Student Records Other Students Bullying Him--then Charged with Wiretapping

[PastTense]

“A South Fayette High School sophomore claims to have been bullied all year at his new school located in McDonald, Pennsylvania. In February, the student made an audio recording of one bullying incident during his special education math class. Instead of questioning the students whose voices were recorded, school administrators threatened to charge him with felony wiretapping…”
http://benswann.com/exclusive-special-ed-student-records-audio-proof-of-bullying-threatened-with-charges-of-warrentless-wiretapping/

In some states schools take bullying seriously but apparently not in this school.

[Ethilrist]

Well, not as seriously as felonies…

[wolfman]

McGraw said, “Normally, if there is — I certainly have a big problem with any kind of bullying at school. But normally, you know, I would expect a parent would let the school know about it, because it’s not tolerated. I know that, and that you guys [school administrators] would handle that, you know. To go to this extreme, you know, it was the only alternative or something like that, but you weren’t made aware of that and that was kind of what I was curious about. Because it’s not tolerated, but you need to go through — let the school handle it. And I know from experience with South Fayette School that, you know, it always is. And if there is a problem and it continues, then it is usually brought in front of me.”

Not really one for the “Great Judicial Quotes” collection, like you know. :dubious:

[sleestak]

@Ethilrist

Well, not as seriously as felonies…

And having a book slammed against ones head isn’t a felony?

I wanted her (Love) to understand what I went through. Like, it wasn’t like I was overexaggerating it. I wasn’t lying. It was really happening. I was really having things like books slammed upside my head. I wanted it to stop. I just felt like nothing was being done.

Get some perspective, man. A kid with a learning disorder is placed in a class with students with behavioral problems. The kid has no record of issues at the school. The teachers and administrators ain’t doing jack. I don’t blame him though he may have been able to find a better solution.

And the judges statement is full on incoherent.

Slee

[phouka]

Oh, these guys are in sooooo much trouble.

Let’s start with the fact that their excuse for charging him with felony wiretapping was “because he made a recording in a place with an expectation of privacy”.

Um, no. It’s a classroom in a public school. Unless specifically written into the law as otherwise, there is no expectation of privacy in the classroom. This is why teachers can’t discuss a student’s grades, behavior record or other private matters unless they ensure other students can’t eavesdrop.

Second, they did nothing about the bullying. If the kid broke the law, then you pursue that matter, but you also investigate the complaint.

Third, they questioned the kid - a special needs student with an IEP for Og’s sake - outside of the presence of his mother.

Fourth, they ordered the kid to delete the recording. How is this anything but trying to cover up evidence of the bullying or possible teacher negligence/incompetence?

The kid has apparently already been found guilty of a lesser charge of ‘disorderly conduct’. There’s a follow up article about the hearing. During the hearing, the school’s attorney refused to give his entire name, saying he wasn’t involved (WTF?). The student did not enter a plea before the judge gave him a guilty verdict (seriously, WTF?!). Now the mother has gotten an attorney, and she’s raising a fuss.

I think, at best, the school district did a very sloppy job of handling an ordinary case of student discipline. At worst, the involved administrators went out of there way to punish a student for complaining about being bullied and making work for them. I think the officer who cited the student for “felony wiretapping” was, at best, lazy and didn’t look into the matter, and at worst, joined with the school administrators in punishing the student for making trouble. I sincerely do not get how it is remotely possible for a judge to sentence a defendant, even in juvenile court, without hearing a plea from the defendant. I’d love to hear a Doper who knows something about this explain it.

Here’s the thing about students with special needs: everything is documented. The Individual Education Plan (IEP) lays out everything from how to adapt assignments to the student’s disabilities to what testing conditions should be to how discipline is handled. The student is supposed to have a special ed coordinator at least consulted if not immediately at hand for an issue like this. The teacher is not that person. There’s an inherent conflict of interest. Also, that’s not a state thing. That’s Federal.

From the information available in the articles, this looks like a clusterfuck from stem to stern. Teacher doesn’t keep discipline in the classroom. Admin doesn’t look into a bullying complaint. Student offers proof and is punished for it in a completely inappropriate manner with absolutely no adherence to his IEP.

