to judge me!


----------



## REMFAN (19 Jan 2008)

lorna said:


> John Rambo and Mercman, you are absolutely right and ASFKAP get a grip on what the real problem is ! not the teacher, your son and his likeminded loser mates are whom you should be focusing on. If I found any of my kids were involved in something like this, I can tell you now they would never ever do it again and I would shake that teacher's hand and donate a gift to the school funds with a suitable written apology from your son and your son should be grounded for a few weeks. I would be absolutely mortified if this was my son and I certainly wouldn't be advertising it on the internet for everyone to read ! - maybe this says something about YOU and why your son has got involved in something like this.
> this sounds like behaviour imported from the UK to Ireland.


 
I don't see what this has to do with the OP's original quiry? Nor do I see how you or anyone has the right to take a moral high ground and judge the OP as a parent.


----------



## Guest120 (19 Jan 2008)

John Rambo said:


> If you wanted a "definitive legal opinion" then why didn't you go to a solicitor rather than posting on a site called Askaboutmoney? Happy-slapping is a disgraceful activity and I would be more concerned about my son being into this kind of thing rather than whether a teacher can ask to see a mobile phone. Maybe it's just me but I find your attitude a little odd.


Where did the OP state that their son was *into *'this kind of thing'?


----------



## Guest120 (19 Jan 2008)

lorna said:


> If I found any of my kids were involved in something like this, I can tell you now they would never ever do it again and I would shake that teacher's hand and donate a gift to the school funds with a suitable written apology from your son and your son should be grounded for a few weeks.


Involved in what exactly? Sending bluetooth content? As that all the OP son has been involved in.

If you bothered to read the thread and not been so ignorant then perhaps your post would be taken more seriously.


----------



## John Rambo (19 Jan 2008)

This thread has been hijacked by people more interested in hurling around personal insults than discussing the substantive issues. My own opinion is that the thread should be locked. Bluetonic, calling Lorna ignorant was neither fair or accurate. Nobody has suggested the kids were actually doing the "happy-slapping". I'd have a problem with my kids being involved in desseminating this dangerous rubbish among other children. That is "involved" from my point of view. Equally, you were wrong to defend the OP regarding my "definitive legal opinion" comment. You don't come to AAM for definitive legal opinion or definitive taxation opinion...it's a guide but the caveat of seeking good independent professional advice is always there. Also, and we've seen it so many times, you don't describe your situation, look for advice, and then throw your toys out of the pram when posters disagree with you over some of the issues.


----------



## ASFKAP (19 Jan 2008)

Don't lock the thread just yet, following the rantings of the baying mob on here I overcame my embarrassment and approached my brother for some 'definative legal advice', it appears we do have rights and in this case the school appeared to have breached them. Once they had been explained to me I thought it would be best to let the matter quietly drop, but it was explained to me that for a very good reason which I hadn't even considered I must pursue this matter further. Anyway a letter has been drafted and will be hand delivered to the school authorities first thing monday morning.


----------



## TreeTiger (19 Jan 2008)

I work in a primary school occasionally and would be amazed at any staff reading messages on a child's phone.  The only time I have seen anyone going into details on a phone is if a phone is handed in having been found in the yard or lying around somewhere with no apparent owner nearby, then a staff member has looked to see if there is a number for "Mum" or "Dad" and find out who the phone belongs to that way.

Personally I think the principal should have at least phoned you before checking your the contents of your son's phone.  (By the way, I would be very interested in knowing the reason you must pursue the matter further.)

And for those criticising the OP, I think that is unfair.  He/she has not attempted to justify the actions of the child, saying "obviously was very disappointed and angry with my son for being so stupid. The school impounded the mobile for a month and made him agree not to bring it back to school before returning it, which was fair enough." 

As far as I am aware, if a person's house is searched illegally then evidence found cannot be used against them (a certain judge who had unpleasant stuff on his computer comes to mind, the search warrant had expired by a matter of hours so all the images were deemed inadmissable in the subsequent court case where he was found not guilty).  Is the principle different because this is a child?


----------



## ASFKAP (19 Jan 2008)

Thank you Tree Tiger unfortunately I have been advised not to go into any further detail regarding the specific issue just yet but I'd be happy to tell you once the matter is finally closed. For info though, my son does not know that I am taking the matter further with the school as I think it would send out the wrong message, as far as hes concerned he was caught red handed and suitably punished both in school and at home, he is very unlikely to be so stupid as to do anyhting similar again, not that its possible of course on the 'bog standard' phone which replaced his previous model.....


