# data[].attributes.body
As a prospective professional school counselor, I would like to share with the administration and school board some information regarding placing cameras in the classrooms of our schools. This topic has been discussed a couple of times over the last few years in my district. It never has happened. I felt it important to review the legalities of it to understand why.

# data[].attributes.body
There are several concerns about placing cameras in the classrooms. Many feel that it is taking away student privacy. Teachers have argued that it is a way to keep an eye on them as if they are not professionals. Cost is always a concern when it comes to such a huge undertaking to install cameras in every classroom. Ultimately, the most important first step is for everyone to understand the reasoning behind them.

Three best practices are:

Discuss the reasons behind placing cameras in the classroom with all students and parents and allow for questions to help put families at ease.

Determine who will have access to the camera system footage and what their responsibilities are regarding the video system.

Allow parents access to footage when requested if they have concerns about an incident.

Following the Uvalde School Shooting and other active shooter situations, many are beginning to understand the importance of having cameras in schools. If there had been cameras in those classrooms, law enforcement would have had a clearer understanding of what was happening and how to stop the shooter.

Kenna Moody

Groesbeck Middle School Principal

# data[].attributes.body
ATPE discusses the use of cameras in the classroom and the fact that there is no presumption of privacy in a school classroom. Texas passed a law requiring cameras in special education classrooms in 2015 for the protection of disabled students. It goes further to discuss using recordings for students to record class lectures and teacher evaluations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Association of Texas Professional Educators

By: Paul Tapp
ATPE Managing Attorney

Almost no one, including educators, likes to be recorded. But cameras have continued to proliferate in schools and many public areas. Once reserved solely for cafeterias, halls, and gyms, they are even starting to enter classrooms.
The General Rules
Anyone can be captured on video anytime unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. It is a gray area as to what that means, but generally, common sense prevails. For instance, cameras are not allowed in restrooms or changing areas. In contrast, since there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a classroom shared with students, there is no general legal prohibition on cameras there.

The Texas Education Code does, however, prohibit a school district or district employee from recording, or by policy authorizing the recording of, a student's image or voice without prior parental consent unless the recording is for safety, related to curricular or extracurricular activities, or related to regular classroom instruction. So, the Education Code puts a practical restriction on when cameras can be used in many situations-only when the parents of a student who will be recorded allow it.
Cameras in Public Areas
Cameras have long existed in public areas, like hallways and the cafeteria. Since cameras are used to record what happens (and particularly to make a record that can be reviewed if an incident, such as a student fight, occurs), it has long been understood that the cameras were for safety. So, no parent permission is required.
Cameras Recording Classroom Instruction
Some districts allow students to record their teachers' instruction to review later or for their absent classmates. The legality of this use of cameras was upheld by the commissioner of education in 2014. Again, there was no general expectation of privacy in the classroom. The commissioner also determined that even though other students would likely be captured in these recordings, no parental permission is required. This is because these recordings are related to regular classroom instruction.
Cameras Recording Classroom Instruction for Teacher Evaluations
Some appraisers have included a recording of a teacher's instruction as one component of the teacher's evaluation process. This practice has not been reviewed by the commissioner of education. While, again, there is no expectation of privacy in the classroom, serious questions exist as to whether the practice would violate the Texas Education Code. Unlike recording for the student's use in studying, which the commissioner has approved, the recording for a teacher evaluation has no direct relationship to the instruction itself. Recording for teacher evaluation purposes also does not relate to safety or a cocurricular or extracurricular activity. Therefore, we believe it is questionable whether it is permissible to use cameras for teacher evaluations when students are present, unless parental permission is obtained.
Educators' Use of Cameras
On occasion, an educator will think it wise to record a student to document misbehavior. Educators should be cautious about doing so because of the requirement for prior parental permission. While it may be possible for the educator to claim that the recording fell into the exception for safety, this is far from an ironclad shield. Educators should also know what local policies may exist. A local district can prohibit or restrict recordings even if the Education Code does not.
Cameras in Special Education
In 2015, the Texas legislature passed a law requiring public school districts to place cameras in self-contained special education settings upon request by a parent or district staff member. The law was amended in 2017 after the Texas attorney general gave the original legislation a far more expansive interpretation than the legislature intended. As of this writing, we are waiting for the commissioner of education to draft rules to implement the new law's requirements. See the ATPE blog post at atpe.org/blog/cameras_sped for more specifics on cameras in special education.

