Webcams in Classrooms: How Far is Too Far?

Journal of Law and Education, Apr 2004 by Braggs, Dominique

I. INTRODUCTION

Trends in School Violence

Columbine, Pearl, and West Paducah bring to mind horrific images of children opening fire on other children.1 It seems as if there is a new story of unspeakable violence almost every week.2 Parents are demanding action and school districts are scrambling to find a solution.3 In the wake of these highly publicized school shootings, communities are willing to trade some basic legal protections for a greater level of safety. What often goes unmentioned is that violence in schools around the nation has been on a downward trend since the mid-1990's. From 1992 to 2000, nonfatal violent incidents of rapes, assaults, and robberies dropped 46% from 48 to 26 per 1000 students.4 While students are safer at school than almost anywhere else,5 public perception has been shaped by several high-profile shooting deaths in schools in recent years. Consequently, school districts are introducing strict disciplinary policies and developing safety plans that incorporate the latest technology.6 Metal detectors and surveillance cameras are now as common in suburban areas as in the inner cities.7 The purpose of this Chalk Talk is to discuss why webcams in the classroom, one of the newest approaches to enhancing school security, do not provide an optimal level of safety and are not the best solution to end violence in schools. Webcams are an intrusion into the learning environment masquerading as a safety precaution. School administrators can develop a false sense of security, and the unintended consequences of mishandled information, as well as the potential liability of such negligence, will far outweigh any realized benefits.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Electronic Surveillance

The first major electronic surveillance law, Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act passed in 1968, did not address video surveillance.8 By 1984, with video surveillance no longer a new concept, courts began to broadly interpret the Act to cover technology developed after its enactment.9 The Electronic Communication Privacy Act of 1986 codified this interpretation by allowing law enforcement to use video surveillance.10

B. Video Surveillance Comes of Age

Closed circuit television (CCTV) surveillance was initially used by law enforcement to monitor businesses, schools, and residential areas in an effort to reduce crime.11 By the 1999-2000 school year, 15% of public schools nationwide reported using some form of video surveillance.12 The CCTV systems can either be actively monitored or they can passively collect data.13 Surprisingly, most schools using a video surveillance system have not had such systems professionally evaluated for effectiveness.14 However, those same schools have reported a decrease in property crimes such as theft and vandalism.15 The CCTV systems are also being used for both classroom instruction and to monitor the activities of students and teachers.16

C. Webcams - The New Kid on the Block

Webcams are small cameras that take pictures at regular intervals and upload the information to a website.17 Schools can begin operating a webcam surveillance system with a webcam, a personal computer with internet access, and a website to view the pictures.18 Webcams can be purchased for as little as $100 and some websites will host an individual's pictures for free.19 Compared to CCTV, webcams are far less expensive and data can be accessed from any system with an internet connection.20 Currently, some schools on military posts use webcams to allow deployed soldiers to see their children.21 Internet searches turn up hundreds of websites displaying live footage of everything from tourist destinations to school halls.22

III. BILOXI EXPERIMENT

The Safe School Act of 1994 makes safety in schools a priority by establishing a program to use grants to pay for safety measures, including video surveillance.23 Biloxi, Mississippi's school district was the first in the nation to place webcams in all of its classrooms.24 As part of a $70 million funding project, the Biloxi school system spent money raised from local casinos to install the $2 million system in all of its schools.25 The small cameras are mounted in classrooms and record images, but not sound. Although a final policy is not yet in place, the data the webcams collect are currently password protected, and access is limited to school principals, vice principals, and superintendents.26 The district hopes to reduce disruptions and deter individuals from committing crimes in the classroom.27 To some, it is a safety measure that is needed to protect the children from violence, while to others it is a privacy invasion that invites abuse.28

IV. ANALYSIS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

A. Privacy and Resulting Liability

As law currently stands individuals have no expectation of privacy in public places.29 Video surveillance in a public space is a legitimate exercise of police power.30 According to the Supreme Court, while in school, students have an even lower expectation of privacy than the public in general.31 The result is that classrooms are public spaces where students have no expectation of privacy. While school districts probably will not have to worry about infringing on privacy rights, they do need to be aware that they may be liable if they violate other fundamental rights.32 Normally, the state does not owe an affirmative duty to protect citizens from third-party violence.33 However, courts have created two narrow exceptions to this rule: the special relationship exception and the state-created danger exception. The special relationship exception may apply where the state assumes responsibility for the individual, normally prisoners or institutionalized mental patients.34 The state-created danger exception may apply where state actors created the dangerous circumstances and the danger was foreseeable.35