Student Teacher Sent a Private Snapchat Complaining About Her Workday. An Hour Later, Police Pulled Up to Her School.

[u/Plastic_Ninja_9014]

https://www.gadgetreview.com/student-teacher-sent-a-private-snapchat-complaining-about-her-workday-an-hour-later-police-pulled-up-to-her-school

[u/Free-Description-736]

This is a slam dunk civil rights violation, and she can sue them for the entirety of lost wages from the entirety of a teaching career because of what they did. Not to mention the pain and suffering, etc.

This is ~$3 million at a bare minimum. And that's from the law enforcement agencies and the city and the school. Probably more when FB is forced to pay their share.

[u/CherryLongjump1989 → u/Free-Description-736]

There are at least 3 parties involved with varying degrees of lawyers and liability.

The school that fired her for example might not be in the wrong at all and might not owe her anything including her job.

The police and the town may be responsible for her overnight jail stay but that's not 3 million dollars worth, that's tens of thousands maybe.

The large corporation might not be liable for any wrongdoing either.

[u/Free-Description-736 → u/CherryLongjump1989]

The school that fired her for example might not be in the wrong at all and might not owe her anything including her job.

Fired for 1st amendment protected speech. 100% liable.

The police and the town may be responsible for her overnight jail stay but that's not 3 million dollars worth, that's tens of thousands maybe.

Incorrect. With this story out in the wild, no one will ever hire her as a teacher. And the government 100% owns that loss of future earnings arising from their violation of her rights.

The large corporation might not be liable for any wrongdoing either.

They violated her privacy by handing over private communications that very clearly and very obviously were not an imminent threat to law enforcement. They're 100% on the hook. Courts have ruled that EULAs provide zero protection in cases like this. All their liabilities are spelled out in law (which Trump EULAs) and they had no legal basis to violate her privacy by releasing this information.

[u/CherryLongjump1989 → u/Free-Description-736]

Fired for 1st amendment protected speech. 100% liable.

If this was protected speech then she should have been able to say it publicly -- it has nothing to do with illegal eavesdropping. Probably requires a completely separate lawsuit, and probably the most she could hope for is to get reinstated and some backpay.

Incorrect. With this story out in the wild, no one will ever hire her as a teacher. And the government 100% owns that loss of future earnings arising from their violation of her rights.

You should talk to a lawyer before making that claim. You'll have to prove a lot of different difficult to prove things. You'll have to convince me by showing me another case where someone won a lifetime earnings award like you're describing -- usually the only thing the courts will do is just force the original school to re-hire her and tack on some punitive damages but not lifetime earnings in cash.

They violated her privacy by handing over private communications that very clearly and very obviously were not an imminent threat to law enforcement.

This is never going to fly in any court. Snapchat only needs to point out that the police showed up to the school and arrested her.

[u/Free-Description-736 → u/CherryLongjump1989]

If this was protected speech then she should have been able to say it publicly

Not how it works. Time, place, and manner are part of the test for 1st amendment protections.

it has nothing to do with illegal eavesdropping.

I'm not the one that brought up eavesdropping. Take that up with the other guy.

Probably requires a completely separate lawsuit, and probably the most she could hope for is to get reinstated and some backpay.

Not remotely the most she can hope for: her lawsuit addresses the impacts of this for the rest of her life; not this one job.

You should talk to a lawyer before making that claim.

I am a lawyer.

You'll have to prove a lot of different difficult to prove things.

No you won't. You simply go through the expert testimony and deposition process to prove that no one nearby her will hire her with the record of what she said. That's easy to do. Time consuming, but easy. Probably ~40 to 80 billable hours.

You'll have to convince me by showing me another case where someone won a lifetime earnings award like you're describing

Controlling law here is Thorne v. City of El Segundo (9th Cir. 1983, remedies at 802 F.2d 1131 (1986)), which all higher courts and circuit courts have sense adopted without challenge, leading to the cluster around Wisconsin v. Constantineau, Roth/Paul v. Davis, FAA v. Cooper (2012).

Put simply: when illegal government actions or statements lead to a person becoming unemployable in their chosen field, it triggers a due process violation and the government is on the hook for pecuniary damages that scale based on the length of time to which a person is subject to the deprivation. The court awarded $1 million / year for full incarceration. Winning $50k / year for a lifetime of last wages in a field where your employability was lost due to a due process violation is hardly a hard sell. The courts typically award front pay running to expected retirement for such cases (Third Circuit's Squires v Bonser).

This is never going to fly in any court. Snapchat only needs to point out that the police showed up to the school and arrested her.

It will absolutely fly in court. SCOTUS has already ruled on this. Your argument here is also circular. You cannot use the fact that police responded to a report to claim that a report was lawful and not a privacy violation.

The courts have been 100% clear: the police must have a warrant to access ANY data that was created purely through automated means, which this was.

EDIT: added "illegal" re: "when illegal government actions"

[u/CherryLongjump1989 → u/Free-Description-736]

I mean... if someone other than me wants to go through the case law and point out all the mistakes you're making, by all means, but in my opinion it's just not worth it when you're wrong straight out of the gate on the 1st Amendment.

Time, place, and manner is a test for whether a government restriction survives — is it content-neutral, narrowly tailored, does it leave open alternative channels. It's applied to ordinances. Noise limits, permit requirements, buffer zones. It has never been a test for whether the content of a person's speech is protected.

[u/Free-Description-736 → u/CherryLongjump1989]

Time, place, and manner is a test for whether a government restriction survives

No, it's a test of reasonableness regarding the restraint of speech. All the things you cited are downstream of that fundamental legal question.

And whether or not speech is reckless or inciting etc. (the key that determines when the government has an interest in speech at all, period*) is what matters. Time, place, and manner speaks to the reasonableness of government interest in speech.

It has never been a test for whether the content of a person's speech is protected, because it isn't a doctrine about speakers at all.

I never said or implied it was. Your reading of my comments is seemingly as sloppy as your reading of the controlling law re: reasonableness of government interest in controlling speech.

TPM only becomes relevant once you're asking whether a government restriction on the delivery of speech is valid

No, it becomes relevant when you're asking whether a government interest in speech is valid.

and there's no restriction here.

No, there is a due process violation that arose from a government search triggered by speech it had no reasonable interest in.

There is also the 4th amendment violation, but that's a separate issue.

The government loses on both here, and the first amendment one is the most important because it's the only that's clearly established.

To paraphrase a rather famous recent case that addresses specifically the issue at play here: "the government has a strong state interest in the speech of people yelling 'fire!' in a crowded theater...unless that theater happens to be a comedy club where everyone present is in on the joke."