Searching Student Cell Phones

Can School Officials Search a Student’s Cell Phone 

Ever since the landmark Tinker v. Des Moines case, it is well established that students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse but also that school officials have been given greater latitude to allow them to ensure a safe learning environment for all students.

In short, the answer depends on whether the search was reasonably related to the circumstances that brought the student, and their phone to the office. 

The court in T.L.O., citing the landmark Terry v. Ohio case, established the two-prong test still applicable for schools today concerning student searches. There the court established the constitutionality of a search hinges on whether the search was (1) justified at its inception and (2) was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341, 105 S. Ct. 733, 742–43, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985).

Reviewing subsequent cases can provide more clarity as to what those prongs mean to school officials during their daily jobs. 

Cell Phone Violation I (Scope) – Klump v. Nazareth Area School District, 425 F.Supp.2d 622 (2006)

In Klump, a student’s cell phone was searched after it fell out of his pocket and was confiscated by the teacher. School officials subsequently used the phone to contact nine other students which also had violated the policy. There the court noted that the search was used as a tool to catch other students violating the policy and therefore was not reasonable retaliated to the present violation. 

Cell Phone Violation II (Justified at Inception) – J.W. V. Desoto County School District, WL 4394059 (N.D. Miss. Nov. 1, 2010)

In J.W., a student’s phone was searched after he was caught texting in violation of a no cell phone policy. The search revealed gang-related photos and the student was expelled. The court here, distinguishing the case from Klump, noted that the student intentionally violated the rules and it was reasonable for school officials to determine the purpose of the use thereby upholding the search. 

Cell Phone Violation III (Justified at Inception) – G.C. v. Owensboro Public School, 711 F.3d 623, 633–34 (6th Cir. 2013)

In G.C., a student with a history of depression and suicidal history was caught using his phone in class. The school argued that their prior knowledge of the student's behavior prompted them to search the phone. While the lower courts upheld the search, the 6th Circuit reversed stating the school’s prior knowledge of suicidal behavior and drug use did not justify the search in this particular incidence. The court there noted that there was nothing in the particular incident to give school officials reasonable suspicion that would indicate evidence of criminal activity, violation of school rules, or danger to anyone at school. 

So what are school officials to do?

In short, there is nothing that prohibits school officials from collecting cell phones in violation of school policy. However, any search without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, violation of school rules, or danger to students would not be advised. Such reasonable suspicion might present itself if school officials were presented with evidence suggesting a student was bullying and harassing other students with the device. Alternatively, it may even be argued that reviewing a phone following allegations from a teacher that a student was using their device to cheat on a test. Regardless of the reason, the search must be limited to a specified purpose giving rise to the search (evidence of bullying or photos of test answers). One thing is clear, while school officials do not have to have probable cause, they most certainly cannot go pilfering through a student’s cell phone looking for any evidence of crimes or violations of school policy.

Final Thought – Riley v. California 134 S.Ct. 2473 (2014)

Riley is recognized as the landmark case requiring law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching the contents of a cell phone. There the court recognized the privacy concerns involved when dealing with a cell phone. Correspondingly, it is likely that courts will rely on that case to hold school officials to a higher standard when searching electronic devices.

These issues like so many are fact-intensive. The safest bet for school officials who reasonably believe a phone contains such aforementioned evidence would be to confiscate the device and consult their local school attorney for guidance. 

**The Standard —> Reasonable Suspicion applies to "school officials" and may not apply to searches by school resources officers (SRO’s). See R.D.S. v. State, 245 S.W.3d 356 (Tenn. 2008)

For additional specific answers, review TN Attorney General Opinion No. 12-21. You can find it HERE.