Jackson et al. v. McCurry et al.

Whether school administrators may access and search the contents of a student's cell phone without consent
  • Court Gives School Officials Immunity in Suit Over Search of Student's Cell Phone: The Eleventh Circuit has issued a decision in Jackson v. McCurry. A student's family filed the case after school officials searched her cell phone without probable cause. The appeals court ruled against the the student because the law limiting searches of student cell phones was not "clearly established." EPIC filed an amicus brief, arguing that searches of student phones should be "limited to those circumstances when it is strictly necessary" after the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California. EPIC wrote that "most teenagers today could not survive without a cellphone." The court recognized the need to limit school searches of cell phones, noting that "the reasoning of Riley treats cellphone searches as especially intrusive in comparison to searches incident to arrest of personal property" and that "a search of a student's cellphone might require a more compelling justification than that required to search a student's other personal effects." However, the court refused to hold that this right was "clearly established." EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in cases raising new privacy issues. EPIC has also long advocated for greater student privacy protections, including a Student Privacy Bill of Rights. (Mar. 13, 2019)
  • EPIC Urges Appeals Court to Uphold Fourth Amendment Protections for Searches of Students' Cell Phones: EPIC has filed an amicus brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Jackson v. McCurry, stating that teachers may not search a student's cell phone unless they have followed an explicit school policy that complies with Fourth Amendment requirements. Citing a recent Supreme Court opinion, EPIC explained, "after Riley, searches of students' cell phones require heightened privacy protections." Noting that "most teenagers today could not survive without a cellphone," EPIC wrote that searches of cell phones should be "limited to those circumstances when it is strictly necessary." EPIC previously participated as amicus curiae in Riley v. California, arguing that the search of a cellphone requires a warrant, and Commonwealth v. White, a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that a warrant is required before a school may turn over a student's cell phone to the police. Both cases produced favorable outcomes. (Mar. 13, 2018)
  • More top news »
  • EPIC Backs Principles for Student Safety, Privacy, and Equity » (Mar. 29, 2019)
    EPIC joined forty education, privacy, disability rights, and civil rights organizations to support ten principles for school safety. The principles promote student safety measures that are evidence-based and oppose the surveillance-based measures that have been proposed in many states. In 2014 EPIC urged Congress to adopt the Student Privacy Bill of Rights to safeguard student privacy. In 2012, EPIC sued the Department of Education after it weakened a rule to protect the privacy of student records. Last year EPIC filed an amicus brief in Jackson v. McCurry, stating that teachers may not search a student's cell phone unless they have followed an explicit school policy that complies with Fourth Amendment requirements.
  • Court Gives School Officials Immunity in Suit Over Search of Student's Cell Phone » (Mar. 13, 2019)
    The Eleventh Circuit has issued a decision in Jackson v. McCurry. A student's family filed the case after school officials searched her cell phone without probable cause. The appeals court ruled against the the student because the law limiting searches of student cell phones was not "clearly established." EPIC filed an amicus brief, arguing that searches of student phones should be "limited to those circumstances when it is strictly necessary" after the Supreme Court's decision in Riley v. California. EPIC wrote that "most teenagers today could not survive without a cellphone." The court recognized the need to limit school searches of cell phones, noting that "the reasoning of Riley treats cellphone searches as especially intrusive in comparison to searches incident to arrest of personal property" and that "a search of a student's cellphone might require a more compelling justification than that required to search a student's other personal effects." However, the court refused to hold that this right was "clearly established." EPIC routinely files amicus briefs in cases raising new privacy issues. EPIC has also long advocated for greater student privacy protections, including a Student Privacy Bill of Rights.
