Recently in Civil Rights News Category

A report issued yesterday by attorneys hired by the Lower Merion School District found that the collection of images stemmed not from an effort to spy on students but from "the district's failure to implement policies, procedures and recordkeeping requirements and the overzealous and questionable use of technology by IS personnel without any apparent regard for privacy considerations or sufficient consultation with administrators."

The report also criticized leaders and several members of the IS department as "not forthcoming with the Board, administrators and students about what TheftTrack could do and how they used it," citing incidents demonstrating "an unwillingness ... to let anyone outside of the IS Department know about TheftTrack's capabilities."

The report said the tracking system was intended to help recover stolen computers and the district used it successfully for that purpose. But it said the district also used the system for missing computers and for unknown purposes and left it activated for long periods in cases "in which there was no longer any possible legitimate reason" for capturing images.

The report faults administrators who had information about the program with not having appreciated the privacy concerns raised.

The most interesting part of the report confirms the allegation by student Blake Robbins and his family about alleged privacy violations over webcam images taken at home without their knowledge.

The report says Robbins turned in his laptop with a broken screen and was issued a loaner on Oct. 20, but school officials quickly moved to retrieve it due to outstanding insurance fees. So the tracking program was activated from Oct. 20 to Nov. 4 and captured 210 webcam photographs and 218 screen shots, the report said.

Although a technician confirmed on the first day of tracking that the laptop was "now currently online at home," another official in the same department instructed him to keep the tracking on and later told investigators he thought he needed authorization to terminate it, the report said.

On Oct. 30, the report said, a technician saw a computer screen shot that "included an online chat that concerned him." After consulting with a superior, he allowed school officials to look at the images.

Although the school principal said none of the images should be discussed with Robbins or his parents because they involved off-campus activities, Vice Principal Lindy Matsko decided about a week later it was "appropriate to discuss certain seemingly troubling images" with them, the report said.

In the civil lawsuit, Robbins said Matsko approached him and warned that school officials, based on webcam photos, suspected him of selling drugs. Robbins, 15, denies the drug allegation and said Matsko mistook Mike & Ike candies for illicit pills.

Robbins family attorney Mark Haltzman told reporters at the meeting that he and his clients were "thankful that we've been vindicated ... about all the misuse going on," but he added he was concerned that the full story had not yet been revealed.

The report notes Robbins "was not disciplined as a result of any images captured from his laptop."

Finally the truth about Lower Merion's use of remote monitoring software on student laptops: On Monday, the District's lawyer admitted that the school system captured 56,000 images of students, although thankfully "none of the images appeared to be salacious or inappropriate."

Back in February, the District's website declared that they only activated the software to locate lost, stolen or missing laptops: "The district has not used the tracking feature or webcam for any other purpose or in any other manner whatsoever," the Web site said.

Conclusion: there must be an awfully lot of missing laptops in the richest school district in Pennsylvania and one of the richest school districts in the country. Actually, maybe that's how everyone is getting so rich. They're fencing school laptops! This gives the story a whole new angle.

Let's see, there are 1500 students at Lower Marion High School, divided by 56,000 "investigatory images," means that each student stole about 37 computers. With MacBook Pros running about $1100 each, I'd say that each student in the LMSD received over $40,000 by fencing school computers. Parents with multiple students in high school could be making well into six figures with this scheme, easily offsetting school taxes, payments on luxury autos and mortgages.

And remember those parents who signed a petition demanding that all lawsuits against the school district be dropped? They definitely know they've got a good thing going. Why mess it up with a lawsuit which might lead to this scam leaking out?

Let the school peek at whatever they want to. As long as we can keep moving these "lost, stolen or missing" laptops on eBay, the District will be fully justified in capturing tens of thousands of images, the parents will get rich, and all the students at LMSD will keep their fancy cars, homes and vacations.

It's a win-win situation for everyone! Why give it away for free by sexting? Make the District work to "recover their lost, stolen or missing" laptops.

(These are high rez images too! Check out this image of Harriton High student Blake Robbins which his parents say was made surreptitiously by a school-issued laptop. No chance that the District will miss one mole on the crooks' nose with pix like these!)

Any kid that has a problem with this set up will get sent to Luzerne County where corrupt judges got cash bribes for sending juvenile delinquents to a private detention facility. From Masha Allen's adoption by a pedophile, to Luzerne County's cash for kids, to LMSD's pedo laptop recovery program - there's just something about Pennsylvania folks. My advice, keep your webcam's covered and your doors locked.

