okay legal eagles, weigh in on this one......

[mikeyb]

Yes and no. The way I understand it, the lockers belong to the school, so may be searched. Contents, such as a backpack, belong to the student, so need a warrant.
+1 on the bolded part.

Lockers may be searched only if there is reasonable suspicion. That is, a dog who sniffs and stops at a locker is grounds to search it, or a student claims they saw another student placed a handgun in their locker (truth notwithstanding). Random searches, or even announced searches, have been found to be unconstitutional. Backpacks are private. I would think the police would have probable cause to search, not a teacher or school administrator, but I have no facts to back that up.

 

[Ca Patriot]

When I was in high school the principal would usually say this to a student whose locker he wanted to search "yes lockers are private and you can refuse to allow me to search. of course it will go on your record, colleges will see it, your parents will be notified, i will have to speak with your basketball coach to see if your refusal is within proper conduct standards of the team and of course the sheriff might want to speak with you as well.......so do i have your permission?"

Most students said yes.

 

[carolina guy]

Absolutely the correct answer.

No crime was committed.

(1)...with the intent to invade the privacy of a person or persons inside.
(2)...under circumstances in which the other person has a reasonable expectation of privacy.
(3)... with the intent to invade the privacy of that other person.

None of the above were breached.

When did the teachers have an expectation of privacy inside the student locker room?

 

[color of law]

When did the teachers have an expectation of privacy inside the student locker room?

Generally none unless they are disrobing. What I can remember from school, there were a number of teachers I would have gladly paid for them to keep their clothes on.

 

[countryclubjoe]

What if the girl simply jumped out of the locker while the robbery was in progress, then started to record the act ?

Good discussion.

 

[Ca Patriot]

What if the girl simply jumped out of the locker while the robbery was in progress, then started to record the act ?

Good discussion.

There was a good case of a photographer who did alot of photoshoots with female models. He had a changing room and he had a video camera in there. Obviously a changing room is a private place but he had his video camera on a tripod and out in the open. He wasnt hiding or concealed it at all.

One of the models called police and he was arrested.

I dont remember if he was convicted but IMO the law clearly said the filming has to be "covert" or "concealed" and his definetly wasnt.

The model said "i didnt know he was filming me" but pictures showed this huge video camera on a tripod out in the open.

 

[OC for ME]

Generally none unless they are disrobing. <snip>

How can anyone to reasonably expect privacy in a locker room where others may also be disrobing?

 

[carolina guy]

Generally none unless they are disrobing. What I can remember from school, there were a number of teachers I would have gladly paid for them to keep their clothes on.

I think it is safe to say that there is NO expectation of privacy while from people not "allowed" to be in the locker room while people are changing.

 

[eye95]

How can anyone to reasonably expect privacy in a locker room where others may also be disrobing?

Disrobing is only ONE reason a person could reasonably expect privacy. If one would not normally expect observation without extraordinary means, such as through a hole in a locker by someone hiding in the locker, then they have an expectation of privacy. When someone is alone in a locker room (or at least reasonably believe that they are alone), they should not expect observation by ordinary means and, therefore, should have an expectation of privacy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[OC for ME]

Disrobing is only ONE reason a person could reasonably expect privacy. If one would not normally expect observation without extraordinary means, such as through a hole in a locker by someone hiding in the locker, then they have an expectation of privacy. When someone is alone in a locker room (or at least reasonably believe that they are alone), they should not expect observation by ordinary means and, therefore, should have an expectation of privacy.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

I understand your focus is on the student's singular act of recording, secretly.

From the 9th Circuit opinion I provided previously.

Thus, a man's home is, for most purposes, a place where he expects privacy, but objects, activities, or statements that he exposes to the "plain view" of outsiders are not "protected," because no intention to keep them to himself has been exhibited.

There can be no expectation of privacy in a girls locker room and thus "secretly" recording someone in a public space can not be a violation of the cited CPC.

But, my opinion carries no legal weight and the student could very well be convicted of violating the CPC cited earlier. Since a appeal would be in the 9th Circuit, and if it gets to the 9th Circuit on appeal, that court could rule that the singular act, regardless of location, is the violation, irrespective of their prior opinion on what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

[eye95]

The reason that one MIGHT not have an expectation of privacy in one's home (under certain circumstances), as pointed out by the ruling, is that sometimes one's actions in his home might be plainly visible, without any equipment or effort, from the public byway. For example, if a person, at night, with the lights on, in front of a picture window, is clearly visible to folks on the city sidewalk in front of the home, he has no expectation of privacy. If he draws the blinds, he does. Someone using equipment to secretly view or record his actions would be violating his privacy.

