Cell Phones in High School

[BelizeBreeze]

What a damn fool

 

[roro24]

Yeah, that is the response I would usually get against my debate opponents after winning a debate competition ...sorry that I did not let you hear what you wanted to hear... maybe next time....xoxoxoxoxoxo

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Yeah, that is the response I would usually get against my debate opponents after winning a debate competition ...sorry that I did not let you hear what you wanted to hear... maybe next time....xoxoxoxoxoxo

Tell yourself anything you want. I don't argue with mental midgets.

 

[roro24]

Then stop arguing with yourself....xoxo

 

[HomeGuru]

I am monitoring this thread so keep it up and get kicked off soon.

 

[StudentTX07]

Roro I'm a guy lol Thanks for all that info... we might actually have something to go on if we do decide to take it further. It's now Tuesday and I still haven' gone to the office to try to retrieve my phone. I think my dad was going today, not sure.

 

[roro24]

As I said before, good luck with your phone situation...hope that you can resolve this matter...and sorry guy ...lol...

 

[ylen13]

my question could be stupid beause we are dealing with school, but my undestanding that a minor can't sign anything as they are minor, so then how can school inforce rule regarding cell phone if he and not the parents signed the paper?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

my question could be stupid beause we are dealing with school, but my undestanding that a minor can't sign anything as they are minor, so then how can school inforce rule regarding cell phone if he and not the parents signed the paper?

I guess you missed it...the student is 18, not a minor, so the question is moot.

 

[ylen13]

I guess you missed it...the student is 18, not a minor, so the question is moot.

ops you're right

 

[Rhubarb297]

Good advice, Roro.. I think we're just going to pay the fine, but I wanted to have a good explanation of why it's legal for doing that. And "Breeze," this is the only time I've ever come to these forums-- to post this topic-- and I won't be coming back. The reason? I have seen how most people respond to perfectly legitimate questions. They use sarcasm and try to make people feel bad about thier questions. It's not right, and I hope they can live with themselves. Bye!

EDIT: I added the word "use" before "sarcasm." This is not an error in my thinking or knowledge of the words, it is called a "typo." I typed this response quickly before I left for school this morning. To whomever it was that made the comment about my grammar... that is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about. Grow up.

I thought you presented your question well and very maturely. By the way don't listen to that bozo "BelizeBreeze." He gets his legal knowledge from watching old Night Court reruns. The fact is nobody on here knows for sure the answer to your question - which is what is the the legal basis for the fine. They're just giving a gut reaction to what they think is a punk kid not complying with school rules. You'd have to contact someone who knew about Texas education law and specific rules and regulations governing Texas public schools. I highly doubt anyone on here is knowledgeable on that subject.

Obviously the confiscation of personal property is something schools do all the time. But I have to admit, I have never heard of a school requiring that a "fine" (which is the wrong terminology by the way) be paid by a student in order to get their personal property back. Maybe that's more common in some jurisidictions, but certainly it's unheard of where I live.

But at the end of the day it's only $15, probably not enough to make a fuss about.

 

[Rhubarb297]

Tell yourself anything you want. I don't argue with mental midgets.

I guess that means you never argue with yourself.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Nice try rubnuts, but you're simply not worth the trouble.
Go find somone else to try an insult. I have better things to do than sully my hand or intelligence.

 

[Rhubarb297]

The school district is not located in New Jersey, it's Texas. As you state case laws, this case would prompt a case law in Texas. From state to state the laws change, this is why when you begin a Thread, the first question you need to answer is: What State Do You Live In? Even though the US Supreme Court made these decisions on the cases you stated in your remarks, here is your "fallacy" in this statement:

BelizeBreeze: Regarding Case Law use on your statement “I strongly suggest you read...New Jersey v. T.L.O ... or Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969) or Tannahill v. Lockney Indep. Sch. Dist., 133 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2001), to understand the fallacy of your position.”

New Jersey v. T.L.O. has to do with having illegal substances on school grounds, i.e. the case had to do with a girl who was searched because the smell of smoke was pungent and fresh. So, a faculty member decided to search her purse, which turned up evidence of the cigarettes. This caused it to be a MIP of cigarettes. And lets get a little bit up to date. As I learned in law school, as well as CJ school, you should have no more than a five year gap on your case laws. If you are representing a case in 2005, you are not going to give case law from 1985, 20 years later. You will be torn up in a case from any sub par defense lawyer.

This standard will, we trust, neither unduly burden the efforts of school authorities to maintain order in their schools [469 U.S. 325, 343] nor authorize unrestrained intrusions upon the privacy of schoolchildren. By focusing attention on the question of reasonableness, the standard will spare teachers and school administrators the necessity of schooling themselves in the niceties of probable cause and permit them to regulate their conduct according to the dictates of reason and common sense. At the same time, the reasonableness standard should ensure that the interests of students will be invaded no more than is necessary to achieve the legitimate end of preserving order in the schools.​

As for Tinker v. Des Moines Ed. (1969) has nothing to do with a case of StudentTX07. I do not think that she will be protesting any wars with her cellular phone. If you would have read that case, it was regarding students wearing black in regards to the Vietnam War. Again, 30+ years ago.

As to Tannahill v. Lockney, it has to do with drug testing among athletic students, not cellular phones. This one I do give you credit. You are moving towards the times of today (2001).

Before posting case laws, make sure to read them first. Then, if it has something to do with a case being discussed, by all means, use the case law to back up your evidence. Since you have not proven your ability to point out “fallacy” in my first statement, by all means, find an actual case law that would have to do with StudentTX07’s case. And, as stated before, any sub par defense lawyer would tear up these case laws in your case. I take that back, any law student in debate could take this case on in court against your case laws.

So, back to StudentTX07, here is my advice I give to you: If you prove it a point to voice your concerns, you will not go unheard. As you can see, BelizeBreeze has done research to point out what was seen as a "fallacy" but with a little bit of reading and more research, I was able to show you that these case laws do not have any weight on your case. GOOD LUCK, AGAIN...

Thanks for your excellent, informative post. Good analysis too. It was so good I hate to bring up a negative point.

Having worked an ex-clerk for a judge on a court of appeals, I would say though that your 5 year rule on case law is really a BAD approach. They actually taught you that in law school?

It depends on the type of issue being researched, but you're much, much better off using a case decided by your state's supreme court that is 20 years old than one from another jurisdiction that is 2 years old. And you want to use your state supreme court's opinion over one that only made it to the appellate level, even though the appellate decision may be newer.

On many issues, there may only be a handful cases decided in the last 100 years in that jurisdiction. Obviously the five year rule is a bad idea with regard to those issues.

You'll find that judges who write legal opinions use cases older than five years all the time. The important thing is that the precedents used in the legal opinion are from the jurisdiction, are on point, have not been overturned, and are preferably state or U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Sure it's nice to have recent cases, but the other factors mentioned are more important.

As I believe your correctly pointed out to BelizeBreeze, on an issue like this the only time you should look outside of Texas for case law is if there is no decent Texas case law on the subject. Case law outside of Texas (unless it's from the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the Texas or a comparable law) is merely persuasive precedent that means very little.

Of course it sounds like you deal with criminal law more. As such you're usually going to have a lot more precedents to choose from than is the case on this one relatively obscure subject dealing with education law. Please don't take my comments wrong - I was impressed by your post.