"My wife and I were terrorized by a baseless prosecution"

April 19, 2009 7:26 AM

Ting-Yi Oei is an assistant principal in Virginia who was indicted for possession of child pornography. Today, he describes his year-long fight against the charges, which ended in dismissal.
posted by palliser (59 comments total)

The first thing he should have done was notified the police about the images on the phone, rather than transferring them to a school computer. Not too swift a guy.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:39 AM on April 19

This sort of thing happens because directly elected prosecutors like Loudoun Commonwealth Attorney Jim Plowman are less interested in applying justice than in finding a populist crusade to help them get re-elected. See also the Duke Lacrosse scandal or a hundred others. Prosecutors should not be directly elected.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:41 AM on April 19 [25 favorites has favorites]

No Child's Left Behind.

This is a travesty. The dismissal only makes the case that the image wasn't graphic enough to constitute child pornography. If what the educator says is true -- and, in absence of proof to the contrary, there is no compelling reason to believe otherwise -- the dismissal should have said "We don't prosecute our educators for doing their jobs; we don't ruin their reputation for attempting to protect the children in their charge; we don't procede from the assumption that a lack of technological savvy and a lack of clear guidelines equals criminal behavior; we don't try to destroy teachers without actual evidence of wrongdoing."
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:45 AM on April 19 [19 favorites has favorites]

Prosecutors should not be directly elected.

A-fucking-men. Nor should judges, for that matter.
posted by god hates math at 8:00 AM on April 19 [2 favorites has favorites]

This also proves that a parent with a vendetta can be a very dangerous thing to a public school system. Sometimes that's necessary, when the local school board and administration are discriminatory or unprincipled. Other times, like here, it's tragic. The parent wasn't mad at their child for forcibly de-pantsing a girl in a classroom - no, no, that's just little Junior having some fun! - rather, the parent was mad at the administrator for disciplining the child. Unbelievable. Also, why did this guy take the fall and not the principal? Where the hell was his union in all of this?
posted by billysumday at 8:02 AM on April 19 [10 favorites has favorites]

Because administrators' first concern is our students' safety and well-being, it was my responsibility to look into the matter.

I thought a school's first concern was to teach?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:18 AM on April 19

administrators' first concern
school's first concern

Not the same thing.
posted by davejay at 8:19 AM on April 19 [5 favorites has favorites]

Nor should judges, for that matter

Amen to that: I always vote no to judges reelection. A very ineffectual gesture, but it makes me feel better.
posted by francesca too at 8:20 AM on April 19

The first thing he should have done was notified the police about the images on the phone, rather than transferring them to a school computer. Not too swift a guy.

Well, and in fact, that's what he was first being prosecuted for — failure to report this to the police. I don't know; maybe that was a reasonable thing to go after him for.

But throwing in a child pornography charge seems pretty hysterical. Adding "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" — as if he'd encouraged anyone to take or send around the pictures — was just completely ludicrous.
posted by nebulawindphone at 8:22 AM on April 19

Where the hell was his union in all of this?

Probably staying out of it for fear of being labeled soft on (or worse, in favor of) child pornography. That sort of label is career-ending at best, as this case shows, so nobody wants to take the risk. Similarly, campaigning or lawmaking on the basis of getting tough on child pornography is often very successful because potential opponents or objectors have the same fear.

It's no so much that "getting tough on child porn" is a bad thing, it's that some of the other stuff that comes along for the ride is very bad. But nobody feels safe speaking out against all the other stuff. Unfortunately it's probably going to take many more examples of the bad stuff before it will be possible to argue against it safely.
posted by FishBike at 8:23 AM on April 19 [1 favorite has favorites]

He needs to bankrupt the prosecutor's office so that the (ir)responsible parties in said office get recognized as the huge liabilities they are and sent packing.
posted by oaf at 8:30 AM on April 19

Not the same thing.

Indeed, that's part of the problem.

Not too swift a guy.

Oei's heart was in the right place, but he seemed to have slipped into a "perfect storm" of events that made this worse than it needed to be. Yeah, he could have handled this better, but a culture that demands you never make mistakes, 'cause if you do, we'll crucify you isn't a healthy one.

I wonder how the kid who kickstarted all this is doing?

But Loudoun Circuit Court Judge Thomas D. Horne threw out all the charges yesterday, saying in a five-page opinion that the photo was not sexually explicit enough to constitute child pornography.