Likewise, in the locker room, with others present, one would have no expectation of privacy. (Actually, they still could expect not to be spied upon surreptitiously.) Also, likewise, if the locker room is closed and, as far as a reasonable person can tell, empty, that person has an expectation of privacy.

I have not read the ruling from which you culled the excerpt, but I'd expect an explanation similar to my first paragraph is in that ruling.

The expectation of privacy does not come solely from the venue. The circumstances also are a determining factor.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[mikeyb]

In order to successfully challenge a search or seizure as a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a plaintiff must show that he or she had manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the area of the search or the object seized and that the expectation is one that society is willing to recognize as reasonable or legitimate.

http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/expectation-of-privacy.html

The critical fact in this case is that "[o]ne who occupies it, [a telephone booth] shuts the door behind him, and pays the toll that permits him to place a call is surely entitled to assume" that his conversation is not being intercepted. Ante at 352. The point is not that the booth is "accessible to the public" at other times, ante at 351, but that it is a temporarily private place whose momentary occupants' expectations of freedom from intrusion are recognized as reasonable. Cf. Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html

A locker room is not a private place, imo. Kids come and go throughout the day.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures” by government agents, including government employers or supervisors.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1452089.html

No government was involved in the collection of the evidence.

The burden is on Simons to prove that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office.   See Rusher, 966 F.2d at 874.   Here, Simons has shown that he had an office that he did not share.   As noted above, the operational realities of Simons' workplace may have diminished his legitimate privacy expectations.   However, there is no evidence in the record of any workplace practices, procedures, or regulations that had such an effect.10  We therefore conclude that, on this record, Simons possessed a legitimate expectation of privacy in his office.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1452089.html

The locker room is not the teacher's office. When the kids are out, that doesn't change the fact the room is still a common room. Girls forget hair bands or have "a moment" and come in and out of the locker room all the time. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in that room unless school is out, no sporting events that would require the room being used, and it is locked. Then, maybe, you have an expectation to privacy.

 

[eye95]

The reasonable expectation of privacy is not just a protection from the government, but also a protection from private spying--hence laws in most States outlawing such espionage.

Considering that the locker room has a limitation on the group that may enter, there is an expectation of privacy from at least half of the population--almost everyone if the subject reasonably believes herself to be alone in the locker room. That expectation is shattered if a secret recording can be made without consequence.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Ca Patriot]

Considering that the locker room has a limitation on the group that may enter, there is an expectation of privacy from at least half of the population--

I'm not sure that is correct. I have done many extensive searches and I cant find any state or municipal laws that prohibit males from entering female restrooms or locker rooms.

A few years ago California passed a law that basically said schools have to allow people to use the restroom of the gender they identify with.

My daughter was attening high school at that time and I called her school to get an official position. I asked this simple question "are males allowed to use the female restrooms or locker rooms?" They would NOT say yes or no. I called the school district and they would not say yes or no.

I asked for a copy of their official policy and they refused to provide one.

I called the LA County sheriffs and asked them if there was any state code against it and they couldnt provide one.

 

[eye95]

I'm not sure that is correct. I have done many extensive searches and I cant find any state or municipal laws that prohibit males from entering female restrooms or locker rooms...

There does not have to be a law. It can be a custom, a practice, a rule, or a even just a sign. As long as the restriction is a common practice, the expectation, not a guarantee, is there.

 

[OC for ME]

The opinion is Katz v. US argued before the SCOTUS, October 17, 1967, not the 9th Circuit. My poor reading skills again are evident. My apologies to all.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html

 

[mikeyb]

The opinion is Katz v. US argued before the SCOTUS, October 17, 1967, not the 9th Circuit. My poor reading skills again are evident. My apologies to all.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZC1.html

And?

Being in an "open" room alone does not mean one has absolute privacy. It makes no sense to think that. If you're in a conference room at work and everyone leaves, do you expect it to be as private as your own home? The locker room is not a facility to have the expectation of privacy there. The locker room does not afford personal privacy whatsoever. It's not the same as a single-person telephone booth, changing room at the Gap, or even your own car.