Court To Frat Boys: Openness Of Courts More Compelling Than Your Potential Embarrassment
from the can't-have-your-pot-and-smoke-it-too dept
Via Eric Goldman, we learn of a case in Pennsylvania where a group of six Bucknell students were trying to sue some officials at the University for unlawaful search relating to a drug bust and subsequent disciplinary action at their frat house (and some other residences). The interesting tidbit here is that the plaintiffs asked the court to keep their names a secret throughout the case. Their argument was not that they needed to be kept secret from the defendants -- who already knew exactly who they were -- but rather that since the discipline was done confidentially, to sue publicly would out these students as being disciplined over drug possession -- and that might harm their reputations.The court however, completely rejects this request, noting the importance of open and public court procedures. While it does admit that there are cases where plaintiffs are allowed to proceed under pseudonyms, that tends to be in cases where to come forward would put them in direct danger -- not direct danger of being publicly associated with things they actually did. Basically, the court notes that while it may be embarrassing for this information to end up on the web, these guys are adults who made their own choices, and keeping the fact that you were busted with drugs secret is quite different from keeping information secret to avoid being thrown in an Iranian prison:
There is no potential for serious harm to Plaintiffs in the case at bar. There are also no special circumstances that would justify an exception to one of the hallmarks of the American democracy, the openness of our courts. This is not a case involving "abortion, birth control, transexuality, mental illness, welfare rights of illegitimate children, AIDS, and homosexuality." ... The only harm to Plaintiffs is that which they identified — the embarrassment of possession of contraband and that news media outlets may discuss the story, which will then live in perpetuity through web searches on the internet.Basically, the 4th Amendment issues may be worth exploring, but there's no compelling argument for keeping their names out of the case. Just because their names -- and the associated actions -- may "live in perpetuity through web searches on the internet," that's no reason to allow them to stay anonymous.
The Megless/Provident Life/Citizens for a Strong Ohio factors certainly mitigate against Plaintiffs arguments in favor of anonymity. Plaintiffs here are not children, but adults who have left the nest to explore the world; albiet, the semi-sheltered world of college life at a private, small, expensive liberal arts college in rural Pennsylvania.
Bucknell kept the students disciplinary record confidential; Plaintiffs have therefore been protected from public disclosure up to this point. However, the Bucknell's desire to protect its students has no bearing on the instant proceedings. The public has no compelling need to protect the identities of adults alleging Fourth Amendment violations (to be contrasted with the use of pseudonyms for sexual assault victims, the public has a compelling need to protect identities to promote disclosure by these victims). Moreover, this case does not involve private medical information; a risk to Plaintiffs of future imprisonment in the Peoples Republic of China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, or even in the United States; nor does it involve the threat of loss of the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anonymity, courts, embarrassment, privacy
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The compelling reason for anonymity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The compelling reason for anonymity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The compelling reason for anonymity
Many of these are a result of choices as well. So I really don't understand the judge's logic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The compelling reason for anonymity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The compelling reason for anonymity
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if ya cant do the time.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure, anyone accused of a crime is going to be embarrassed, but arguing that they have a constitutional right to keep their names out of it violates the very visit of open court proceedings.
If these students didn't want their names revealed, then here's a suggestion, DON'T VIOLATE THE LAW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't think drug possession falls within this category, and there are mitigating circumstances, but having everything public all the time can have negative consequences for the innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I mean, I'm OK with saying that people can't proceed anonymously without a good reason. But I can't agree with saying "birth control" is a good reason, but "asserting 4th amendment rights" is not a good reason. If embarrassment is not a good reason, then get rid of those other exceptions. If it is, then let these guys proceed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, they are making the choice to sue. They are pretty lucky that a drug bust was kept from being a criminal matter and handled with discretion by the university.
My question is - why aren't they in jeopardy of the drug bust becoming a criminal matter by doing this? Is there anything indicating how it was kept secret?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
However, that does make me think of an interesting scenario to ponder. Let's say for the sake of argument that the University officials did commit a criminal trespass in this investigation to obtain evidence but instead of handling this with internal disciplinary action had given that evidence to the police and the DA prosecuted them with it. Since the police didn't receive the evidence via a search requiring a warrant, there would be no 4th amendment violation on the part of the government. In fact, the University wouldn't even be a party to the criminal case. Despite the fact that the evidence was obtained via an illegal action of a third party, should the evidence be allowed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is my understanding that the evidence would be allowed only if nobody from the university was acting under the color of law.