Jesus to God: "THIS?! This is what I was nailed to a cross for, this fucking insane stupidity?! Hey it's not their sins that need forgiving, it's their goddamn (sorry dad) stupidity!"
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:33 AM on April 19 [4 favorites has favorites]

The first thing he should have done was notified the police about the images on the phone, rather than transferring them to a school computer. Not too swift a guy.

From the second link: "I interviewed more students with the security specialist, but we found no more pictures and were unable to identify the woman in the photo. We concluded that she probably wasn't a student at the school. I reported our findings to the principal and assumed that the matter was closed."

They couldn't determine if the woman in the picture was a student at the school, or even if she was a minor. What was there to report? He also did what the law says he should do: report the matter to his manager.
posted by rtha at 8:35 AM on April 19 [2 favorites has favorites]

Isn't there a tort for malicious prosecution?
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 9:06 AM on April 19 [2 favorites has favorites]

No Child's Left Behind.

An everyday story from Lack-of-Freedom High.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:06 AM on April 19

Unfortunately it's probably going to take many more examples of the bad stuff before it will be possible to argue against it safely.

We already have the baddest stuff with child porn laws that I can think of: criminally charging teens because they took dirty pics of themselves. Hurt the children to save the children.
posted by anti social order at 9:16 AM on April 19 [3 favorites has favorites]

"The first thing he should have done was notified the police about the images on the phone, rather than transferring them to a school computer. Not too swift a guy."

It's funny to me how willing we are to trust our hindsight, and how confident we are it could never happen to us. It seems to me that hindsight is not, in fact, 20/20 but is instead hallucinatory, the deliberate seeing of only what we want to see.

Chances are, you're no "swifter" than this guy, Koku.
posted by kavasa at 9:16 AM on April 19 [12 favorites has favorites]

"The first thing he should have done was notified the police about the images on the phone, rather than transferring them to a school computer. Not too swift a guy."

Besides what rtha said if he reported this kind of thing to the cops he'd spend half his day on the phone to the cops. Cripes this same student two days later pulled another student's pants down, something apparently so common it's got a name.
posted by Mitheral at 9:18 AM on April 19

I probably had the same outrage /sympathy reaction as many, but I wonder if you changed the word Quaker to Pentecostal if people would instead be saying "he's lying, he only got off because of a technicality regarding the photo, etc." I suspect what's driving part of my reaction, and others as well, is the belief that this is a genuine and nice guy trying to do his job who got trapped by a vicious cycle of bad actors. I don't remember feeling that way about Jim Haggard.
posted by allen.spaulding at 9:22 AM on April 19

I don't remember feeling that way about Jim Haggard.

Jim Haggard was being a hypocrite, engaging in behavior he and his church were against, such as homosexuality and drug buying. Nobody likes a hypocrite.

I'm not sure what that situation has to do with this one.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:30 AM on April 19 [1 favorite has favorites]

And how would we feel if he was a Martian?
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:32 AM on April 19 [1 favorite has favorites]

Martian's can teleport, right? 'cause if so, I'm switching teams.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:41 AM on April 19 [1 favorite has favorites]

Things are different on Mars. For one, prosecutors aren't directly elected.
posted by goatdog at 9:42 AM on April 19 [5 favorites has favorites]

The first thing he should have done was notified the police about the images on the phone,

come on, man. What Assistant Principal is going to call the cops on his own student for something like this? You don't call the cops and say "Just so you know, I have a picture of a half-naked probably underage girl on my cell phone and work computer because I'm trying to investigate students at my school sending nude pictures to one another. So... you know... don't arrest me or nothin'."

You call the cops when you have a crime to report, which means you want the cops to investigate your students for being hormone-fueled adolescents with camera phones. Most school officials aren't that interested in calling the cops on their students for what basically amounts to natural urges and tech savvy. And if you don't want the cops to investigate a crime, they don't want you bothering them. They don't have a policy of evidence collection for nonexistent crimes.
posted by shmegegge at 9:44 AM on April 19 [5 favorites has favorites]

What Assistant Principal is going to call the cops on his own student for something like this?

Those whom have read or heard about this or sexting cases. There's nothing like the prospect of losing your career, job, reputation and being imprisoned that can turn an individual into the long arm of the law. It's basic survival in an f'ed up situation.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:50 AM on April 19

I don't remember feeling that way about Jim Haggard.

