Burkett 1

Spencer Burkett

Mr. Forette

20 May 2021

English 12a

Klump v. Nazareth Argumentative Essay

A person is walking along and feels the weight of their phone suddenly missing from

their pocket. Before they are able to return the phone to its rightful place, it is stolen from them

by the police. This is exactly how Christopher Klump felt on March 17, 2004, when his teacher

and principal took his phone from his lap. The pair then looked through his messages and made

phone calls with his name, violating his right to privacy. In this case, I believe that defendants

Grube and Klump have violated the fourth amendment rights of Christopher Klump.

The school didn’t have any grounds to confiscate Klump’s phone. Within the case, there

is no mention of a prior violation of the school’s cell phone policy. According to the school’s

own policy, those who are on a first violation will “receive a written warning”, and their guardian

will be notified of the violation. Only upon a second violation will the phone be confiscated.

Following this line of reasoning, the defendant’s claim that the search was “justified at its

inception” is ridiculous. Furthermore, Klump himself has argued that he did not willfully violate

the cell phone policy. To have such a reaction to a simple mistake is, in my opinion, blowing

things out of proportion.

For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that the school was just in their confiscation of

Klump’s phone. However, they still unlawfully searched through his messages subsequent to the

seizure of his phone. “The Supreme Court has held that a student search must nevertheless

satisfy the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” The school, as stated within
 Burkett 2

the case, was using Klump’s phone to find the misconduct of other students. They had no

indication that Klump was violating any other portion of the school policy. Even if they were

justified in their seizure of the plaintiff’s phone, which I don’t believe they were, they still were

unjustified in searching through his personal messages. Such an invasion of privacy is

completely ridiculous.

The school blew the punishment out of proportion. It is only fair that the punishment fits

the crime. This is the very reason that manslaughter is different from murder. Intent plays an

important part in court decisions. The reason that phones were outlawed in class was to avoid the

disruption that they may cause. A phone “[falling] out of [Christopher’s] pocket” is not grounds

to confiscate, but rather to warn him to place it in his pocket. The school goes even further in its

transgressions by not only confiscating the phone without a valid reason, but looking through a

student’s personal messages as well. Defendants Kocher and Grube both understood what they

were doing was immoral. This is evidenced by the fact that they “deleted the messages and

phone calls they made from the cell phone’s memory card”, as detailed in the case. When

looking at the intent of both sides, only the defendant shows an intent to do wrong.

Some may say that Klump should have kept his phone turned off as stated in school

policy. I can understand how someone may think that. However, students must be allowed access

to their cell phones. While in the context of the time it may not have been as important as it is

now, it still was important. It is unreasonable to expect parents to contact the school before being

able to speak with their child. If there is something personal or just something that they need to

quickly say, then such a system is ridiculous. Why even have the phone if you can’t use it?

Phones are and were an important tool for communication. To take away such a tool simply due

to the possibility of distraction during class is ridiculous.

 Burkett 3

Imagine if today’s values were applied to Klump’s situation. People would be absolutely

outraged if their phones were searched on the basis of not having them in their pockets. Phones

are an important tool and the school system has recognized their utility. Confiscation of such a

tool is ridiculous, even more so given such a reason. Such a punishment does not fit the crime,

and should never be used. Rather than let such a tool become a piece of scrap in a student’s

pocket, why not utilize it to push their learning experience to greater heights?