Read our blog at TeachTheVote.org for ongoing updates on legislative issues that affect Texas educators.
The legal information provided on this website is for general purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for individual legal advice or the provision of legal services. Accessing this information does not create an attorney-client relationship. Individual legal situations vary greatly and readers should consult directly with an attorney. Eligible ATPE members should contact the ATPE Member Legal Services Department using our online contact form. Back to Magazine Contents

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Association of Texas Professional Educators By: Paul Tapp ATPE Managing Attorney Almost no one, including educators, likes to be recorded. But cameras have continued to proliferate in schools and many public areas. Once reserved solely for cafeterias, halls, and gyms, they are even starting to enter classrooms. The General Rules Anyone can be captured on video anytime unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Higher suspension rates

Lower math test scores

More issues with black students.

Sparks, S. D. (2021, June 29). 'high-surveillance' schools lead to more suspensions, Lower Achievement. Education Week. Retrieved July 4, 2022, from https://www.edweek.org/leadership/high-surveillance-schools-lead-to-more-suspensions-lower-achievement/2021/04

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As school shootings crop up once again on school campuses this spring, school leaders may be tempted to tighten security and surveillance measures as they reopen after months of remote instruction.

But new research suggests schools that tighten security and surveillance in response to shootings or other acts of violence may worsen long-term discipline disparities and academic progress, particularly for Black students.

Schools that maintain the closest watch on students have significantly higher suspension rates and lower math performance than schools that use a lighter touch, according to new research released at the annual American Educational Research Association conference earlier this month. The findings also suggest a high-surveillance culture at school can make it harder for educators to implement strategies like restorative justice intended to reduce discipline disparities for students of color.

Jason Jabbari, a data analyst for the Social Policy Institute at Washington University in St. Louis, and Odis Johnson, an education professor and the executive director of Johns Hopkins University's Center for Safe and Healthy Schools, used federal longitudinal data to look at surveillance and its effects on more than 16,000 students in 750 high schools nationwide.

In the schools studied, surveillance took many forms: structural, such as having security cameras and metal detectors; random drug tests, wand sweeps, and dog sniffs for contraband; and barring students from leaving campus for lunch. But researchers also noted schools with strict dress codes or uniforms, those that required clear book bags, and identification badges for students and staff.

Based on those practices, researchers divided the pool of schools into thirds. A 10th grader who attended one of the third of schools with the highest levels of surveillance was significantly more likely to be suspended at least once by the end of high school and had significantly lower math achievement test scores by 12th grade than a peer in one of the least-controlling third of schools. Moreover, students who graduated from these schools where security sweeps and metal detectors were common, proved significantly less likely to enroll and persist in college than were students in schools with lower levels of surveillance.

The findings build on more than a decade of research suggesting school climate can suffer and students tend to feel less safe in schools with highly visible surveillance, such as metal detectors.

"A lot of these social control mechanisms don't have a clear problem that they're trying to address, or it's a nebulous problem, like school shootings, which are extremely rare. They're not put in place because of a specific incident, but because of general fears, and whether or not they even address those fears is unclear," said Samantha Viano, an assistant professor of education at George Mason University, who studies school discipline but who was not part of the study. The study's findings raise questions, she said, about "how do you change the attitude of what schools should look like? ... These security mechanisms are just more about control than about creating the kind of atmosphere that we want for students."

Greater burden falls on Black students

And these consequences fell disproportionately on Black students, who were more than four times more likely than white students to attend a school with the highest level of surveillance.

Those findings align with previous research. One landmark study, using restricted federal data on school security measures released after school shootings in Sandy Hook, Conn., found that the movement toward highly intensive school security and surveillance was driven by high-profile shootings like Sandy Hook and another in Columbine High School in Colorado 22 years ago this week, which took place in mostly white suburban schools. However, the study found schools that served mostly students of color have been more likely than suburban schools to use the most intensive security measures in response to the school-security push.

Across all kinds of schools, but particularly in the most tightly monitored schools, Jabbari and Johnson found Black boys and girls were significantly more likely than students of other races to be suspended. Once researchers controlled for the level of surveillance in their schools and the associated increase in suspensions and drop in test scores, Black students were as likely as students of other races to attend college.

