When I left high school, about 34 years ago, I decided to become a lawyer due in a large part to illogical and dumb ass school board rules. I was reminded of those times by an article in today's Town Talk entitled "Confiscated cell phones could cost parents $15". In particular, this post is directed to the comment that "Committee members, which include teachers, principals and community members, also would like more teeth in the current cell phone policy, especially for serious offenses like photographing students and faculty without permission" ... id.
Personally, I would not allow cell phones on campus at all, as we got along perfectly well without then and any emergency that came up that required a call to parents could be made on the office phone. But, if they are on campus, they should be open to legal uses.
While recognizing that students on school grounds do not have the same Constitutional rights that we adults have, which in and of itself seems rather strange for institutions that you can vote upon exit of, taking a photograph of someone or something in public view IS NOT ILLEGAL. The same rule applies to cell phones and traffic cameras.
In United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 103 S.Ct. 1081, 75 L.Ed.2d 55(1983), the U.S. Supreme Court held opined that: "A person traveling in an automobile on public thoroughfares has no reasonable expectation of privacy in his movements." In California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986), the Court held that naked-eye aerial observation from an altitude of 1,000 feet of a backyard within the curtilage of a home does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. See also Dow Chemical Company v. United States, 476 U.S. 227, 106 S.Ct. 1819, 90 L.Ed.2d 226 (1986), citing Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170, 104 S.Ct. 1735, 80 L.Ed.2d 214 (1984), which wrote "an individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately surrounding the home."... "To fall within the "open fields" doctrine the area "need be neither 'open' nor a 'field' as those terms are used in common speech." The Louisiana Supreme Court has held likewise, see: Jaubert v. Crowley Post-Signal, Inc., 375 So.2d 1386 (La., 1979), in which the Louisiana Supreme Court wrote:
- "Because the situation or activity which is intruded upon must be private, an invasion does not occur when an individual makes a photograph of a public sight which any one is free to see; Prosser, Law of Torts, 809. A third type of invasion consists of publicity which unreasonably places the plaintiff in a false light before the public. While the publicity need not be defamatory in nature, but only objectionable to a reasonable person under the circumstances, it must contain either falsity or fiction. A fourth type of invasion is represented by unreasonable public disclosure of embarrassing private acts. With reference to this category, Prosser states that "(i)t seems to be generally agreed that anything visible in a public place can be recorded and given circulation by means of a photograph, to the same extent as by a written description, since this amounts to nothing more than giving publicity to what is already public and what anyone present would be free to see." Law of Torts, 811. Similarly, the Restatement Second of the Law of Torts indicates that "there is no liability for giving further publicity to what the plaintiff himself leaves open to the public eye." Supra at 386."
So if you object to having your photograph taken in public view, and that photo is not used for a commercial purpose, then don't appear in public.
|