## Facts

- Nazareth Area High School enforced a rule prohibiting students from using or displaying cell phones during school.
- A teacher confiscated Christopher Klump’s cell phone after seeing him display it during school hours.
- The teacher and an assistant principal allegedly used the phone to:
  - Access the contact directory and call other students listed as contacts.
  - Access stored text messages and voicemail.
  - Use an instant-messaging feature to communicate with Christopher’s younger brother while posing as Christopher.
- The assistant principal saw a message from Christopher’s girlfriend requesting a “tampon,” which she interpreted as slang for a marijuana cigarette.
- Christopher and his parents sued the school district and individual officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Pennsylvania law, including claims under the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act, invasion of privacy, and defamation.
- Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(6).

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs had statutory standing under provisions of the Pennsylvania Wiretap Act, including limits tied to the “originators of communications.”
2. Whether accessing stored texts, voicemail, contact information, and using messaging functions on a confiscated student phone could constitute an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution.
3. Whether qualified immunity entitled individual school officials to dismissal of the federal constitutional claims at the pleading stage.
4. Whether the school district was immune from Pennsylvania tort claims under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, and whether individual employees could still face liability for alleged willful misconduct or actions outside the scope of employment.
5. Whether compensatory and punitive damages are available for a Pennsylvania constitutional search-and-seizure claim.

## Decision

- The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss.
- Certain Pennsylvania Wiretap Act claims were dismissed for lack of standing where the statute limited civil actions to the originators of communications.
- Other Wiretap Act theories based on unauthorized access to stored communications on the phone were allowed to proceed (at least as to Christopher).
- The Fourth Amendment claim (and a parallel Pennsylvania constitutional theory, with limits) was permitted to proceed against individual defendants; qualified immunity was not granted at the pleading stage.
- Counts I and V were dismissed in full.
- The school district was dismissed from Counts II, III, and X based on immunity principles.
- Compensatory and punitive damages were dismissed as remedies under the Pennsylvania constitutional claim (Count VII).
- References to certain Pennsylvania criminal statutes were stricken from the complaint.
- In all other respects, the motion to dismiss was denied.

## Legal Principles

- In student-search cases, school officials may conduct searches based on reasonable suspicion, but the search must be reasonable in scope in light of the justification for the intrusion.
- Confiscation of property for a policy violation may be permissible while broader access to private digital content may be unreasonable if not justified by the circumstances.
- For Pennsylvania Wiretap Act claims, statutory standing may be limited by the specific provision invoked, including provisions that restrict civil actions to originators of communications.
- Pennsylvania political subdivision immunity generally bars many state-law tort claims against a school district absent a statutory exception; individual employees may still face liability where allegations support willful misconduct or conduct outside the scope of duties.
- Pennsylvania constitutional search-and-seizure claims may proceed as a theory of wrongdoing, but damages remedies can be limited as a matter of state law.

## Conclusion

At the pleading stage, the court treated the alleged use of a confiscated student cell phone to access stored communications, contact other students, and impersonate the student as potentially exceeding the scope of a reasonable school search, allowing key constitutional and related claims to proceed against individual officials while dismissing certain Wiretap Act theories for lack of standing and applying immunity-based limits to claims and remedies against the school district and under the Pennsylvania Constitution.


Klump v. Nazareth Area Sch. Dist., 425 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Pa. 2006)