Ted Haggard!
posted by ericb at 9:51 AM on April 19 [1 favorite has favorites]

Reading the article, I catch the line "I immediately took the picture to the principal, who instructed me to transfer it to my office computer in case we needed it later." I guess the principal was none too swift, either.

Given the hysteria this country is developing regarding people who are going through puberty and sex, probably the only safe thing to do would be to lock the camera phone in a steel box, etch crosses on it in silver, seal the whole thing up with some kind of polyurethane, wrap it in chains and sink it to the bottom of the ocean, where it might not ever trouble anyone again.

I like how the most probably "appropriate" course of action in cases like this is to hurl the item to the floor and stomp on it, screaming "DIE, CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, DIE!" and immediately start a witch hunt. I suppose that's how the self-perpetuating dynamics in most witch hunts work; as long as you're the one putting the Question to folks, you're safe.
posted by adipocere at 9:52 AM on April 19 [13 favorites has favorites]

Yeah, I don't get it. According to his story, the picture was of a woman, arms crossed over breasts, underpants on, unidentifiable. So basically the kid had a risque photo of a woman that could easily be on the cover of a magazine and not even blacked out or covered over. If it's not even pornographic, how could one jump to the conclusion that it's child pornography? Because a kid had it?

It's terrifying that just about anyone could be terrorized like this with absolutely no repercussions for the accusers. That, and the child-pornography witch-hunt in America is absurd. Laws meant to keep creepy uncles from abusing 6-year-olds are being used to wage war against post-pubescent adults who are labeled "children" due to being under the age of 18. Here's a hint: If the kids are hitting puberty, they're probably thinking about sex.
posted by explosion at 9:59 AM on April 19 [9 favorites has favorites]

Because administrators' first concern is our students' safety and well-being, it was my responsibility to look into the matter.

I thought a school's first concern was to teach?

"No, I didn't evacuate my class because of the fire. I'm here to teach."
posted by Bookhouse at 10:05 AM on April 19 [10 favorites has favorites]

Could do with a Paedogeddon tag
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:10 AM on April 19 [2 favorites has favorites]

So here's a very likely hypothetical in my classroom...

We're taking a class picture, or a video of a performance, and one of my girls pulls her shirt over her head because... well, she's 6 years old... and it's caught on film.

I have to call the police?
posted by Huck500 at 10:16 AM on April 19

I never cease to be amazed at the boundless fucking hysteria in the media, politics, and legal system about child pornography. It's one of those things where the spirit of the law is a good thing, but it's full of so many technicalities and full-out ridiculous regulations that get innocent, well-meaning, and naive people locked up on federal charges for fuck's sake.
posted by tehloki at 10:17 AM on April 19 [1 favorite has favorites]

The dismissal in this case notwithstanding, it's interesting how often teachers and other education professionals are indicted for child-related sex crimes.

There is, in fact, a web site devoted entirely to compiling reports on teacher sex scandals: Jailbeta.com

So the question is, does the incidence of this kind of thing seem high because when a teacher is involved in a child-sex case, their employment is automatically reported (where if the perp is, say, a postal worker, it might not be), or, is there in fact a higher-than-normal proclivity for it among teachers?
posted by beagle at 10:19 AM on April 19

I probably had the same outrage /sympathy reaction as many, but I wonder if you changed the word Quaker to Pentecostal if people would instead be saying "he's lying, he only got off because of a technicality regarding the photo, etc."

I live in Arlington, VA, which is in the same metro Washington DC area as Loudoun County (where the prosecution took place). The county is very interesting politically, because it has been the site of a lot of Christian Right activism. For example, Patrick Henry College is in the western part of the county. Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew does a good job of describing how a coalition of real estate developers and Christian Rightists basically took over county government there.

Other background factors include a foreclosure rate that's one of the highest in Virginia and demographic changes that led to Obama winning the county 54%-45% in November 2008. All of this is to say that it's a very politically contentious county where Christian Rightists are losing power. Given how the economic situation has led some the rump Christian Rightists to look for scapegoats, it sounds like the principal was more likely prosecuted because he is an Asian Quaker than in spite of it.
posted by jonp72 at 10:26 AM on April 19 [2 favorites has favorites]

tonight there's gonna be a jailbeta, somewhere on this web.
tonight there's gonna be jailbait. so don't you milfs be around.
tonight there's gonna be trouble, i'm gonna find myself in.
tonight this principal is in trouble.
gonna stay with a teenage "friend".

breakout!
posted by the aloha at 10:31 AM on April 19 [1 favorite has favorites]

The first thing he should have done was notified the police about the images on the phone, rather than transferring them to a school computer. Not too swift a guy.