For more on this story, check out the Philadelphia Inquirer

According to Law Professor Marci Hamilton:

Jewish and Catholic clergy are squaring off over legislation in New York State to reform statute of limitation laws for childhood sexual abuse. In this case, let's root for the rabbis - because if they win, the real winners will be victims who have been foreclosed from seeking justice against their perpetrators for far too many years.

The bill in question is the Child Victims Act. Scheduled to shortly go before the New York state Legislature, it would extend the statutes of limitations by five years for child sex abuse prosecution and civil claims. Further, it would also open a one-year "window" to allow victims whose time for going to court had previously expired because of the limitations to re-enter the justice system and file claims during this set period.

California and Delaware recently enacted legislation that has revealed almost 400 new child predators.

When the victims name the adults who made the abuse happen, and courts order the release of evidence and documents that have shielded the ugly truth from the people, New Yorkers can finally protect children from the dangerous and the callous.

All concientious New York citizens should write a letter to their State Representative and State Senator supporting the Child Victims Act: Assembly Bill A.2596 / Senate Bill S.2568 without amendment.

Go to www.sol-reform.com for additional details.

No surprise here: legislation requiring any juvenile who appears in court to be represented by a lawyer would be unconstitutional according to PA Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald Castille.

This is PA's official judicial response to the Luzerne County PA scandal in which former Common Pleas judges Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan pleaded guilty in February to taking $2.6 million in bribes to put juveniles in private detention centers. Hundreds of youngsters were sent to facilities without the benefit of legal counsel.

State Senator Lisa Baker, a Republican who represents part of Luzerne County, perhaps said it best (in comments which could apply to many governmental institutions in her state and elsewhere):

"Everyone fervently hopes the Luzerne County mess is an appalling anomaly, Yet, too many eyes were averted, too many voices were held silent, too many people were intimidated, too many troubling statistics were discounted, too many warning signs were ignored for people to accept the argument this cannot happen again. What we announce today is a start, to remedy injustice and to reform a system that lacks sufficient openness or oversight to prevent corruption."

Castille's Supreme Court dismissed a lawsuit in January filed by the Juvenile Law Center which requested relief for juveniles who appeared in a Luzerne County courtroom without lawyers. So much for official oversight.

Asked if the Supreme Court should have recognized the problem earlier, Castille said no. "We're not an investigative body."

Castille then ironically pledged "to the citizens of Pennsylvania that the Supreme Court will do all in its power to ensure that justice is done fairly and honestly in Luzerne County and in every courtroom in this Commonwealth every day."

How he plans on "ensuring justice" without investigatory powers or court appointed counsel is anyone's guess.

Corrupt PA juvenile judge claims "judicial privilege" shields him from lawsuits for illegal juvenile prison terms Link

Case Update: How to Strip Search a Middle School Student heads to the Supreme Court Link

Recent Supreme Court ruling holds that Title IX doesn't preclude Section 1983 action in school gender discrimination COA Link

Law school lapses: 1st Harvard's Berkman-sellout, now Cornell Prof Colb defends religiously inspired child murder Link

FL gov't reform school survivors file lawsuit from savage sexual abuse & human rights violations in the 50s & 60s Link

It should come as no surprise that social workers and other child welfare workers are covered by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. What might be surprising is that the most conservative federal district courts are taking the lead in defining this new and rapidly evolving constitutional mandate, most notably the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (covering Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Kansas).

Applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Fourth Amendment provides: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...." Because the Amendment focuses on safeguarding persons from unwarranted intrusion, and not on regulating the behavior of particular governmental actors, the prohibition against unreasonable seizures extends to civil, as well as criminal, investigations by the government.

In Dubbs v. Head Start, Inc., 336 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2003), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no social worker exception to the Fourth Amendment. In Dubbs, eight pre-school children enrolled in the Head Start program were subjected to intrusive physical examinations, including genital examinations and blood tests, on school premises without parental notice or consent.

Also in 2003, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in Doe v. Heck, 327 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2003), held that the strictures of the Fourth Amendment apply to child welfare workers, as well as all other governmental employees. In that case, a private Christian elementary school and a student's parents sued several child welfare caseworkers under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments after the caseworkers interviewed a student about corporal punishment without a warrant or the consent of the school or parents.

A Fourth Amendment analysis is based on the totality of the circumstances in determining whether a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to terminate an encounter with government. Some of the factors considered include:

1) the threatening presence of several officials;
2) the brandishing of a weapon by an official;
3) some physical touching by an official;
4) use of aggressive language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with an official's request is compulsory;
5) prolonged retention of a person's personal effects;
6) a request to accompany the official to the station;
7) interaction in a nonpublic place or a small, enclosed place;
8) and absence of other members of the public.

