Teen Catches Teacher Stealing From Students’ Backpacks

Quote from bonkman : not if that evidence isn't admissible in court. I'm no lawyer, but I do know that if you record a phone conversation and don't tell them it's being recorded, that evidence might not be admissible. So it's quite possible that a student taking a candid cell video of a person might not be allowed. Is that annoying? Perhaps, but that's not the teacher's or principal's problem. It's the legal system's.

Assuming the Principal is not a lawyer, he does not know if destroying the evidence would be illegal, either.

Quote : Though again, my guess is that it's because he DIDN'T want the video getting out in case that it was a misunderstanding/fake and he didn't want a popular teacher having their life destroyed if she really were innocent.

Not really his decision to make.

Quote : Also -- "keep it confidential?" In high school? I wouldn't be surprised if there are students claiming they saw her jack a car out of the parking lot at this point.

No more farfetched than requesting she destroy the video.

In fact I'd say it's more likely she'd keep it confidential for a while than destroy it.

Quote from 124nic8 : Assuming the Principal is not a lawyer, he does not know if destroying the evidence would be illegal, either.

Wrong. Administrators have to take school law courses. He probably knows.

Quote : Not really his decision to make.

Wrong again. The teacher has rights, too.

Quote : No more farfetched than requesting she destroy the video. In fact I'd say it's more likely she'd keep it confidential for a while than destroy it.

Quote from bonkman : Wrong. Administrators have to take school law courses. He probably knows.

Which do not qualify them to make legal judgements any more valid than other non-officers of the court.

Quote : Wrong again. The teacher has rights, too.

If slandered, the teacher has legal recourse. That possibility does not give the Principal the right to insist evidence be destroyed before it's determined to be admissable evidence of a crime.

Quote :

If given the choice between temporary secrecy and permanent destruction, which would you choose? There's no way I'd destroy it at the mere request of a Principal. Maybe for a court order....

Quote from 124nic8 : Which do not qualify them to make legal judgements any more valid than other non-officers of the court.

Yes it does.

Quote : If slandered, the teacher has legal recourse. That possibility does not give the Principal the right to insist evidence be destroyed before it's determined to be admissable evidence of a crime.

The teacher has legal recourse, true. But that's not the same thing as being ok. If a malicious rumor circulates, she can be run out of the school despite being innocent.

Quote : If given the choice between temporary secrecy and permanent destruction, which would you choose? There's no way I'd destroy it at the mere request of a Principal. Maybe for a court order....

Are you sure that the principal doesn't have a copy of the video?

Quote from bonkman : Yes it does.

You really think "the Principal told me to destroy it" would be a valid defense if charged with destruction of evidence?

Quote : The teacher has legal recourse, true. But that's not the same thing as being ok. If a malicious rumor circulates, she can be run out of the school despite being innocent.

Then that would be the fault of the school and the Principal for letting that happen.

Quote : Are you sure that the principal doesn't have a copy of the video?

Are you sure the Principal could be trusted not to destroy evidence?

I might turn over my only copy to the cops, but not a self-interested, 3rd party like the teacher's boss.

Quote from 124nic8 : You really think "the Principal told me to destroy it" would be a valid defense if charged with destruction of evidence?

I'm telling you he probably knows whether or not he's allowed to do it.

Quote : Then that would be the fault of the school and the Principal for letting that happen.

No.

Quote : Are you sure the Principal could be trusted not to destroy evidence? I might turn over my only copy to the cops, but not a self-interested, 3rd party like the teacher's boss.

He's not self-interested. A teacher acting poorly has no bearing on him unless he had been given warning of such behavior and ignored it in the past.

Bonkman, I could be wrong, but doubt it, but arent generally *public* spaces open to any kind of recording as there is no perceived right to privacy?

If what you imply is true, then school cameras which catch fights and thieving students would also not be admissable proof lol, but im sure they quite are.

Quote from bonkman : I'm telling you he probably knows whether or not he's allowed to do it.

He may, or may not, know; but he certainly does not have legal authority to command it, nor provide a defense for doing it.

Quote : No.

Yes.

Quote : He's not self-interested. A teacher acting poorly has no bearing on him unless he had been given warning of such behavior and ignored it in the past.

Or wants to avoid a scandal in his school....

Maybe he ordered a teacher to do random searches and that violates the students' rights.

Either way, he's certainly self-interested.

