Public high school students have First and Fourth Amendment rights at school and

these protections extend to social media and to the digital contents of their cell
phones. Public high schools have a duty to educate students and provide a safe and
orderly place that is conducive to learning. When students break school rules, they
have to sometimes accept greater restrictions of their constitutional rights while
they are in school. Rocktown High Schools 2016 AP History class is under a pall of
cheating. At issue is whether the schools search of one history students social
media friends, and anothers cell phone text messages, both obtained under
threat of suspension, was reasonable; whether the students could be disciplined for
the cheat speech, particularly if it originated off school grounds, and what might
be a better way for the school to have handled the matter.
First, where a schools suspicion of cyber cheating is strong, slight intrusions of a
students right to privacy in the form of reasonable and focused investigation in
order to either confirm or dispel those suspicions is appropriate. Second, internet or
digital speech that demonstrates that student(s) broke school rules, while
constitutionally protected, still substantially disrupt the school and can be
disciplined. Third, if the schools suspicions are confirmed, the students who cheated
can be disciplined, but have the right to notice and an informal hearing before they
can be expelled.
Fourth Amendment.
Mrs. Smiths demand that Britney Sullivan log on to social media and reveal the
secret group suspected of cheating is reasonable because Mrs. Smiths suspicions
are supported by facts and she is limiting her search to the groups discussion of
the AP history exam questions. Before searching through a students personal
items, school officials need to have reasonable grounds to believe that the student
has violated a school rule. Reasonable grounds can be based on all sorts of
information, including a tip from another student as well as a students history of
breaking school rules. Mrs. Smith knew that a group of AP History students missed
the same questions, had, unexpectedly, extremely high test scores and she had a
tip that the test had been stolen and questions discussed by a secret group on a
specific social media site. The tip and the fishy test results give Mrs. Smith enough
suspicion to question Sullivan, a member of the suspect group who had broken
school rules before. Cheating on a high school exam is a very serious violation.
And the more serious the violation, the stronger the schools reasons to search for
evidence to either prove or dispel it. Fourth Amendment rights are different in
public schools the reasonableness inquiry cannot disregard the schools custodial
and tutelary responsibility for children.(Board of Education v. Earls 536 U.S. 844)
Mrs. Smiths demand focuses only on evidence of the secret group and of cheating.
Therefore, her demand is reasonable and justified. In addition, Britney, a high
school senior, could have said No demand and refused to log onto the group.
When a student voluntarily consents to a search, the school does not need even
reasonable suspicion to conduct the search. Without protest, Britney voluntarily
logged onto the group for Mrs. Smith and Smiths suspicions were confirmed.
Britneys consent justifies the schools search. By revealing the secret group to Mrs.
Smith, Britney waived her right to privacy and the privacy rights of her secret group
friends. If a friend shows school officials social media content, it is no longer private.

It becomes an Open Secret. School officials can then look at it and act on it.
That is what happened here.
Students have a very strong right to privacy when it comes to their cell phones. Cell
phones arent like backpacks or pockets. The digital contents of a students cell
phone are vast and contain a wealth of private information, most of which has
nothing to do with school. (Riley v California 134 S Ct 2473) Mrs. Smith is on solid
ground confiscating Osbornes cell phone because she has already ascertained that
he is in the cheater group and her suspicions are backed up by the tip, the fishy
test results, the evidence supplied by Britney and screenshots of Dave Osbornes
online discussion of the exam questions. Mrs. Smith is reasonable in demanding
that he show her text message discussion of the exam questions because she has
very strong, specific reasons to suspect that Osborne used his cell phone to cheat
and that the text message proof is on his cell phone. When Osborne shows Smith
the text messages, she restricts her search to just those text messages. She
doesnt seek phone numbers, friends, contacts, e-mail conversations, photos,
videos, web sites and visited location or any other information on the cell phone.
Just like Britney, David Osborne consents to the principals demand and shows her
texts when he could have refused and called his parents or lawyer. By voluntarily
showing Mrs. Smith the text messages Osborne waives his and the entire secret text
groups privacy rights.
First Amendment.
Neither Britney Sullivan nor David Osborne can be disciplined for social media
discussions or text messages (cheat speech) that originate outside of school. That
speech is protected under the First Amendment. Both students can be disciplined
for cheat speech generated at school. Cheating substantially disrupts the school
because it has to be investigated, evidence has to be obtained, people questioned,
hearings done, and on and on. And the act of cheating, at least the pen to paper
part, must take place at school in Mr. Robinsons classroom. So, in this sense, the
unavoidable effect of out-of-school, protected cheat speech can still be
disciplined. This way the First Amendment protects what Osborne and the secret
group discussed outside of school, but they can still be disciplined for the act of
cheating at school.
Due Process. A Better Way.
Students have the right to know what they are accused of and the opportunity to
explain or defend themselves prior to an expulsion, although, the hearing can be
informal, in the principals office and just between the student and a principal. Mrs.
Smiths investigative tactics were roughshod and overbearing. Britney Sullivan
quickly gave in to her Principals demand because she was afraid of being
suspended during her senior year and ruining her college plans. Mrs. Smith already
had plenty of information when she decided to confront Britney. A better course of
action would have been to call Britney to her office, discuss the matter, ask her
whether she cheated and if she would cooperate with the schools investigation. As
it is, Britney and her parents will probably challenge her expulsion and say that Mrs.
Smith pressured Britney into logging on against her will. As for David Osborne, Mrs.
Smith had plenty of evidence to back up her suspicions the he, specifically, cheated

using text messages. Nevertheless, she should have allowed him to contact his
parents and scheduled a meeting in her office. Osborne would have no choice but
to let her see the text messages. Last, expulsion seems a bit harsh. In 2009, thirty
seniors at Bishop Sullivan High School in Virginia Beach, Virginia, were caught using
their cell phones to cheat on a multiple choice exam. They were disciplined by the
student honor code and they were all given zeros on the exam and they were all
kicked out of the national honor society. None of them were expelled. There are
many ways the students could have been disciplined short of expulsion.