In the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeal's most recent decision issued last week, Jones v. Hunt, 2005 WL 1395095 (10th Cir. 2005), the court analyzed a sixteen year old girl's encounter with child welfare social workers "through the eyes of a reasonable sixteen year old" child.

After concluding that the alleged encounter constituted a seizure, the court then reviewed whether the seizure was reasonable which depends on the context in which it took place. With limited exceptions, a search or seizure requires either a warrant or probable cause.

In this case, the court found that the social worker's actions "violated the most minimal standard of which we can conceive." The court held that where no legitimate basis exists for detaining a child, a seizure is plainly unreasonable. The court further found that this standard was clearly established as far back as 1994 when it held, in Doe v. Bagan, 41 F.3d 571 (10th Cir. 1994) that a seizure of a nine year old boy was justified at its inception because a victim of child abuse had identified him as her abuser and a ten minute interview with a social services caseworker was reasonably related in scope to determining Doe's role in the incident.

In a critical footnote in Jones v. Hunt, the court noted that "we do not imply that a social worker investigating allegations of abuse or neglect necessarily requires a warrant, probable cause, or exigent circumstances before questioning a child on public school property. Where a social worker merely conducted an interview of a child at a public school, and thus did not remove the child nor interfere with the sanctity of the private home, we have applied the Terry standard." (a search of a child by a government official is reasonable if "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place")

The court concluded "it may be that the Terry standard applies even where a social worker removes a child from her parents' custody at a public school following a legitimate investigation into child abuse and neglect."

Should the Fourth Amendment apply to the day to day workings of social workers in child welfare investigations? Do social workers understand and apply this constitutional mandate in your jurisdiction?

The following testimony was presented to the House Committee on Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources on Wednesday, May 18, 2005 at a hearing on Protections for Foster Children Enrolled in Clinical Trials.

Alan Fleischman, M.D., Senior Advisor, The New York Academy of Medicine, New York, New York

Roberta Harris, Deputy Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services, Madison, Wisconsin

Marjorie Speers, Ph.D., Executive Director, Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, Inc.

Moira Szilagyi, M.D., Ph.D., Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics

Over one year ago, the Alliance for Human Research Protection in New York City alerted the federal Food and Drug Administration that they had “reason to believe that federal regulations for the protection of children as research subjects have been seriously violated in federally funded HIV research.”

Kudos also to Liam Scheff who in December 2003 broke the story of the drug trials in an online article entitled “The House That AIDS Built”.

AHRP’s letter to the FDA states that “a series of Phase I and Phase II drug experiments were conducted on infants and children who were under the guardianship of the New York City Agency for Children's Services (ACS), and living at Incarnation Children's Center, a foster care facility under contract with ACS. The test subjects were children diagnosed with HIV infection - in some cases infants who were merely "presumed" to be HIV-infected. Phase I and Phase II experiments involve the greatest level of risk and discomfort for children insofar as they test the safety and toxicity of the drugs as well as maximum dose tolerance.”

In response to these allegations, the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) recently contracted with the Vera Institute of Justice to conduct an independent review of ACS policy and practice regarding the enrollment of HIV-positive children in foster care in clinical drug trials during the late 1980s and 1990s.

The former-leading-critic-turned-revolving-door-head of ACS, John B. Mattingly, defensively responded in a press release “that the policies in place at the time reflected good practice.” That is, if there ever WERE any policies in place that anyone could then or now locate!

The BBC previously reported on this story in November 2004. Now that the New York Times and Associated Press have finally discovered this unbelievable scandal, trial lawyers, like my firm Marsh and Gaughran LLP, can not and should not be far behind. Along with a General Accounting Office investigation and Capital Hill hearings.

And finally, it remains incredible to me that in the 21st Century in the United States of America—where murders, rapists and pedophiles have a Constitutional entitlement to a court-appointed and taxpayer funded lawyer—children are involuntarily placed into foster care with no right to an attorney. In the vast majority of the states, foster children are lucky to get a well meaning but usually ineffectual community volunteer as an advocate in court.

The hundreds of thousands of voiceless and neglected foster children will remain so until Congress, the states and the bar get serious about providing well funded trained lawyers who zealously assert the child's position. Anything less is a sham.

As for Mattingly, we’re enrolling him and the heads and former heads of child welfare in Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas, in an involuntary clinical trial of civil lawsuits. This time foster children will win! Sieg heil.