  • EPIC Urges Appeals Court to Uphold Fourth Amendment Protections for Searches of Students' Cell Phones » (Mar. 13, 2018)
    EPIC has filed an amicus brief with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Jackson v. McCurry, stating that teachers may not search a student's cell phone unless they have followed an explicit school policy that complies with Fourth Amendment requirements. Citing a recent Supreme Court opinion, EPIC explained, "after Riley, searches of students' cell phones require heightened privacy protections." Noting that "most teenagers today could not survive without a cellphone," EPIC wrote that searches of cell phones should be "limited to those circumstances when it is strictly necessary." EPIC previously participated as amicus curiae in Riley v. California, arguing that the search of a cellphone requires a warrant, and Commonwealth v. White, a case before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, arguing that a warrant is required before a school may turn over a student's cell phone to the police. Both cases produced favorable outcomes.
  • EPIC Advises Congress to Protect Student Privacy in Evidence-Based Policymaking » (Jan. 30, 2018)
    In advance of a hearing on "Protecting Privacy, Promoting Policy: Evidence-Based Policymaking and the Future of Education," EPIC wrote a statement to the House committee, expressing support for both evidence-based policy and student privacy. EPIC explained that privacy enhancing technologies are necessary to protect student data, because even where data has been de-identified it may still possible to extract personal data. In 2014 EPIC urged Congress to adopt the Student Privacy Bill of Rights to safeguard student privacy. EPIC also testified before the Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking, and recommended innovative privacy techniques to protect personal data that also enable informed public policy decisions.
  • Federal Student Aid Office Not Protecting Student Privacy, GAO Audit Finds » (Dec. 6, 2017)
    The Federal Student Aid office (FSA) at the Department of Education is not doing enough to protect student privacy, according to an audit by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO found that FSA has failed to hold schools accountable for their lax data security practices that have resulted in numerous data breaches, and has not assessed the privacy risks for its own electronic records system. FSA collects personal information on students and their families to evaluate schools that receive federal student aid. The FSA claims that the FTC can manage privacy protection. EPIC has done extensive work to protect student privacy including a 2014 complaint to the FTC about a massive data breach that impacted students in Maricopa County. The FTC failed to act even though Maricopa county violated the FTC Safeguards Rule by failing to protect students' financial information. EPIC also urged Congress to strengthen student privacy protections following a FAFSA data breach. In 2012 EPIC sued the Department of Education for weakening student privacy protections. EPIC has proposed a Student Privacy Bill of Rights.
  • European Court Holds Camera Surveillance of University Lecture Halls Violates Privacy » (Nov. 29, 2017)
    In the case of Antović and Mirković v. Montenegro, the European Court of Human Rights held that camera surveillance in lecture halls at the University of Montenegro's School of Mathematics violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect one's "private and family life"). The decision follows earlier cases of the Court which recognize privacy rights in the workplace. Some U.S. law schools have deemed all classrooms and meetings rooms as "recordable spaces" and state that voluntary participation therefore constitutes a waiver of legal claims. EPIC has protected the human right to privacy through third-party intervention in the European Court of Human Rights as well as documented the spread of CCTV surveillance technology across American cities. EPIC's Privacy Law Sourcebook provides background on US and international privacy law. The Privacy Law and Society website provides more information about international privacy law.
  • EPIC Backs Privacy Act Protections for "Insider Threat" Database » (Jul. 5, 2017)
    EPIC has sent comments to the Department of Justice criticizing a proposed "insider threat" database. This database replaces a similar database that was proposed and later rescinded by the FBI last fall and would allow the DOJ to collect virtually unlimited amounts of personal data from employees, contractors, interns, and visitors to DOJ facilities. Citing the size and scope of the database combined with recent government data breaches, EPIC warned that the database was putting federal employees and contractors at risk. EPIC has consistently warned against inaccurate, insecure, and overbroad government databases.