If it were a public university, then pretty much everyone would by a government actor; but this was a private university.
Campus police have actual police powers under Pennsylvania law, and the search was conducted partially by them. Since the campus police would unquestionably be acting under color of law if a warrentless search intended to find drugs resulted in an arrest for possession of drugs, the search would be illegal.
The lawsuit in this case alleges that the Sheriff, among others, was present, which would mean the campus police were acting "in concert" with law enforcement. This would suggest that the search was done under the color of law, and would therefore violate the 4th Amendment and the evidence could not be used (even if they were in a state where campus officers were not considered law enforcement themselves.)
But if nobody involved was from the government or working for or with law enforcement, then the evidence could be used even if it was obtained via trespass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is also the possibility that there were exigent circumstances (breaking up a party?).
We don't know the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The lawsuit *specifically* claims that there were no exigent circumstances. I don't think the university is claiming there were any, either.
The actual lawsuit is linked in the article, but I'll link it here too; feel free to read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For one thing, the NSA may be determined to keep certain court evidence secret from the public precisely BECAUSE they will have violated the 4th amendment to get that evidence. I know GCHQ has been caught doing this, for example. That is one of the knock-on effects everybody forgets about when it comes to debates over that amendment.
And as for "embarrassment" here, in my view there is nothing to be embarrassed about. If there was an unjust search carried out in the name of an unjust war (the war on drugs) based on something that was nobody else's business but those students', the only thing that must be felt when trying to carry forward some justice is pride, not shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They filed their lawsuit alleging the violation of their constitutional rights, except that their rights weren't violated. What Mike Masnick left out of his article above was that a faculty member found a cell phone in her classroom with numerous texts suggesting drug activity, a court document states, from a court complaint back in February where Bucknell attempted to dismiss the lawsuit in a complaint filed earlier this year.
From what I found out about searches of campus dorms: "with limited exception, courts support the rights of college and university officials to enter and search rooms in order to serve institutional purposes, which include protecting the health and safety of students and enforcing college rules and regulations."
In effect, once the campus discovered that some of its students were engaging in the business of illegal drugs on its campus, it had the right to search the student's dorm in relation to this illegal activity.
Additionally, what Mike's article also neglected to mention was that campus authorities discovered LSD tablets, marijuana, synthetic marijuana, 5.5-inch hunting knife, slingshot, pellet gun designed to look like an automatic pistol, 11-inch bong, 16-inch bong, nine pipes, digital scale, seven grinders and a lock-picking set.
I don't see these students on the winning side of this court battle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Danger?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong Continent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The search was done partially by law enforcement personnel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Do you honestly believe that ONLY the students who had drugs had their rooms searched? Beyond that, do you think a simple "policy violation" justifies a warrantless search?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Bringing up violations of the law only hurts your case. Law enforcement personnel enforcing the law like this would unquestionably be a 4th amendment violation.
Your argument, as far as I can tell, is that it was instead a mere institutional search done by campus police to investigate policy violations. The facts that those campus officers have actual arrest power under that state's laws, and that the violation in question is a crime that those officers could actually arrest someone for, don't help your case. (I would also question why the Sheriff's department was there, if this was only an internal campus matter.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No need?
There is no public need for victims of Fourth Amendment violations to come forward? If victims are NOT willing to come forward, then authorities have no reason to not keep violating their rights.
I feel like the courts picked some arbitrary exceptions to the "must use your real name" rule - cases involving "abortion, birth control, transexuality, mental illness, welfare rights of illegitimate children, AIDS, and homosexuality." Seriously, birth control? Isn't that used by like 99% of women? What's the purpose of hiding the identity a transsexual if not the embarrassment of the transsexual? Some of these may go to privacy interests - but the ENTIRE POINT of something violating the Fourth Amendment is that it illegally violates privacy! If those, why not this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are they even worried about this?
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well yeah, isn't that the whole point of having a reputation?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Florida
Guess these frat guys just don't live in the right state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]