----------



## John Rambo (20 Jan 2008)

ASFKAP said:


> Thank you Tree Tiger unfortunately I have been advised not to go into any further detail regarding the specific issue just yet but I'd be happy to tell you once the matter is finally closed. For info though, my son does not know that I am taking the matter further with the school as I think it would send out the wrong message, as far as hes concerned he was caught red handed and suitably punished both in school and at home, he is very unlikely to be so stupid as to do anyhting similar again, not that its possible of course on the 'bog standard' phone which replaced his previous model.....


 
Do you mind me asking why are you taking this matter further if you believe doing so would send out the wrong message to your child?


----------



## Guest120 (20 Jan 2008)

John Rambo said:


> This thread has been hijacked by people more interested in hurling around personal insults than discussing the substantive issues.


In no more relevant than you assuming details about the OP child.


----------



## John Rambo (20 Jan 2008)

Bluetonic said:


> In no more relevant than you assuming details about the OP child.


 
I have no idea what you're referring to. To be honest I do believe this thread should be locked as many, such as yourself, seem to have little to add. When did I make assumptions about the child?


----------



## John Rambo (20 Jan 2008)

Bluetonic said:


> Involved in what exactly? Sending bluetooth content? As that all the OP son has been involved in.
> 
> If you bothered to read the thread and not been so ignorant then perhaps your post would be taken more seriously.


 
You have trivialised this issue...to say the OP's child was merely "sending bluetooth content" is seriously understating the situation. People sharing videos of happy-slapping are "into it". Nobody was suggesting there was happy-slapping going on, so I think you've got the wrong end of the stick there. This link may be of help                        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping         Notice the terrible injuries that have been inflicted on victims of this practice, and that muggings and rapes are sometimes part of it.


----------



## Guest120 (20 Jan 2008)

John Rambo said:


> situation. People sharing videos of happy-slapping are "into it".


You would do a good job in a court of law to prove unequivocally that people sharing such content are 'into it'. It's your opinion which you are entitled to but not a fact.

I'm sure you can apply to be a moderator if you feel like once again repeating that this thread should be locked.


----------



## John Rambo (20 Jan 2008)

Bluetonic said:


> You would do a good job in a court of law to prove unequivocally that people sharing such content are 'into it'. It's your opinion which you are entitled to but not a fact.
> 
> I'm sure you can apply to be a moderator if you feel like once again repeating that this thread should be locked.


 
Would you consider people who share footage of happy slapping incidents to be "into it"? Or do you believe people spend time bluetoothing things to each other that they've absolutely no interest in whatsoever? Your contributions so far have been to accuse another poster of being ignorant at 4am in the morning and to direct smart comments at me regarding moderation. If you or the OP think a student disseminating happy slapping clips while at school or a parent moaning about unauthorised searches when a headmaster asks to see a mobile phone are normal behaviour then you too are entitled to your opinion. However, based on the contributions to the thread you are in the minority.


----------



## ubiquitous (21 Jan 2008)

Bluetonic said:


> You would do a good job in a court of law to prove unequivocally that people sharing such content are 'into it'.



Why? The criminal justice system's treatment of people who are found to have child pornography on their computers has been based entirely on this premise.


----------



## truthseeker (21 Jan 2008)

Back to the original query - I would have assumed that a principal is acting in loco parentis (perhaps Ive watched too many american movies) and would be entitled to view the contents of a childs mobile phone?

OP - I would be most interested in the actual correct legal answer to this question.


----------



## Haille (21 Jan 2008)

What is the schools policy on mobile phones in the school? Are they allowed if switched off in classes? Did your son have inappropriate material stored on phone? What would parents of other children think if their children were receiving inappropriate material on their phones and the school was not investigating. If the principal had to contact a parent every time they had to check for inappropriate material you certainly would not get the matter resolved immediately.


----------



## John Rambo (21 Jan 2008)

Haille said:


> What is the schools policy on mobile phones in the school? Are they allowed if switched off in classes? Did your son have inappropriate material stored on phone? What would parents of other children think if their children were receiving inappropriate material on their phones and the school was not investigating. If the principal had to contact a parent every time they had to check for inappropriate material you certainly would not get the matter resolved immediately.


 
Not just contact the parent...some seem to think the parent should be present when the mobile phone is examined. What's next? Having the police present when a pencil case is checked for cog notes or claiming defamation when your child is accused of eating a sweet in class? Frankly, I tthink the world is gone mad!


----------



## truthseeker (21 Jan 2008)

It was my own experience in school that the children of parents who challenged the schools authorities for minor incidents like looking in a childs bag or checking their pockets if there was a suspicion of contraband were the children who were the biggest troublemakers and messers in the school, safe in the knowledge that mammy would arrive steaming if a teacher said one wrong word.


----------