  • EPIC Urges DHS To Abandon Privacy Act Exemptions for ICE Database » (Jun. 8, 2017)
    In comments to the Department of Homeland Security, EPIC urged the agency to withdraw proposed Privacy Act exemptions. The FALCON database contains detailed personal information on ICE and CBP employees, and individuals associated with ICE investigations including victims and witnesses. For this government database, DHS has proposed to exempt itself from several Privacy Act protections including ensuring that the records are accurate, timely, and complete. EPIC has consistently warned against inaccurate, insecure, and overbroad government databases. The FBI recently postponed an "Insider Threat" database that also lacked adequate Privacy Act safeguards.
  • EPIC to Congress: Protect Student Privacy » (May. 2, 2017)
    EPIC has sent a statement to the House Committee on Oversight for the upcoming hearing on the FAFSA ("Free Application for Federal Student Aid") data breach, which compromised more than 100,000 taxpayer records. EPIC urged the Committee to protect student privacy. EPIC's testimony: (1) explained how the U.S. Education Department weakened key safeguards for student records, (2) described the privacy risks that students today face, (3) underscored the need for data security safeguards for student information, and (4) recommended that Congress adopt EPIC's Student Privacy Bill of Rights. EPIC has previously urged Congress, the Education Department, and the Federal Trade Commission to strengthen student privacy.
  • Senators Markey and Hatch Propose Student Privacy Act » (Apr. 7, 2017)
    Senator Edward Markey (D-Mass) and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have reintroduced the "Protecting Student Privacy Act." The Act would strengthen the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal student privacy law. The Student Privacy Act would also implement several of the recommendations EPIC set out in the Student Privacy Bill of Rights, including data security safeguards, student access to personal information held by companies, prohibiting the use of personal data for marketing purposes, and minimizing the personal information schools transfer to third parties.
  • States Recognize Data Privacy Day » (Feb. 10, 2017)
    Several states across the U.S., including Michigan, Montana, North Carolina, and Ohio, recognized international Data Privacy Day, held annually on January 28 to commemorate the first international treaty for privacy and data protection. State efforts to raise awareness about privacy and other consumer protection issues are published monthly in The State Center Consumer Protection Report. The Report also noted that Mississippi is pursuing legal action against Google over student data collected from public schools. The lawsuit accuses Google of collecting students' personal information and search history for its own business interests in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act.
  • Government Breaches Continue, Hacker Compromises more than 130,000 Navy Records » (Nov. 29, 2016)
    In the latest government data breach, the Navy reported that a hacker gathered the personal data of more than 130,000 current and former sailors from a laptop that belonged to a government contractor. Government security vulnerabilities are on the rise. In 2015, the records of more than 21 million federal workers, friends and family members were breached. In 2016, EPIC urged candidates for office to focus on "data protection." EPIC has warned that inaccurate, insecure, and overbroad government databases pose a risks to the safety of Americans. Earlier this year, EPIC urged the Dept. of Defense and Dept. of Homeland Security to drop proposals to expand government databases that lacked adequate privacy safeguards.
  • Massachusetts Court Upholds Privacy Rights of Cell Phone Users » (Sep. 28, 2016)
    The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled today in Commonwealth v. White that the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement from seizing a cell phone based simply on an officer’s suspicion that a cell phone may be used in a crime, finding that a warrant must be obtained prior to the seizure of the phone. EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that "digital is different," and therefore the legal standard for warrantless searches of contraband in schools does not apply to cell phones. EPIC also explained the significance of Riley v. California, the recent Supreme Court  that established a warrant requirement for searches of cell phones. The EPIC State Policy Project coordinated the EPIC amicus brief in the case.