More-intensive school security can also lead to greater racial disparities in school arrests. In separate research also released at AERA, Grace Ha Eun Kim, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Irvine, analyzed arrest rates from more than 92,000 schools in the federal civil rights data collection for 2013-14. She found that in schools of all grade levels, school arrests increased when there were more school resource officers on campus. However, Black students saw a significantly higher increase in arrests from school resource officers than white students did; arrests of Black students increased twice as fast as white students in high schools, and more than three times as fast in middle schools. While using older data, the findings suggest that bringing more police officers into schools could increase the risk of a fatal confrontation between a student and police officers investigating on campus, as happened in a Knoxville, Tenn., high school earlier this month.

Surveillance 'antithetical' to restorative justice

It makes sense that schools where students frequently misbehave or those that are generally chaotic or disorderly would tighten surveillance, but Jabbari and Johnson found that students in high-surveillance schools were more likely to be suspended, regardless of individual misbehavior or even general disruption in a school. (The researchers identified the frequency of individual student misbehavior, such as absenteeism, as well as overall campus disorder-such as fights and robberies, drug and alcohol use, racial tensions and bullying, and disrespect or abuse of teachers.)

As of 2019, at least 30 states have enacted laws requiring schools to implement alternatives to exclusionary discipline, including restorative justice, in which students who break rules meet with those harmed by their behavior to decide appropriate ways to make amends.

But Jabbari warned that heavy surveillance systems can make it harder to create a culture for more holistic discipline practices.

"When we look at this research, it does show that if you build it, you will use it," Jabbari said. "If you have the security guards, if you have the metal detectors and the sweeps and all of these things, you know, schools do tend to use them. I'm not saying that these [surveillance] structures can't coexist with a different philosophy on how students and teachers can come to a reconciliation, but I do think there's some part of it that that seems antithetical."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'High-Surveillance' Schools Lead to More Suspensions, Lower Achievement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As school shootings crop up once again on school campuses this spring, school leaders may be tempted to tighten security and surveillance measures as they reopen after months of remote instruction. But new research suggests schools that tighten security and surveillance in response to shootings or other acts of violence may worsen long-term discipline disparities and academic progress, particularly for Black students.

# data[].attributes.body
Cameras may catch educators behaving badly

Recording of extreme punishment of six year old

Klein, A. (2021, June 16). Like police officers, educators have been caught on camera behaving badly. Education Week. Retrieved July 4, 2022, from https://www.edweek.org/technology/like-police-officers-educators-have-been-caught-on-camera-behaving-badly/2021/06

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Put your butt out," the principal told the 6-year-old. She hit the student repeatedly with a paddle, as the little girl, who was disciplined for damaging a computer screen, screamed "no!" over and over. Nearby, the child's mother stood, surreptitiously recording the scene with her cellphone camera.

Without that video, the mother's concern over her child's extreme punishment at Central Elementary School in Florida's Hendry County school district could have been swept up in dueling accounts, bureaucratic back-and-forth, or unreported altogether. Instead, CNN carried the footage on its website. The New York Times and the Washington Post wrote stories, as did local newspapers and news television shows.

The mother did not anticipate that kind of attention. But once the punishment began, she felt powerless to stop it, in part because of her status as an undocumented immigrant. She saw the recording as the only way to prove that her daughter had been subjected to unduly harsh discipline, Brent Probinsky, the mother's lawyer, said.

A criminal investigation cleared the principal of any legal wrongdoing, but the district was conducting its own investigation, according to CNN.

For decades, the bad behavior of educators was rarely captured in video and therefore often went unaddressed. But these days, nearly every adult and many kids in middle and high school have cellphones with the capability to record video of teachers behaving inappropriately, expressing racist views, even committing outright child abuse. During the pandemic, families have gotten an even clearer picture of how some educators talk to their kids, as millions of students learned from home on virtual platforms like Zoom.

These incidents of people capturing videos of the inappropriate behavior of educators follows in the larger footsteps of how cellphones have been used to document police brutality. That trend has been a game-changer for the law enforcement profession, sparking the national Black Lives Matter movement, which is, in part, pushing police agencies to root out racist policies, practices, and individual officers and hold leaders accountable for practices that have killed or injured people of color.

It's unlikely that similar, widespread action and demands for change will happen on the K-12 level, experts say. But some educators and parents believe the recordings lend credibility to long-standing concerns about racism, overly harsh discipline, and other problems.

