they asked this court in part to reverse the district court's granting of some of that summary judgment on the issue of qualified immunity to mr oates into mr camp on the claim that they violated  fourth amendment rights by searching her cell phone contrary to the standard set forth in t l o chief justice earl warren in one nine hundred sixty three concurring in the judgment in lopez versus  united states said quote the fantastic advances in the field of electronic communications constitute a greater danger to the privacy of the individual fifty one years later chief justice john roberts stated in riley versus california in two thousand and fourteen modern cellphone are not just another technological convenience let's get to the heart of the matter yes so  that when it comes to the cell phone and our question is one of qualified immunity yes your honor not of the cases you're citing involve school searches of cell phones  you know you have a tough burden as you know to show that not only that there was a constitutional violation that it was clearly established that every reasonable official would have been on notice about it yes your honor said there had been as i understand it in this record a threat of violence by a student against great if there was a threat of violence against my client d d j yes yes and  and then of course the person who allegedly made that threat reported that e t j had been involved in some form of i don't want to get bogged down in this ok but but harassment bullying something like that making fun of ok right right and school officials are trying to sort it out who's telling the truth so they they ask to look at her and phone calls just text messages right not not are e mails correct not her facebook correct not her tweet not her photos not her instagram snap chat all the things that kids look at and use on on front the report had been that these have been text messages and a search was confined to the text messages and the school official after looking at it concludes the student had done nothing wrong and returns the right no your honor the text messages were reviewed to determine allegedly by mr oates to see whether or not bear had received any messages or that she had sent any messages to him by text making fun of the other student there was none ever found of course right and it was all based on rumor and gave it back to the student and the student was not reprimanded by first didn't they also review the text messages between your client and her mother and her grandmother her ex boyfriend correct and you tell me i may not if i were looking at someone's text messages and i'm confining my search to the text messages it have to look at kind of all the text messages we need to figure out what's what ron i respec disagree because the whole purpose of the search allegedly was to determine whether or not my client was making fun of this other student so when they they never searched anyone else's phone they never even determine if there was such text messages they just simply went to my client and said i mean but some as i understood it some of the text messages were sent to individuals who were not named but were recorded in the telephone and those in the cell phone is madre from her mother yes correct and it is so my understanding of the facts and maybe i misunderstood but i thought that the entire purpose of looking at her cell phone which by the way i think was totally legitimate was to check baer to check her texts to bear and only to bear because he was the only one that she was allegedly sending these badmouthing texts to correct it i misunderstand the no that's ok that's what the record shows and  and also i thought that that it was indicated in the record that your client pointed out who bear was and it was also indicated by a bear m o g yeah right yes ok and so after that was done then according to your client's version of events which we have to accept if i mean in summary judgment and so we're going to have to look at it in the light most favorable to your client after that happened that's when your client alleges that the rest of the texts were gone through correct ones to madre the one with the heart and any number of other ones that want to the grandmother etc is that yes your honor and so your real problem is with is not really with the review of the texts to bear but relate to the review of the other tax which seemed to be outside of the scope of the original search that was and that's the whole point you're on under t l o it exceeded the scope of the infraction that she allegedly had violated  and it went to accent it was excessively intrusive into her mother her sister or grandparent her ex boyfriend a girlfriend these were not relevant at all to the basis of the search in the first place it invaded her privacy which was recognized under riley of how sensitive the content of information in a cell phone is i think that's what underscores all of this is the privacy interest interests that the united states supreme court has said that that's what you look at is you look at the nature of the privacy interest and then here i think it's a heightened interest that does not permit school officials to exceed the scope of what they're initially doing and the infraction which was so incredibly minor i mean most of the cases by that have been published in this area every this is well you're on i've course some here and i disagree because i think it's a serious violation of one's right to search a cell phone a particularly in such a way that invades one's privacy and didn't obviously would have been a now now right and mr roach was aware of t l o he was aware that confidential and private information was on cell phones and he far allegedly made that threat said well she says she did these things and they're trying to sort out who's telling the truth could a reasonable school official not necessarily except the student's assertion that the is the only thing they are it would refer to bear and it's relevant to their determination of sorting out the veracity of the students you run of the as mr kemp testified he there and there wasn't even an expectation to search her cell phone mr oates decided to he to search the cell phone based on the conversation that mr kemp had with my client  about whether or not she was sending text messages making fun of this other student that was the sole narrow purpose of the search by mr oates had nothing to do with any allegedly threat by this other student or any other matter was narrowed just to this issue so yes that th where all of that is happening right i mean reporter that the rat the report back that she's making fun of me for not making the volleyball team all that's part of the context it's an object of inquiry that the school official my question is could a reasonable school school official knowing everything which is what an object of inquiry