Northwest Education Law Blog : Northwest Education Lawyer & Attorney : Williams Kastner Law Firm : Tacoma, Seattle, Portland

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Parents Spring and Charles Towry have filed suit, on behalf of themselves and their daughter, against the Kootenai Elementary School, Lake Pend Oreille School District No. 84, and Bonner County Sheriff’s Department, alleging nine separate causes of action arising out of their 8 year-old daughter’s arrest in January 2009.

According to the complaint, the Towry child was diagnosed with Autistic Spectrum Disorder in August 2008. In December 2008, officials at Kootenai Elementary in Idaho held a meeting and instituted an Individual Education Plan (“IEP”) and Behavior Intervention Plan (“BIP”), entirely without the Towry’s knowledge or participation. The plans authorized police intervention to deal with the child, with no requirement of prior notice to the Towrys.

The Towrys allege that on January 9, 2009, the 8-year-old Towry child was arrested at the behest of her teacher, Louise Zumuda, and Kootenai Elementary principal, Betsy Walker, without notice to her parents. According to the complaint, Bonner County Sheriff’s Department Deputies Justin Collins and Kurt Lehman handcuffed the 8-year-old and took her to the Bonner County Juvenile Detention Center, where she was “patted down.”

The Towrys seek relief on nine separate causes of action, including: negligence; intentional infliction of emotional distress; negligent hiring/supervision/retention; breach of contract; disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), and Idaho statutory law; and violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

While the complaint maintains the anonymity of the child at the center of the dispute, some reports claim to identify the child.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The parents of Blake Robbins, a 15-year-old student at Harriton High School, an elite suburban Philadelphia public school in the Lower Merion School District, have filed a lawsuit alleging that the school district violated Robbins’ privacy rights when it activated the webcam in his school-issued laptop. In response, the school district does not deny that it has remotely activated laptop webcams in the past. However, the school professed that it only did so to "locate a laptop in the event it was reported lost, missing or stolen so that the laptop could be returned to the student."

According to the complaint, Robbins learned of the school’s alleged use of the webcam when an assistant principal at Harriton High School, Lindy Matsko, cited evidence taken from the webcam on Robbins’ computer in support of the school’s accusation that he was using drugs. The family claims that the items Matsko perceived as “drugs” were actually candy.

While one would anticipate that the federal claims of the lawsuit would receive similar treatment in the district courts, whether in Pennsylvania or here in Washington, had this case arisen in Washington it would have implicated some interesting aspects of Washington privacy law. Washington’s Privacy Act prohibits all persons from eavesdropping or recording confidential communications. The Act prohibits the interception of “private communication transmitted by telephone . . . or other device,” or “private conversation” without the prior consent of all parties to the communication.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In May 2009 this blog reported on oral arguments made before the United States Supreme Court in Redding v. Safford United School District. To view the original blogpost, setting for the core facts underlying the dispute, click here.

On June 25, 2009, the Supreme Court issued its opinion, finding that the school’s strip search of 13 year-old Savanna Redding violated the Fourth Amendment because “there were no reasons to suspect the drugs presented a danger or were concealed in her underwear.” In the absence of such immediate danger or evidence that the student was concealing drugs in her underwear, school officials could not make “the quantum leap from outer clothes and backpacks to exposure of intimate parts.”

The Court attempted to soften the blow to school administrators by acknowledging that the administrators’ motives in this case appeared pure, but nonetheless “the Fourth Amendment places limits on the official, even with the high degree of deference that courts must pay to the educator’s professional judgment.”

To view the complete Supreme Court opinion, click here.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On April 21, 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case involving the controversial strip search of 8th grader Savana Redding, Redding v. Safford United Sch. Dist. No. 1.

In August 2003, public school officials observed disorderly behavior at a school dance among a group of students, including Savana Redding. Officials believed they smelled alcohol. Nearly two months later, a student informed officials he had received pills from Redding and her friend, Marisa. School officials searched Marisa and found pills, which Marisa attributed to Redding. They also found Redding’s organizer, which Redding insisted Marisa had borrowed several days earlier, in Marisa’s vicinity. The organizer also contained pills.

School officials then retrieved Redding. Redding denied ever possessing or distributing drugs and invited officials to search her backpack, which they did, finding nothing. Nevertheless, school officials subjected Redding to a thorough strip search, requiring her to remove her jacket, shoes, socks, pants, and shirt, then pull out her bra to one side and shake it, while exposing herself. Finally, they required Redding to pull her underwear out and expose her pelvic area.

Redding filed suit, alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by virtue of the public school’s violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. After the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the school district, the Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the search reasonable. However, the Ninth Circuit subsequently reheard the case, vacated its earlier decision, and reversed the trial court’s dismissal, finding the search unreasonable. The school district appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to decide whether the search of Ms. Redding was reasonable. Under the Court’s precedent, New Jersey v. TLO, the reasonableness of a search by public school officials on school premises during school hours is determined by considering whether the search was: (1) justified at its inception; and (2) reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the search. Williams Kastner will update this blog post on the Redding case once the Court hands down its decision.

Redding v. Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1, 531 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2008)