Sunday, January 13, 2013

Quick Law 2

     The following are the case studies that will be reviewed in my Educator and the Law course this week:

Quick Law 2

Tannahill, Julie. (2008). "Sniffer Dog Violates Student's Privacy".
Overview:
- The school had a zero tolerance policy for drugs & alcohol, as such, the
   principal invited the local police to search the school with use of "sniffer dogs"
- While police searched the school, students & teachers were informed via the
   PA system and were instructed in remain in the classroom during the search
- A backpack in the gym was found to have bags of marijuana, other drugs and
   other drug paraphernalia
- The student was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking & possession
   of a psilocybin
- The charges were dropped on the basis that there was not "reasonable suspicion"
   for the search and seizure (unreasonable search & seizure)
- Since the search was unlawful, the drugs that were found were inadmissible in
  court
Commentary/Opinion:
- I don't agree that the police should have been invited into search the school
  without a specific reason
- On the other hand, I think it is a shame that a student who was carrying enough
   for a trafficking violation had the charges dropped
Implications:
- I think that cases like this are even more prominent today
- Schools (principals and teachers) have to be very careful that they are going
  through the proper channels before they involve outside agencies with students

Tannahill, Julie. (2008). "Convicted Teacher Not Exempt From Requirement to Register as a Sex Offender". Students/Parents and the Law.

Overview:
- The teacher was convicted of sexually touching a person under the age of 14
  and was required to register as a sex offender
- The teacher appealed the requirement and the appeal was dismissed
Commentary/Opinion:
- I think it is absolutely appropriate that the teacher had to register as a sex offender
- It did not say anywhere in the case if the teacher was actually still employed as a
  teacher, I don't see how he could be after the charge
- Student safety is of the utmost importance and requiring the teacher to register is
   completely appropriate
Implications:
- Teachers are held to an extremely high standard in the community and may not
   have opportunities to be exempt from situations that other people may be exempt
   from (although I don't think anyone should be exempt from registering)

Tannahill, Julie. (2009). "No Search Warrant Needed To Seize Teacher's School Laptop". Teacher/Employees and the Law.
Overview:
- A teacher at the school had photographs of a nude student on his school computer
- The photos had allegedly been sent from the student to another student in the school
   and when the teacher found them he copied them onto his drive
- While the laptop was the property of the school, the teacher could expect to keep
   personal items private as it was for his exclusive use
- The seizure of the photographs was found to be against Section 8 of the Charter
   and the evidence could not be used in court
- The decision was appealed by the Crown and it was granted that the evidence
   could be used against the teacher
- It was determined that the school's Computer Use Agreement stated that files
   could be monitored on the network and were not private
Commentary/Opinion:
- I think it a good thing that the school had a responsible IT department that recognized
   the suspicious file and acted on what they found
Implications:
- As teachers we have to be very aware of our personal and professional lives and
  while we may receive a computer for school use we should not be using it for
  personal files
- Appropriate and professional use of school resources

Tannahill, Julie. (2008). "Teacher's Personal Information Protected From Disclosure". 
Overview:
- Parents made complaints against a teacher and requested records to back up their
  complaint. The necessary records on the teacher were released but other information
  was withheld
- Was the information protected by FIPPA and could it be released to the parents?
- It was determined that the information released was protected by FIPPA
- Additional information would need personal details removed and the remaining
   information would not have been of any use to the parents
Commentary/Opinion:
- It doesn't say if the teacher was notified prior to the information being released
- I definitely believe that there are certain records maintained by the employer that
   private records and should not be released to the public
Implications:
- Teachers will be under scrutiny by the public and there will be parents who will
   want to question our professionalism
- Teachers have the right to have certain information protected under FIPPA

2 comments:

  1. I was wondering about whether or not the teacher lost his job in Sexual Offender case law too. It had mentioned something about moving to a different community and not wanting the reputation to stick with them, so I'm thinking they likely did? And rightfully so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He shouldn't be able to have any type of teaching job ever again. You can't without a child abuse / criminal record check right? Before reading this I didn't realize it was an option to opt-out of registering on the sex offender registry, I think everyone should have to.

      Delete