Yeah, because if a kid has a nudie pic on their cellphone, obviously a crime has taken place!
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on April 19 [3 favorites has favorites]

People are blind self-interested robots interested only in their own social status. Assuming the facts described by the author are correct, it is unclear how human society at all operates.

Secondly, I think the criminal law needs to understand indictment/arrest/police harassment/media harassment are sentences levied without any due process.
posted by norabarnacl3 at 10:41 AM on April 19 [2 favorites has favorites]

Beagle, it's probably both. For people who lean that way, teaching school is probably a huge sea of opportunity. And of course then the fact that there was a pedophile employed as a teacher will immediately be much more newsworthy than just "oh, hey, we caught a pervert", as people get much more worried about their kids' safety in schools that they're supposed to attend every day.

The perception seems to have been around for a while, too. From Evelyn Waugh's Decline and Fall in 1928: "I expect you'll be becoming a schoolmaster, sir. That's what most of the gentlemen does, sir, that gets sent down for indecent behaviour."
posted by dilettante at 10:47 AM on April 19

Prosecutors should not be directly elected.

A-fucking-men. Nor should judges, for that matter.

It's true, I agree, but I'm not sure the alternative of having them appointed by crusader ideologue or good-ole-boy governors, local county councils, and "concerned citizens committees" is a whole lot better. I've seen both sides of this coin and neither side is particularly pretty.
posted by Pollomacho at 10:49 AM on April 19

I probably had the same outrage /sympathy reaction as many, but I wonder if you changed the word Quaker to Pentecostal if people would instead be saying "he's lying, he only got off because of a technicality regarding the photo, etc." I suspect what's driving part of my reaction, and others as well, is the belief that this is a genuine and nice guy trying to do his job who got trapped by a vicious cycle of bad actors. I don't remember feeling that way about Jim Haggard.

Well, political opinions here aren't monolithic. Some people would have felt sympathy for this guy even if he'd been Pentecostal — and FWIW, I'm one of them. Some people probably wouldn't have.

The thing is, I think the analogy with Ted Haggard is pretty weak either way. Homosexuality isn't a crime, and for most of us here it's not a good reason to hate a guy either. If you tell me a guy's gay, well, I don't feel the need to insist on a fair trial and a thorough examination of the evidence, any more than I would if you told me he liked science fiction or chocolate ice cream.

So, yeah, just speaking for myself here, I'd have cared a lot more about evidence and due process if Haggard had been accused of something really despicable like child abuse.
posted by nebulawindphone at 11:28 AM on April 19

Chances are, you're no "swifter" than this guy, Koku.

I'll leave it to others to validate how intelligent I am (although not you, kavasa). Anyway, if we're bringing *me* into the conversation, let's just say that I currently work in an environment where mistakes are rarely forgiven, and while rule #1 is to "provide help to people," rule #2 is "cover your ass," because when the shit hits the fan there is often no one to support me in any meaningful way, and, believe it or not, this is true for many professionals in a managerial or leadership role, like Oei.

There are a couple of troublesome questions (well, more than a couple) in this story.

For one thing, why wasn't the principal (Oei's manager) prosecuted? Was Oei acting on the specific direction of the principal when performing his "investigation"? Did he document such direction?

Secondly, why did Oei choose to call the student with the camera phone in to be questioned?

Third, given the explosive and serious nature of such charges if they were indeed true, did Oei have a game plan ready if such "sexting" messages and photos were to be discovered on the phone? And, once again, why didn't Oei notify the police?

Fourth, why did Oei confiscate the phone? I used to be a teacher, and the one thing I would never do would be to confiscate students' stuff. If Oei was targeting that particular student (likely, given the fact that the student would eventually pull down a girl's pants, and was obviously known for this sort of behaviour), once again, why didn't he have a better game plan? Why did he hold on to the phone? Why did he attempt to transfer the images himself to a school computer?

And why didn't contact the student's parents when he confiscated the phone?

Sure, Oei was the victim of baseless prosecution, which is basically a crime, while Oei's incompetence is basically a misdemeanor.