Most teachers don't exhibit these kinds of behaviors , said Paula White, the executive director of the New York branch of Educators for Excellence, which works to give teachers a seat at the table in policymaking.

But when they do, "we need to be shedding daylight on all these instances," said White, a former teacher. "We don't like that they happen but if they are happening then we need to hear them on audio. We need to see them on video. And we need to challenge school districts to deal with these persons appropriately."

Evidence for accusations that might not have been believed otherwise

Cellphone or Zoom footage, she said, has helped some parents bolster accusations that might not have been believed otherwise.

"Black and brown families are feeling a level of absolution," said White, who is Black and the mother of three children. Parents and students have noticed racist behavior for years, but it was hard to document, she said. "We've been saying this and now here it is. So that is not unlike what has happened in the profession of law enforcement. Everyone has a video camera at their disposal, so you're learning a lot about what goes on in the underbelly of these professions."

But even teachers who want to make sure their colleagues are held accountable for reprehensible behavior say that encouraging students or parents to whip out their cellphones whenever they want is deeply problematic.

Vivett Dukes, a New York City public school teacher, has long been concerned about her colleagues' racist speech. At a past school, for example, one teacher shouted, "get that animal out of here!" after a child threw a chair in class. Part of her wishes a camera could have captured that moment, she said. But she's also wary of encouraging widespread use of phones to hold teachers accountable.

If students-or parents-are recording video, they "could take a soundbite of something" and twist it to fit their purposes, suggested Dukes, who is also a member of the board of directors for the National Parent Union, a nonprofit that helps elevate the voice of parents of color. "I may sound horrible if you didn't catch what I said before or after."

To prevent those kinds of problems, teachers may request that students be recorded, too, she said, bringing up a host of complex privacy concerns. "Are we opening up a Pandora's box?" Dukes asked.

Legal issues complicate recording people without their consent

There are also legal issues to consider. Some states don't allow individuals to be recorded without their consent. And plenty of schools discourage kids from bringing a phone into class, or even into the building at all in some cases.

Mussab Ali, the president of the school board in Jersey City, N.J., has seen the complexity of this issue firsthand. Earlier this spring, a student in his district recorded her high school science teacher's racist tirade during a virtual class. The teacher, Howard Zlotkin, called George Floyd, who was murdered in police custody last year, a "criminal."

When students told Zlotkin that he had advantages as a white man that Floyd did not, he responded angrily, saying "If you think I'm privileged, fuck you." He assigned four girls who pushed back on his arguments-all Black students-to write an essay about why Black lives matter. The next day, he berated the students for not completing the assignment, telling one she was "full of shit."

Zlotkin did not respond to an email message on Facebook asking for comment. But he told the New York Times that the video represented a "very well edited soundbite." The district initially suspended Zlotkin. He has since resigned, Ali said. New Jersey law does not require two-part consent for recording conversations.

"I'm glad we were able to see the video because there was actual evidence as opposed to a he said/she said," Ali said.

But on the flip side, "there are privacy concerns, there are concerns about kids being recorded in the classroom. In this instance, it was valuable to have it, but we have heard of other instances where someone was spliced up or put together in a way that doesn't accurately reflect" their behavior, Ali said.

Jersey City isn't the only place where a teacher's distressing commentary on George Floyd was caught on camera. In Alaska's Fairbanks Northstar district, a high school teacher was filmed during a Zoom class telling students that Floyd would still be alive if he had "sidled into the car and slid in there and let [officers] put his legs in." She also said that she believed her students wouldn't have problems in a police encounter because they were "dressed nicely" and "don't look like thugs" with their "pants around their knees," according to the Associated Press.

The teacher was placed on administrative leave and an investigation is under way, said Yumi McColloch, a spokeswoman for the district. Fairbanks Northstar is participating in a districtwide diversity training program, she added.

She declined to elaborate on the incident because it is the district's policy not to comment on personnel matters.

Teacher forgets to turn off Zoom session and is recorded making racist comments

Sometimes an educator's inappropriate behavior that is captured on video doesn't take place inside a school building, complicating efforts to address what could be systemic problems.

Kimberly Newman, a middle school science teacher in California's Palmdale school district, thought she had disconnected a Zoom call during which she had helped a student, who'd had trouble with his internet connection, catch up on what he had missed in class. The child's mother heard Newman tell another person in her house that she thought the family was making up its connection problems to get the student out of turning in assignments on time, because they are Black.