[filmore]

I believe Pennsylvania is an “all party” state with regards to recording conversations. That means that everyone being recorded has to consent. Some other states are “one party”, where only one person being recorded has to consent. This means the student did break the law in his state.

Just because someone else is doing something wrong or illegal doesn’t mean you can respond in an illegal way. For example, if squatters move into a house in your neighborhood, you cannot trash their yard. Or if someone parks in front of a fire hydrant, you cannot vandalize their car.

It sounds like this school is doing a poor job with bullying and that needs to be addressed, but, unfortunately, this boy broke a pretty serious law. Hopefully the prosecutor will drop the charges.

[LurkerInNJ]

@filmore

I believe Pennsylvania is an “all party” state with regards to recording conversations. That means that everyone being recorded has to consent. Some other states are “one party”, where only one person being recorded has to consent. This means the student did break the law in his state.

Yes, and from from what the Judge (rather poorly) stated, the parent hadn’t even bothered to contact the school about the bullying to begin with.

I feel badly for the boy, but his mother mishandled the situation.

[The_Second_Stone]

Spying is something the government does to you to protect the government from you. You do not spy on someone that might show government liability for negligent supervision or to prove a felony and that you are being beaten. I would think that this would be obvious in your run of the mill tyrannical system.

[sleestak]

@LurkerInNJ

Yes, and from from what the Judge (rather poorly) stated, the parent hadn’t even bothered to contact the school about the bullying to begin with.

I feel badly for the boy, but his mother mishandled the situation.

And if the mother actually, ya know, reported the incidents and no one did jack?

Skrbin testified that the district had records of Love complaining about students bullying her son, including an incident in October in which a student hit her son with “spitwads,” even after her son told him to stop.

“To be blunt, I would not classifying that as bullying,” Skrbin said.

Link.

So the school did know about it because the mother did report it.

Slee

[filmore]

This family needs to sue to get the school district to take this seriously. I’d like to see Skrbin locked in a room with a bunch of big, mean guys shooting spitwads at him and then say it’s not bullying.

Based on his appearance, I would guess he’s had his share of bullying. I wonder why he doesn’t take more of a stance against it:

Aaron Skrbin

[ThisUsernameIsForbidden]

Should have sent the recording to the press, I guess.

[Bricker]

@filmore

I believe Pennsylvania is an “all party” state with regards to recording conversations. That means that everyone being recorded has to consent. Some other states are “one party”, where only one person being recorded has to consent. This means the student did break the law in his state.

Volokh blogged about this case. His thoughts:

Under Pennsylvania law, recording conversations is illegal only if the speakers have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it’s hard to see how students talking in a classroom where everyone can hear them have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Here’s Lt. Kurta’s only response to the defense lawyer’s argument on this:

Q. Are you aware that for a recording to be a violation of the wiretap law that the individual that is recorded has to have a reasonable expectation of privacy in what they’re saying?
A. Yes.
Q. And so you believe then that students in a classroom that are bullying my client had a reasonable expectation of privacy that that conversation would not be recorded? …
[A.] I believe that in Pennsylvania two-party consent is required, unless prior approval from the district attorney or attorney general is obtained. I don’t think that you are permitted to commit a crime to generate evidence of a crime that you’re alleging.

So Lt. Kurta had no explanation of how the students could have had a reasonable expectation of privacy here — although he first agreed that such a reasonable expectation is required, he then just took the view that two-party consent is required, period. Again, the judge said nothing to explain her verdict, but presumably she must have taken the same view as well, since a finding of illegal recording has to be necessary to explain how the conduct might have been “physically offensive” and lacking in a “legitimate purpose.”
So the conviction strikes me as entirely unjustified. Fortunately, it’s being appealed — an appeal hearing in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas is set for April 29 — and I expect it to be reversed.

I agree.

It sounds like this school is doing a poor job with bullying and that needs to be addressed, but, unfortunately, this boy broke a pretty serious law. Hopefully the prosecutor will drop the charges.