But there were known risks that Oei did nothing to address, which is why I say he wasn't too bright.
posted by KokuRyu at 11:33 AM on April 19

Beagle, there's also the simple fact that teachers are around way more kids for way more time than most other adults. So you could have exactly the same incidence of "leaning-that-way" (not pedophilia, I'd argue, in the case of younger teachers and older students) among teachers as in the general population, and still end up with a higher incidence of sex scandals.

That and it's not just opportunity for temptation, as dilettante says, but a higher likelihood of having unfortunate encounters like the one this poor Assistant Principal's been dealing with.
posted by col_pogo at 11:58 AM on April 19

jailbeta's hot teacher section makes interesting reading.

Apparently, the most desirable paedophiles are all women.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:02 PM on April 19

But there were known risks that Oei did nothing to address, which is why I say he wasn't too bright.

Or maybe that's because he's a 60-year-old assistant principal, not hired as tech support. For crying out loud, there wasn't anything more explicit than sideboob in the assistant principal's possession. Maybe he just falsely assumed he lived in America, not in Religious Right Taliban Land.
posted by jonp72 at 12:21 PM on April 19 [5 favorites has favorites]

the one thing I would never do would be to confiscate students' stuff

Confiscation, especially of cell phones (which in many schools are required to stay in lockers) is routine at all of the schools I'm familiar with.

Why did he attempt to transfer the images himself to a school computer?

That's already been explained. As for why he didn't immediately call parents or the police, it's already been stated that the school wasn't sure what it had on its hands, there was no evidence that the photo was of a student (or an underage person, for that matter). Procedural stuff at a busy school is not exactly a lightning-fast process, especially when it's crucial to avoid any unnecessary controversy; options must be considered before actions are taken. All of this ultimately added up to a truly unfortunate incident in this case, but I don't see the incompetence you're so strident about, KokuRyu.
posted by hermitosis at 12:22 PM on April 19

A few years ago I was working as a reference librarian at a local jr. college. Some of the students used to like to pull up really obscene pornography on the computer, enlarge it as big as they could and then walk away, plugging it some way that it was really hard to get rid of it.

One time, just as the library was closing, a student set me up like this and I wasn't able delete or remove it. Everything I tried failed and the clerical staff started bugging me that it was 10 PM and they wanted to leave.

I left a note for a "friend" of mine at the reception desk to arrange to have the offensive screen removed the next morning. Sensing possible trouble afoot (all the employees lived in terror of our new director) my "pal" sent my note on to the director(!)

Bottom line, I got in trouble for not removing the porn the previous night, got memo'd to the deans (!) and it led to my resigning.
posted by Tullyogallaghan at 1:17 PM on April 19 [6 favorites has favorites]

That Jailbeta site is subtly horrifying. Are most of those people just the subject of witch hunts? Are most of them actually guilty? Neither scenario is very appealing.
posted by JHarris at 1:51 PM on April 19

NO AUTHOR FOUND NO BACKLINK FOUND "Yeah, he could have handled this better, but a culture that demands you never make mistakes, 'cause if you do, we'll crucify you isn't a healthy one."

Like "Zero Tolerance" of students' mistakes by public schools?
posted by orthogonality at 1:57 PM on April 19 [3 favorites has favorites]

Third, given the explosive and serious nature of such charges if they were indeed true, did Oei have a game plan ready if such "sexting" messages and photos were to be discovered on the phone? And, once again, why didn't Oei notify the police?

Call the police for what? Most people wouldn’t look at a picture of an anonymous woman (head cropped out) holding her breasts and wearing underpants and assume it was somehow illegal. In fact, that's exactly what the judge ended up saying, that the picture wasn't even pornographic, much less child porn. The school probably has rules against 'salacious' images, but calling the cops over a image that might appear on a maxim cover makes no sense at all

I'll leave it to others to validate how intelligent I am (although not you, kavasa).

What, are you conducting a poll? My vote is: not that smart.
posted by delmoi at 2:41 PM on April 19 [4 favorites has favorites]

I told her as calmly as I could that the suspension was for the deliberate act of pulling down the girl's pants. A couple of days later, after an appeal hearing with the principal and me, she shouted at me, "I'll see you in court!"