In the recording, Newman is heard saying:
"Your son has learned to lie to people and make excuses. Because you taught him to make excuses. That nothing is his fault. This is what Black people do. White people do it too, but Black people do it way more." Later, she called the family "pieces of shit."

Once she realized what she was hearing, the student's mother, Katura Stokes, whipped out her cellphone and began taking video of the conversation. She even called the school's principal afterward and allowed him to listen to the recording.

Stokes thought that, "If I don't record this, no one will believe that someone would actually say these things," her lawyer, Neil Gehlawat, said.

Newman has since resigned. The Stokes family is suing the district, in part to get compensatory damages so that the boy can afford to go to private school if he chooses. His mother feels she cannot trust the district if it employs teachers with such beliefs, Gehlawat said.

But the district contends it cannot be held financially accountable for teacher behavior that didn't take place on school property, Gehlawart said. What's more, it is illegal in California to record someone without their consent.

But Gehlawat points out that California law only requires permission for recording when the person has an expectation of privacy, not when they are on a Zoom call with public school students. And while Newman may have been at home at the time of the call, she was clearly working from there since school was virtual at the time, he added.

David Garcia, a district spokesman, declined to comment on the pending legal action. But he underscored that the district worked to remove Newman from the classroom as swiftly as possible.

"It is an abhorrent situation, there is below zero tolerance for this type of language and behavior," he said. "You don't have to be recorded for it to be deplorable."

District officials would not provide contact information for Newman, because of a policy of not sharing employee's personal information, and Education Week was unable to reach her.

A cautionary note on encouraging students and parents to capture video of educators

Gehlawat, who has handled a range of civil rights cases and supports body cameras for police officers, is glad his client captured the incident on video. But, he cautioned, there are a lot of potential problems with encouraging students to record their teachers' behavior with cellphones.

"I worry about what impact that might have on teachers, feeling like someone is always watching," he said. "I don't know if cameras are the solutions for teachers."

And, in general, he said school districts are more likely to hold employees accountable for bad behavior than police departments, which he said historically have tended to defend officers no matter what.

White, from Educators for Excellence, agreed that "the majority of educators are doing the right thing. They are not making these statements, they are not expressing these sentiments, and we certainly don't think they have these sentiments.

"But for those that do, they need to hear loud and clear that it is not acceptable and that we value the health and welfare of our babies and we are going to protect that at all costs."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Like Police Officers, Educators Have Been Caught on Camera Behaving Badly

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Put your butt out," the principal told the 6-year-old. She hit the student repeatedly with a paddle, as the little girl, who was disciplined for damaging a computer screen, screamed "no!" over and over. Nearby, the child's mother stood, surreptitiously recording the scene with her cellphone camera.

# data[].attributes.body
Administrative Law

Law requires schools to provide video cameras in self contained classrooms when requested by parent, staff, or school board member.

For the protection of students

Regulates who can view footage

Regulates where cameras can be placed

S.B. 507, 2015.

State of Texas. (2015, September 1). 84(R) SB 507 - introduced version - capitol.texas.gov. Texas Capitol. Retrieved July 4, 2022, from https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SB00507I.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Law

Teachers sued regarding cameras in the classroom.

Court found that the teachers had no right to privacy in a classroom.

Plock vs. Board of Education, 2007.

P. MICHAEL MAHONEY, U. S. M. J. (2007, December 18). Plock v. bd. of educ. of freeport school dist. Legal research tools from Casetext. Retrieved July 4, 2022, from https://casetext.com/case/plock-v-bd-of-educ-of-freeport-school-dist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I. Introduction

Currently before the court are plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant's Motion to Postpone Ruling on plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant's Motion to Strike, and defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Having read the pleadings, the parties' briefs, and the relevant case law, the court grants defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Count Two, finding that the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law with regard to plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim. Because the Fourth Amendment claim was the only claim over which this court had original jurisdiction, the court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claim. This case is remanded to the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

II. Background

The following narrative is compiled from the pleadings, the uncontested portions of the parties' briefs, and the docket. Plaintiffs are special education teachers who are employed by defendant, Freeport School District 145. Each of the plaintiffs are currently assigned to "EXCEL" and "Life Skills" classrooms. Recent allegations of abuse taking place within these classrooms led the School District to seek to install audio/visual recording equipment in these classrooms. The audio/visual equipment was to be installed in an open and obvious manner in these classrooms, "where the most vulnerable children, both physically and emotionally challenged, were assigned." Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings at 3.