Quote from MISHNAH : Bonkman, I could be wrong, but doubt it, but arent generally *public* spaces open to any kind of recording as there is no perceived right to privacy? If what you imply is true, then school cameras which catch fights and thieving students would also not be admissable proof lol, but im sure they quite are.

But school locker rooms aren't generally *public* spaces & there *is* an expectation of privacy while within them. That's likely why there wasn't an official "school camera" in there to begin with.

Quote from 124nic8 : He may, or may not, know; but he certainly does not have legal authority to command it, nor provide a defense for doing it. Yes. Or wants to avoid a scandal in his school.... Maybe he ordered a teacher to do random searches and that violates the students' rights. Either way, he's certainly self-interested.

While it's true that students retain *some* constitutional rights while in school, the 4th amend has not been one that has been highly protected in that regard. School administrators do *not* need a warrant or even probable cause to search a student's locker, book bag or other personal efects brought onto school grounds.

That's why I never parked my car in the school parking lot.

Quote from vaultaddict : the teacher in the video has white hands http://linden.ca.luh.schoolinsite...gID=131751

So much for that theory...

Good work ID'ing the teacher.

Quote from smegalicious : While it's true that students retain *some* constitutional rights while in school, the 4th amend has not been one that has been highly protected in that regard. School administrators do *not* need a warrant or even probable cause to search a student's locker, book bag or other personal efects brought onto school grounds. That's why I never parked my car in the school parking lot.

Well, it seems they must have reasonable suspicion for individual searches: [nytimes.com]

Quote : Impact T.L.O. is the landmark case on search and seizure at school. Basically, school officials may search a student's property if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that a school rule has been broken, or a student has committed or is in the process of committing a crime. These are called "suspicion-based" searches. There are also "suspicionless searches" in which everyone in a certain group is subject to a search at school. [See Vernonia v. Acton in Part 2 of this article in the next issue of Upfront.]

I doubt that teacher was searching everyone of a whole groups' belongings, but I suppose it is possible.

Quote from bonkman : not if that evidence isn't admissible in court. I'm no lawyer, but I do know that if you record a phone conversation and don't tell them it's being recorded, that evidence might not be admissible. So it's quite possible that a student taking a candid cell video of a person might not be allowed. Is that annoying? Perhaps, but that's not the teacher's or principal's problem. It's the legal system's.

that's a touchy one, but in "general" it is not legal to audio record someone.. but it is legal to video tape someone. An audio tape is not admissible in criminal court.. but a video tape w/o audio is. Yet, if there's no words spoken the audio is still fine.

I suppose the only fine line is what is private and for whom? Bathroom are private because well.. you expect a certain amount of privacy for the actions done there. A locker room falls under the same classification. But a teacher in a locker room? What is their purpose in a locker room? The assumption is that in a locker room, you're there to get changed etc.. I'd probably the wager the teacher never changed in that locker room once (which is just my guess).

Let's take into account hidden cameras in stores etc.. They even have hidden cameras that record in state owned buildings and agencies. Or even consider nanny cams hidden to record care givers.

Quote from MISHNAH : Bonkman, I could be wrong, but doubt it, but arent generally *public* spaces open to any kind of recording as there is no perceived right to privacy? If what you imply is true, then school cameras which catch fights and thieving students would also not be admissable proof lol, but im sure they quite are.

in court?

or in the principal's office?

see below

Quote from DJPlayer : that's a touchy one, but in "general" it is not legal to audio record someone.. but it is legal to video tape someone. An audio tape is not admissible in criminal court.. but a video tape w/o audio is. Yet, if there's no words spoken the audio is still fine. I suppose the only fine line is what is private and for whom? Bathroom are private because well.. you expect a certain amount of privacy for the actions done there. A locker room falls under the same classification. But a teacher in a locker room? What is their purpose in a locker room? The assumption is that in a locker room, you're there to get changed etc.. I'd probably the wager the teacher never changed in that locker room once (which is just my guess). Let's take into account hidden cameras in stores etc.. They even have hidden cameras that record in state owned buildings and agencies. Or even consider nanny cams hidden to record care givers.

the cams in stores are security cams. there are signs at the store that say that the premises are monitored. same with any school ive been to that has cams.

not the same as what happened here.

and as far as i understand, nanny cams are allowed because people have the right to monitor their own home. Any guest of the home understands they are in someone else's house with someone else's stuff. Try putting nanny cams in your neighbors' house.