I wish he'd named this horrible, horrible parent.
posted by MegoSteve at 5:53 PM on April 19

Freedom High? Irony alert!
posted by Down10 at 6:22 PM on April 19

I'm disappointed that Oei's bosses, Principal Chris Forester and Superintendant Edward Hatrick, didn't go to bat for this guy in any of the news coverage about him, especially since Oei reported the incident to his chain of command.
posted by zippy at 9:15 PM on April 19

To me, the saddest thing here is the way that the media reports arrests based on accusations about events that occurred some time ago in the same way that they report arrests of people who are caught in the act. Of course, in a situation like this, waiting for a conviction would be more sensible, but I'm not setting my hopes that high at the moment. When the police respond to an alarm at a convenience store and arrest some guy who comes running out of the store with a mask, a gun, and a bag of money from the cash register, I can understand this kind of reporting. They use the word "alleged" a lot just to be safe, but they don't spend a lot of time worrying about the possibility that the accused is innocent. Unfortunately, they use the exact same style of reporting just about any time someone is arrested. Combine this with the fact that they will almost certainly not follow up with a story about the result of the trial (or if they do, it will be with much less gusto), and you end up with character assassination based on an accusation that simply has to be plausible enough to get an arrest (which is often not very plausible at all).

Of course, I don't really see the need to be announcing the name and showing photos anyway. The vast majority of the audience has no idea who this person is (even for local news), so what do they care about a name and a face? Is the benefit of giving people someone slightly more concrete to vilify really that much of an advantage to them? Think of all the fun they could have coming up with pseudonyms to refer to particular anonymous alleged criminals. They certainly seem to get a kick out of doing that stuff when the suspect is unknown, and occasionally when they have a name anyway. This would give them a perfect excuse to do it for everyone who gets arrested.

The stuff that gets under my skin the worst is not when people simply let their personal desires get in the way of common decency. I'm far too cynical for that. The really bothersome stuff is when their behavior still seems baffling, even after I try to take into account rampant selfishness and stupidity.
posted by ErWenn at 9:45 PM on April 19 [2 favorites has favorites]

What happened to him was unfortunate. But I am more troubled by this:

[A] teacher at my school, Loudoun County's Freedom High, told me about a rumor that students were sending nude pictures of themselves to one another on their cellphones. ... Because administrators' first concern is our students' safety and well-being, it was my responsibility to look into the matter. ... I called a student I thought likely to have such a picture into my office.

My questions are:

• What business of his was it to investigate his students on the basis of a rumor?
• Does concern for the well-being of students merit invasion of privacy? Would he inspect the lunchbox of an obese child?
• Is it really sensible to respond to the furtive budding of teen sexuality by treating them like felons?

What kind of secret police bullshit is this, anyways? We allow law enforcement none of the privileges this sanctimonious administrator took. It is true that children are especially vulnerable, and need special protection. But is this really protection or just sanctioned tyranny?
posted by limon at 11:39 PM on April 19

Well he never really said why he thought it likely. It's entirely possible that he had a very strong reason to believe this, but that he refers to it as "rumor" because it wasn't yet proven, much in the way a police officer might have "probable cause" for a search without proof. In addition, he mentions that the student admitted to it before a search (if I remember correctly). Also, it's possible that cell phones in general are not allowed during school hours (as it is at many schools). It's also possible that he overstepped the bounds of what should be reasonable behavior. I feel like there's not enough information to make any sort of judgement with respect to his behavior at that point.
posted by ErWenn at 6:32 AM on April 20

What kind of secret police bullshit is this, anyways? We allow law enforcement none of the privileges this sanctimonious administrator took.

Unfortunately, it's allowed by the Supreme Court. According to Supreme Court precedent, public school officials can perform warrantless searches without individualized suspicion, even including urine tests. Here's a summary of some of the relevant cases. I don't like it any more than you do, but Oei was acting within the law when he questioned the student about the picture on his cell phone.
posted by jonp72 at 7:21 AM on April 20 [1 favorite has favorites]

My wife and I were terrorized by a baseless prosecution, lost all our savings and were forced to borrow huge sums of money to pay for my defense.

This is the middle class nightmare. Well, this and having to pay 20% of hospital bills for cancer treatments. You lose your savings, your house, your retirement. What recourse is there for this guy? The charges may have been dismissed, but what about the attorney fees? He was just an unlucky guy who got caught up in this national mania of hunting for pedophiles.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:44 AM on April 20

We're taking a class picture, or a video of a performance, and one of my girls pulls her shirt over her head because... well, she's 6 years old... and it's caught on film.
I have to call the police?

Only if you're in the US.
posted by sour cream at 1:59 PM on April 20

Or possibly Saudi Arabia.
posted by sour cream at 2:00 PM on April 20