The parties contest whether any abuse actually took place, though the fact that abuse was alleged is not contested. There is no suggestion that the allegations of abuse were directed at any of the named plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois seeking to enjoin District 145 from carrying out its proposed policy of operating audio recording equipment in its "EXCEL" and "Life Skills" classrooms. Plaintiffs have not raised any challenge to the proposed video recording of the subject classrooms, having focused their entire challenge against the audio component of the School District's proposed audio/visual monitoring policy. Plaintiffs contend that the proposed audio recording is improper for two reasons. First, plaintiffs claim that any audio recording of the classrooms will violate their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Second, plaintiffs claim that the proposed audio recordings will violate the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, 720 ILCS 5/14-2(a)(1). Based on these objections to the proposed audio recording, plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to prevent audio recording from taking place in the subject classrooms.

To date, the court has authorized the activation of the video cameras with the condition that the camera's audio capabilities may not be activated. See docket entries 10, 50.

Because the federal court has original jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim, defendant removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. See 28 U.S.C. 1441; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. On August 14, 2007, defendant filed the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, which is the subject of this order. The case was assigned to the Magistrate Judge on September 26, 2007, pursuant to the consent of both parties.

III. Analysis

In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court will take all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiffs' pleadings to be true and view the facts and inferences to be drawn from those allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Alexander v. City of Chicago, 994 F.2d 333, 335-36 (7th Cir. 1993). Resolution of a case pursuant to Rule 12(c) is appropriate "only when it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff cannot prove any facts to support a claim for relief and the moving party demonstrates that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved." Bannon v. University of Chicago, 503 F.3d 623, 628 (7th Cir. 2007).

The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Supreme Court has held that a search occurs "when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed." United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656, 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984); see also Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 516, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967). Thus, the threshold question in this case is whether society is willing to recognize plaintiffs' subjective expectations of privacy in their classrooms as objectively reasonable. Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735, 740, 99 S.Ct. 2577, 2580, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979); Katz, 389 U.S. at 361, 88 S.Ct. 507.

The Supreme Court has held that "some government offices may be so open to fellow employees or the public that no expectation of privacy is reasonable." O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 717-18, 107 S.Ct. 1492, 1498, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987).

Public employees' expectations of privacy in their offices . . . may be reduced by virtue of actual office practices and procedures, or by legitimate regulation. The employee's expectation of privacy must be assessed in the context of the employment relation. . . . Simply put, it is the nature of government offices that others - such as fellow employees, supervisors, consensual visitors, and the general public - may have frequent access to an individual's office. . . . Given the great variety of work environments in the public sector, the question whether an employee has a reasonable expectation of privacy must be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Id.
In making this case-by-case determination, it becomes critically important whether the area to be searched was given over to the employee's exclusive use or whether the area was shared by others. If the area searched has been given over to an employee's exclusive use, the court is likely to uphold that employee's expectation of privacy as objectively reasonable. See, e.g., United Stated v. Taketa, 923 F.2d 665, 671 (9th Cir. 1991) (reasonable expectation of privacy found in DEA office reserved for employee's exclusive use); Thompson v. Johnson County Community College, 930 F.Supp. 501, 507 (D. Kan. 1996) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in locker area used by security personnel of community college because area video taped was not reserved for the exclusive use of security personnel); Goodwin v. Moyer, No. 3 C 05781, 2006 WL 839342 (M.D. Pa. 2006) (no reasonable expectation of privacy for public school's bus driver subjected to video monitoring on school bus); Brannen v. Kings Local School Dist., 144 Ohio App.3d 620, 629-30, 761 N.E.2d 84 (12th Dist. 2001) (no reasonable expectation of privacy in public school's break room used by third shift custodians because teachers and principal also had "unfettered access" to break room); State v. McLellan, 144 N.H. 602, 604-05, 744 A.2d 611 (N.H. 1999) (no reasonable expectation of privacy by janitor in public school classroom because classroom was open to students and school staff and was not janitor's "personal space," even though he was the only one who had access to the classroom during the time when the video camera was set to record).