  • EPIC Urges Wisconsin Legislature to Safeguard Student Privacy » (Aug. 17, 2016)
    In testimony for the Wisconsin legislature, EPIC urged state lawmakers to protect student privacyEPIC's testimony: (1) explained how the U.S. Education Department weakened key safeguards for student records,  (2) described the privacy risks that students today face,  (3) underscored the need for data security safeguards for student information, and (4) recommended that Wisconsin adopt EPIC's Student Privacy Bill of Rights EPIC has previously urged Congress, the Education Department, and the Federal Trade Commission to strengthen student privacyEPIC's State Policy Project is monitoring privacy bills nationwide.
  • States Adopt New Student Privacy Safeguards » (Jun. 21, 2016)
    Several states have recently enacted new student privacy laws. Colorado and Connecticut’s laws impose strict requirements on those who collect student data. Connecticut also requires that parents are notified each time a school district enters into a contract that involves student data.  North Carolina enacted a student privacy law modeled after California's Student Online Personal Information Protection Act. The National Association of State Boards of Education reported that 38 states considered student privacy legislation in 2016. Ten of those states passed student privacy laws. EPIC has urged the enactment of a comprehensive student privacy bill of rightsEPIC's State Policy Project is monitoring privacy bills nationwide.
  • EPIC Warns Education Department of Research Database Privacy Risks » (Jan. 6, 2016)
    In comments to the Education Department, EPIC objected to the Department's recent proposal to gather detailed student information. The Department plans to collect student data, including discipline records, to assess "data-driven instruction professional development." The Department also proposes to disclose the data to private contractors. EPIC suggested that the agency use aggregate data instead of students' personally identifiable information so as to reduce the risk that might result from a data breach. EPIC noted that the agency's Inspector General recently found that "information systems continue to be vulnerable to serious security threats." EPIC has called for a Student Privacy Bill of Rights, an enforceable privacy and data security framework.
  • Congress Calls on Education Department to Protect Student Privacy » (Dec. 14, 2015)
    Congress has enacted the "Every Child Achieves Act of 2015," a law that provides technology funding for schools but requires extensive student data collection. In recognizing the substantial student privacy risks the law poses, Congress stated that the Education Department "should review all regulations addressing issues of student privacy, including those under this Act, and ensure that students' personally identifiable information is protected." The Act also requires ongoing compliance with L2 and other applicable state privacy law. EPIC previously sued the Education Department for weakening federal student privacy protections. EPIC supports establishment of a Student Privacy Bill of Rights.
  • Massachusetts Court Hears Arguments in Student Privacy Case » (Dec. 9, 2015)
    The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments yesterday in Commonwealth v. White, a case concerning both student privacy and cell phone privacy. EPIC filed an amicus brief in the case, arguing that the police should obtain a warrant before seizing a student's cell phone. EPIC explained that "digital is different," and therefore the legal standard for school searches of contraband does not apply to cell phones. EPIC also explained the significance of Riley v. California, the recent Supreme Court case on cell phone searches that upheld a warrant requirement. The EPIC State Policy Project is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  • In Court: EPIC Urges Massachusetts to Protect Student Privacy » (Nov. 23, 2015)
    EPIC has filed an amicus brief in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding a student privacy case. EPIC said that the police should obtain a warrant before seizing a student's cell phone. Citing a recent Supreme Court case, EPIC explained "Modern cell phones . . . implicate privacy concerns far beyond those implicated by the search of a cigarette pack, a wallet, or a purse. In Riley v. California, a unanimous Supreme Court held that a search of cell phone required a warrant. EPIC previously filed an amicus brief in Commonwealth v. Connolly, a Massachusetts case concerning GPS tracking. The EPIC State Policy Project is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Summary