I don’t agree with this analysis. I don’t agree that the facts, as adduced, meet Pennsylvania’s elements of wiretapping.

[The_Second_Stone]

Well, it is Pennsylvania, the state that had judges sending the innocent and minor offenders to prison in exchange for kickbacks. Several thousand conviction reversals would have been in order, I don’t recall seeing that happening. Although at least one of the judges was convicted and sent to prison.

[LurkerInNJ]

@sleestak

And if the mother actually, ya know, reported the incidents and no one did jack?

Link.

So the school did know about it because the mother did report it.

Slee

The article you linked to mentions the mother reported her son being hit with a spitwad. That’s right up there with “he looked at me crosseyed”. Immature and annoying, but hardly rises to bullying.

What was on the tape was actual bullying.

[Hari_Seldon]

@wolfman

Not really one for the “Great Judicial Quotes” collection, like you know. :dubious:

Judges in PA are elected. 'Nuff said?

[filmore]

I think you can have an expectation of privacy even in a public place. I would think an important part is how loud they were speaking.

Under Pennsylvania law, recording conversations is illegal only if the speakers have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and it’s hard to see how students talking in a classroom where everyone can hear them have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Just because other people are in the room doesn’t mean they were speaking publicly or that other people could hear them. If I’m shouting “I’M GOING TO GET YOU, SUCKA!”, then I can’t have the expectation of privacy. But if I whisper it in your ear, that seems to be a private conversation regardless of whether we’re in a house or a train station.

Maybe the recording can help answer if they were speaking in a way where the whole room could hear. Recording the book slamming down would seem to be public speech, but I’m not sure how loud the conversations were.

[sleestak]

@LurkerInNJ

The article you linked to mentions the mother reported her son being hit with a spitwad. That’s right up there with “he looked at me crosseyed”. Immature and annoying, but hardly rises to bullying.

What was on the tape was actual bullying.

The assertion was that the bullying had not been reported. It had been. Since you have no first hand knowledge of the actual incidents, your assertion that it is not bullying is a pure guess.

Slee

[Happy_Fun_Ball]

@LurkerInNJ

The article you linked to mentions the mother reported her son being hit with a spitwad. That’s right up there with “he looked at me crosseyed”. Immature and annoying, but hardly rises to bullying.

What was on the tape was actual bullying.

Bullshit.

ETA: You know nothing about what incidents have taken place. While I agree that being hit with a spit wad is immature and annoying and probably does not rise to the label bullying by itself, it could when combined with other forms of intimidation. What if he was hit with a spit wad after being called loser a hundred times? What about being hit with a hundred spit wads?

The article says that the mother complained about bullying to the special ed teacher several times.

[phouka]

@LurkerInNJ

The article you linked to mentions the mother reported her son being hit with a spitwad. That’s right up there with “he looked at me crosseyed”. Immature and annoying, but hardly rises to bullying.

What was on the tape was actual bullying.

Spitballs are made with spit. Saliva is a bodily fluid, so it’s not far from being spat upon, with all the biohazards that implies.

I don’t know about you, but if a coworker spat on me, I’d have their job, and I’d almost certainly file charges. That is inexcusable behavior.

When I was teaching, firing spitballs would have been an instant office referral with a call home to the parents to explain why that behavior would not be happening in my classroom again. I would expect the administration to back me to the hilt.

Hey, Bricker, what about the judge handing down the verdict without the defendant entering a plea? That made no sense to me.

[UTejas]

As of this afternoon, the charges have all been dropped, and the DA’s office sounds pretty salty about them being filed in the first place.

Link

Today, Mike Manko, a spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said his office is not involved in the issuance of summary counts, but takes on the case at the appellate level in Common Pleas Court. The citation against Christian will be withdrawn at the April 29 hearing, he said…

“No one who is authorized to give advice on wiretap or school violation issues was contacted in our office by the school district or South Fayette police,” Mr. Manko said. "Multiple attempts to contact the officer who wrote the citation have been made.

“We have not heard from him.”