In this case, the court recognizes that the typical classroom may also contain a teacher's personal office space. Portions of that office space such as a teacher's desk and locked file cabinets could conceivably be reserved for the teacher's exclusive use, giving rise to an expectation of privacy which society is willing to recognize as reasonable. See, e.g., O'Connor, 480 U.S. at 718, 107 S.Ct. 1492. (finding doctor at a state hospital had reasonable expectation of privacy in his desk and file cabinets). However, an entire classroom in a public school building is not reserved for the teacher's exclusive, private use. Rather, classrooms are open to students, other faculty, administrators, substitute teachers, custodians, and on occasion, parents.

What is said and done in a public classroom is not merely liable to being overheard and repeated, but is likely to be overheard and repeated. See, e.g., Evens v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 77 Cal.App.4th 320, 325 (2d Dist 1999) (finding teacher's expectations that her communications would be confined to the classroom unreasonable, that such communications "will virtually never be confined to the classroom," and that students "will, and usually do, discuss a teacher's communications and activities with their parents, other students, other teachers, and administrators."). A classroom in a public school is not the private property of any teacher. A classroom is a public space in which government employees communicate with members of the public. There is nothing private about communications which take place in such a setting. Any expectations of privacy concerning communications taking place in special education classrooms such as those subject to the proposed audio monitoring in this case are inherently unreasonable and beyond the protection of the Fourth Amendment.

Viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the court concludes that the plaintiff school teachers do not have an expectation of privacy in their classrooms which society is willing to recognize as reasonable. Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is granted with respect to Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim.

Because the single federal claim is dismissed, the court will not reach the remaining state law claim under the Illinois Eavesdropping Act. See Groce v. Eli Lilly Co., 193 F.3d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1999) ("[I]t is the well-established law of this circuit that the usual practice is to dismiss without prejudice state supplemental claims whenever all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial."). This case is remanded to the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). All pending motions are mooted and the federal case is terminated.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plock v. Bd. of Educ. of Freeport School Dist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Currently before the court are plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant's Motion to Postpone Ruling on plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, defendant's Motion to Strike, and defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

# data[].attributes.body
Statutory Law

Case was based on the privacy of marriage

Court agreed based on privacies guaranteed in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, & 14th amendments

Griswold vs. Connecticut, 1965.

Public Broadcasting Service. (2006, December). The Supreme Court . expanding civil rights . landmark cases . Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): PBS. The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) | PBS. Retrieved July 4, 2022, from https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_griswold.html#:~:text=Connecticut%20(1965)-,In%20Griswold%20v.,or%20use%20of%20birth%20control.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court identified a constitutionally protected right to privacy, which the court reasoned prohibited states from denying birth control to married couples. Above, a man protests outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in New Haven, Connecticut.

Reproduction courtesy of Corbis Images

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. The case concerned a Connecticut law that criminalized the encouragement or use of birth control. The 1879 law provided that "any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purposes of preventing conception shall be fined not less than forty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days." The law further provided that "any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principle offender."

Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, and Dr. C. Lee Buxton, doctor and professor at Yale Medical School, were arrested and found guilty as accessories to providing illegal contraception. They were fined $100 each. Griswold and Buxton appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut, claiming that the law violated the U.S. Constitution. The Connecticut court upheld the conviction, and Griswold and Buxton appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reviewed the case in 1965.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision written by Justice William O. Douglas, ruled that the law violated the "right to marital privacy" and could not be enforced against married people. Justice Douglas contended that the Bill of Right's specific guarantees have "penumbras," created by "emanations from these guarantees that help give them life and opinion." In other words, the "spirit" of the First Amendment (free speech), Third Amendment (prohibition on the forced quartering of troops), Fourth Amendment (freedom from searches and seizures), Fifth Amendment (freedom from self-incrimination), and Ninth Amendment (other rights), as applied against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, creates a general " right to privacy" that cannot be unduly infringed.

Further, this right to privacy is "fundamental" when it concerns the actions of married couples, because it "is of such a character that it cannot be denied without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions." Because a married couple's use of contraception constitutes a "fundamental" right, Connecticut must prove to the Court that its law is "compelling" and "absolutely necessary" to overcome that right (i.e., the "strict scrutiny test"). Because Connecticut failed to prove this, the law was struck down as applied.