Jackson, et al v. McCurry, et al, concerns whether school administrators may search the contents of a student’s cell phone without their consent. Two high school administrators searched a student’s cell phone without a warrant or the student’s consent during their investigation of alleged threats made against the student. Based on this and other events, the student’s parents filed suit, asserting that the school violated the student’s Fourth Amendment rights. The lower court found that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that it was not clearly established that school administrators searching a student’s cell phone under the circumstances violated the Fourth Amendment.

Question Presented

Whether school administrators may access and search the contents of a student’s cell phone without a warrant and without the student’s consent

Background

Factual Background

At a local High School in Chattahoochee County, Georgia, two administrators searched a student’s cell phone without a warrant during their investigation of alleged threats against the student. The student, EDJ, was in twelfth grade during the 2016-2017 school year. In August of 2016, students began circulating rumors around the school that EDJ was “bad-talking” another student, M. M soon learned of those rumors and ultimately threatened EDJ. In response, EDJ told school officials of M’s threat. The next day, a school administrator began gathering information about the incident by interviewing M and two other students, A and B. M informed the administrator that EDJ had been making fun of her for not making the volleyball team. A and B confirmed the story and informed the administrator that EDJ had been sending them text messages about M as well. The administrator then informed the principal of the situation.

The administrator then interviewed EDJ in the presence of the principal. They questioned EDJ about her sending text messages to other students as A, B, and M alleged. EDJ denied talking about M. EDJ then claimed the administrator told her to unlock her phone and give it to him to look through her text messages to other students. EDJ did not give the administrator permission to search the phone. The administrator reviewed messages with students A and B, and then went on to search messages from EDJ’s family members, best friend, and ex-boyfriend. After finding nothing that implicated EDJ, the administrator returned the phone to EDJ.

Procedural History

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia

The District Court found that the administrators were entitled to qualified immunity for the federal law claims. The Court found that “[w]hile T.L.O. clearly established the general standard for the search of a student,” the Plaintiffs did not provide the court with any authority addressing the constitutionality of a search of a student’s cell phone. The Court also did not find that “it would have been clearly obvious to a school official in [the principal’s] circumstances that the Fourth Amendment prevented him from conducting the search of EDJ’s phone as he did.”

The Court determined that defendants had reasonable grounds to suspect that a search of EDJ’s text messages would reveal evidence that she was violating school rules against harassment. The administrators searched the cell phones in belief she was sending negative messages about M to other students. This belief was based on information provided by other student interviews. And because the conduct alleged constituted harassment under school policy, the Court determined that the administrators had reasonable grounds to search the cell phone.

The Court also acknowledged Riley v. California. It determined that while in Riley, the Supreme Court established that officers may no categorically conduct searches of information stored on cell phones, the Court already established in T.L.O. that school officials did not need a warrant to search students suspected of violating school rules. The Court further emphasized that T.L.O. specifically recognized searches of “highly personal items [such] as photographs, letters, and diaries” that students carried to school. The Court recognized the development of technology, but emphasized that such development still fit within the T.L.O. framework.

EPIC's Interest

EPIC seeks to preserve Fourth Amendment privacy protections in the digital age. Jackson v. McCurry is relevant to EPIC’s mission because of its potential impact on student privacy, cell phone privacy, and government overreach. As an expert on constitutional privacy rights, including student privacy, EPIC is uniquely qualified to support the argument that students do not lose a reasonable expectation of privacy at the schoolhouse gate.

This case builds on EPIC’s prior work. EPIC frequently files amicus briefs in state and federal courts on important Fourth Amendment issues related to technologies. Most recently, EPIC filed an amicus brief in Commonwealth v. White, concerning whether schools may turn over to the police a student’s cell phone without a warrant. EPIC argued that “digital is different,” and therefore the legal standard for warrantless searches of contraband in schools does not apply to cell phones. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ultimately held that the Fourth Amendment prohibits law enforcement from seizing a cell phone based simply on an officer’s suspicion that a cell phone may be used in a crime, finding that a warrant must be obtained prior to the seizure of the phone.

EPIC also filed an amicus brief in Riley v. California, concerning the constitutionality of a warrantless cell phone search incident to arrest. EPIC argued that “allowing police officers to search a person’s cell phone without a warrant following an arrest would be a substantial infringement on privacy, is unnecessary and unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” A unanimous Supreme Court agreed, holding that the traditional rule governing the seizure of physical items incident to a lawful arrest does not authorize a search of the digital contents of a seized cell phone. The Court cited EPIC’s brief twice in its opinion.

EPIC also works to protect student privacy outside of the amicus context. EPIC has proposed a Student Privacy Bill of Rights to safeguard student data and security, obtained documents regarding the misuse of education records through the Freedom of Information Act, and sued the Department of Education regarding changes in an agency regulation that diminished the safeguards set out in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, a federal student privacy law.

Legal Documents

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Nos. 18-10231

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, No. 17-17

  • Jackson, et al v. McCurry, et al, No. 4:17-cv-17, 2017 WL 6559912 (M.D. GA 2017)

Resources

News

Share this page:

Defend Privacy. Support EPIC.
EPIC Mueller Report book
US Needs a Data Protection Agency