IN APRIL 2006 New York City school district added to its 26-page code of student conduct, which included ban on beepers, pagers, and other personal communications devices, prohibition against bringing cell phones to school authorization. On 13 July 2006, Chancellor's Parent Advisory Council and eight parents of children in New York City public schools filed suit in state court, challenging cell phone rule. While recognizing that cell phones in school could substantially disrupt learning process, plaintiffs claimed that enforcing ban on use, not possession, of cell phones within schools would be both sufficient and appropriate to address this problem. They based their claim on New York law that provides for judicial review of actions of administrative agencies and on constitutional doctrine concerning parents' liberty to rear--including communicate with--their They sought declaratory relief, injunction against the wholesale confiscation of cell phones found in possession of New York City public school students, and attorney's fees. On 7 May 2007, New York trial court judge Lewis Bart Stone issued detailed decision in favor of defendant district. (1) As preliminary matter, Judge Stone cleared away various procedural impediments to prompt decision on merits. For example, he denied both sides' requests for factual investigations, concluding that additional information was not necessary for fair resolution of issue. Similarly, he denied two applications to submit amicus curiae (friend of court) briefs, pointing out what he perceived to be abuse of this privilege in recent years. Judge Stone observed: Unfortunately, process has deteriorated and some of those claiming to be amici are really enemies posing in friend's clothing. As for New York's law that provides for judicial review of actions of administrative agencies, Judge Stone identified applicable standard as whether disputed rule has rational basis. After pointing out dizzying pace at which cell phones continue to evolve beyond their original format as mere portable telephones, so that they now offer e-mail capacity, Internet access, Bluetooth capability, and built-in cameras, Judge Stone concluded that rule did have rational basis: problems of enforcing plaintiffs' proffered alternative of ban on cell phone use. Comparing schools to judicial institution, which has extensive resources for security and whose clientele are adults, rather than children who lack mature self-control, Judge Stone observed that federal courts had banned possession of cell phones within their buildings and that his New York court's ban on use of cell phones had not stopped distractions and disturbances that these devices cause in courtroom. Judge Stone found additional rational basis in need for rule to address dynamism of cell phone technology. He explained that allowing phones with only basic telephone features would pose offsetting problems for both school personnel and parents, at least in an urban public school system of million children. While recognizing that parents and children have come to increasingly rely on cell phones, Judge Stone observed that plaintiffs had not proposed a practically viable alternative which could be appropriately ordered by court to be applicable to all of schools in New York City to ban only use but permit possession of cell phones in school, and he pointed to special-circumstances exception provided in without authorization condition of district's cell phone policy. Finally and significantly, Judge Stone made clear that proper forum for weighing and choosing among alternative policy choices is legislature or school board, not judiciary. With regard to constitutional claims, Judge Stone first clarified that plaintiffs' challenge was limited to modality of parent/child communication and that neither State nor Federal constitutions include any express 'constitutional right to bear cell phones. …
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 2022
Rodrigue C Landeou + 2
Open Access