Other justices, while agreeing that marital privacy is a "fundamental right" and that the Connecticut law should be struck down, disagreed with Justice Douglas as to where in the Constitution such a "fundamental right" exists. In his concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment, which states that the Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the rights contained by the people, allows the Court to find the "fundamental right to marital privacy" without having to ground it in a specific constitutional amendment. In another concurrence, Justice John Marshall Harlan II maintained that a "fundamental right to marital privacy" exists only because marital privacy has traditionally been protected by American society. Finally, in yet another concurrence, Justice Byron White argued that a fundamental right to marital privacy constitutes a liberty under the Due Process Clause, and is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

Yet, for all their differences, the majority in Griswold v. Connecticut agreed that the "right to privacy," in addition to being "fundamental," was " substantive." In West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), the Court had rejected the idea that the Constitution protects "substantive rights," i.e., protects certain activities from government interference that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights. In Griswold, however, it ruled that "substantive rights" do exist in non-economic areas like "the right to privacy," even if they do not in economic activities like the right to contract. Over the next 10 years, the Court expanded this fundamental, substantive "right to privacy" beyond the marital bedroom, ruling that the state could not ban the use of contraceptives by anyone (Eisenstadt v. Baird [1972]), and that the state could not ban most abortions ( Roe v. Wade [1973]).

AUTHOR'S BIO

Alex McBride is a third year law student at Tulane Law School in New Orleans. He is articles editor on the TULANE LAW REVIEW and the 2005 recipient of the Ray Forrester Award in Constitutional Law. In 2007, Alex will be clerking with Judge Susan Braden on the United States Court of Federal Claims in Washington.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Supreme Court . Expanding Civil Rights . Landmark Cases . Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) | PBS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court identified a constitutionally protected right to privacy, which the court reasoned prohibited states from denying birth control to married couples. Above, a man protests outside a Planned Parenthood clinic in New Haven, Connecticut. Reproduction courtesy of Corbis Images Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) In Griswold v.

# data[].attributes.body
Constitutional Law

Grants every citizen the same rights

States that no other rules or laws can be set to infringe on these rights (privacy)

Amendment XIV, 1866.

National Constitution Center. (2022). The 14th amendment of the U.S. constitution. National Constitution Center – The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-xiv

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SECTION. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

# data[].attributes.body
This is the policy at Clifton ISD regarding cameras in the classroom. It also stipulates who to contact regarding requests or concerns.

Clifton ISD. (2022). Clifton Independent School District. Cameras in the Classroom. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.cliftonisd.org/page/cameras-in-the-classroom

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Texas Education Code 29.022 provides that video surveillance cameras, on request by a parent, trustee, or staff member, shall be placed in self-contained classrooms or other special education settings in which a majority of the students in regular attendance are (i) provided special education and related services and (ii) assigned to a self-contained classroom or other special education setting.

A request for video surveillance cameras can be obtained from campus principal, who determines if the particular classroom is eligible for cameras.

Video recordings of a student made according to Texas Education Code 29.022 are confidential and may not be released or viewed except as provided by Texas Education Code 29.022 (i) or 29.022 (j). Video recordings shall not be used for any purpose other than the promotion of student safety.

Please contact your campus Principal for more information.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Texas Education Code 29.022 provides that video surveillance cameras, on request by a parent, trustee, or staff member, shall be placed in self-contained classrooms or other special education settings in which a majority of the students in regular attendance are (i) provided special education and related services and (ii) assigned to a self-contained classroom or other special education setting.

# data[].attributes.body
Confidentiality

I feel that if cameras are placed in all classrooms, confidentiality would be a concern. Of course, if handled correctly and access to footage was limited, student confidentiality would not be compromised.

American School Counselor Association. (1984). Asca ethical standards for school counselors. SchoolCounselor.org. Retrieved July 5, 2022, from https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/f041cbd0-7004-47a5-ba01-3a5d657c6743/Ethical-Standards.pdf

# data[].attributes.body
The ethical and legal standards for this situation become very difficult. Legally we must honor confidentiality and protect students. Placing cameras in classrooms may be a risk for confidentiality, but as a requirement to keep students safe, they may be the best way.

# data[].attributes.body
Have open communication with all stakeholders regarding the use of cameras in the classroom.

Provide written notice to all parents regarding the use of cameras in the classroom.

Have regulations regarding who will have access to footage.

Have a policy about who can request to see footage and how they are able to do so.

Create a policy that dictates how long footage will be kept before being erased.

When there is an incident of parental concern, contact parents and discuss.

Do not allow any students, families, or staff to opt out of cameras in their classroom.

Do not allow access to any employee to turn off recordings.