Not Just Bells Ringing in Schools: Moot Court Competition Explores School Searches of Student Cell Phones

CAMDEN — Contents of students’ backpacks, lockers, and desks might long be considered terrains for school’s potential surveillance. But in a high-tech age of constant connectivity, what parameters exist for school officials to search a student’s cell phone?

This year’s Rutgers Law–Camden Hunter Moot Court Competition, a yearlong five-credit course that culminates with final arguments by two two-person teams, centered on cell phone use in schools and resulting disciplinary action that upturned Fourth and 14th Amendment concerns.

The simulated case involved a New Jersey high school honor student, Clyde Cheadle, who had his cell phone confiscated for ringing once again in class, but when the phone was in the teacher’s possession this ambiguous text appeared: “Need 2 pick up the Molly b4. How much?”

The fictitious Cheadle, poised to be class valedictorian and elected state vice president for the national entrepreneurial association DECA, then had his iPhone searched by school officials on the suspicion that “the Molly” was referring to ecstasy. This controversial search yielded information through Google maps and email about his weekend business transporting minors to and from suspect locations within a school district plagued by drug and alcohol abuse. The school’s disciplinary action for Cheadle resulted in a two-day suspension; ineligibility for valedictorian status; and removal of his DECA leadership position. After an unsuccessful appeal to the school board, the plaintiff filed suit in federal court.

During the final oral arguments held on April 2, at the federal courthouse in Camden, actual judges presided, including the Honorable Stuart Rabner, Chief Justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court; the Honorable Joseph H. Rodriquez, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey; and the Honorable Freda L. Wolfson, U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Two of the three judges worked on actual cases the students would be using in their final arguments.

Rutgers Law students Mana Ameri and Brandon Simmons represented plaintiff Clyde F. Cheadle, Jr. and RJ Norcia and Benjamin D. Hartwell, represented defendants, the Jackson Township Board of Education and Superintendent Nolan Snyder.

All three judges praised the student attorneys for their compelling arguments, and Judge Rodriguez, a 1958 alumnus of Rutgers Law–Camden, in particular expressed his pride in how the exceptional quality of his alma mater was represented. “I feel proud to participate,” he said, adding that he doesn’t do so every year to broaden a range of judicial points of view. Judge Rabner extolled, “My goodness were you good, all of you.” The judges did rule in favor of the appellees, selecting the winning team as Norcia and Hartwell; naming the latter also as best oralist.

According to Ruth Anne Robbins, clinical professor and director of lawyering programs at Rutgers Law–Camden, who taught the program with colleague Jenean Kirby, this year’s program was a wonderful success not just because of the exceptional skills demonstrated by the finalists, and by all of the students in the program, but also because of the many individuals and many hours dedicated to creating an engaging simulation.

“It takes the group of students who are teaching assistants in the program all summer long to create a problem,” says Robbins. “We start with a kernel of an idea, then research the law and make sure it’s balanced enough on both sides to make an argument and an interesting story.”

Since 1989, the Rutgers Law Hunter Moot Court Competition, dedicated to the memory of the Honorable James Hunter III, has emphasized written advocacy in the fall and oral advocacy in the spring, with the program culminating in the spring, when 64 students, selected from 175, compete in teams to present a winning oral argument.