requires even for the sake of it look around at the text messages to sort this out who's you telling the truth even for the sake of argument your honor there was justification for the search at its inception for the sake of argument this search at the second part of t l o which does apply i think because to the yellow recognise the search  of confidential and private information such as diaries letters things of that nature that are very private so the cell phone of course is a very private instrument under the fourth amendment it's in effect of the there's one thing that i don't think a cell phone is to high school days it's private well i i think i disagree your honor because the supreme court under the law in on it i mean did she have a pin that she put in did she have a pen that she needed to put in in order to be needed to unlock it yet right it was hell does that indicate that maybe she thought that it was personal and private to her i absolutely i know it's my time's up and  court's aware that this is a very expansive set of facts and what mr tobit was able to get to was just all we're going to talk this morning about is the cell phone unless one of my colleagues wants to talk about something else because that's the only thing he talked about our opening if you want to bring in something else than oh get it to an opportunity to respond to the other things and you won't have any opportunity to respond to that well i feel like in in our best interest in that my client's best interest is to just the read and the reason i say this is that there is i believe with this public forum area of the law and first amendment there is a learning curve and there are some things that i probably don't have in that brief that may be after this happened the cell phone mr jackson and then among other things threaten to sue the school system or the school and then he wanted to speak before the board of education and to which mr mccurry told him that he could not because he had threatened litigation and in order to determine whether of course is qualified immunity so we are still talking about what's clearly established but in order to determine whether that was a constitutional or not that the court the district court in gauged in this forum analysis which i won't get too far into at this point how many deaths was that which mr oates entitled to look at that cell phone and the text messages i believe so because he had reasonable suspicion based on the information he had received from had reasonable suspicion of will that there may be i think the standard there is that there is a model reasonable grounds standard and it is there a moderate chance of that of discovering some evidence of violation of school rules or the law would that be well the evidence be yet what would be the violation well date behavior towards other students and i think he testified that it could have been one of those he even said there was some argument i think in the briefs about that it couldn't be classified as harassment because there is that the boards or the school's policy on harassment required that there be an element of race national origin gender or religion and that mr oates actual testimony was that he thought she could be involved in bullying i rasped meant just speaking for myself and i can't speak for anybody else but just based on the questions that i've heard from my my brother here  judge pryor i don't think anybody takes issue and surely feel free to correct me with the idea that the search was reasonable in the first instance i certainly don't my concern  my concern comes from the expansion of the search beyond the texts with bear but i also want to bring up one other question that i'd like you to address before the end of this on a different subject right so i have whether that and i don't know the answer to this but whether the mistake that ms vollies made was a reasonable one was subjectively reasonable was it her reason and was it a mistake a fact or was it a mistake of law i mean it seems to me that it was perhaps a mistake of law because the letter stated that mr jackson could be arrested for criminal trespass if he failed to comply with the letters rules under the georgia code and so so it seems to me than that if he was complying with the code and he was complying with that requirement and he was removed anyway that that was perhaps a mistake of law  part of ms felice because he hadn't actually trespassed but he was being removed i don't know whether you want to address that yes meant first i point out that the letter that were in question was written in august and this happened in october also if you read the letter which i know you have it doesn't address until the second page that he can be present and i understand how it happened and i completely understand that administrators have a lot on their minds and a lot more than knowing the ins and outs of the specific details of letters that may have been written to parents however this one did threaten criminal action if mr jackson engaged in certain activities and this also did happen to be senior night so it's not just sort of a run of the mill kind of game correct so so i think what we have to do is we have to determine whether legally right there is a problem here or whether it can be excused legally and that's what i'm asking for help with not not factually why this happened right legally i'm going to point out additionally that the georgia code twenty dash to dash eleven eighty that gives some parameters as to when a person can be barred for barred from or removed from school grounds and you know there is some specifics in there about if the if the individual has committed criminal trespass  but then in subsection f of that code section it says nothing in this code section shall be construed to prohibit school administrators from prohibiting the admission of any person who has violated school policy again i don't have a problem with his having been prohibited from going to school that's not where my my question is my question is having prohibited him from attending school functions right in this letter but having also made clear that he could attend certain school functions under certain rules but he was then when he was following those rules he was then removed what is the legal analysis we should apply if your client is correct that there is not a violation here because it seems to me like it's a mistake of law and then the quote if it is a mistake of law becomes is it an objective lee reasonable mistake and that's where my concern lies that it may not be i feel like that what i was the the section that i was just quoting i don't think there's any case law or other authority out there that's going to establish that this letter they gave him necessarily created to help me with the record on this ok ok which officials are defendants who are being sued  to be held responsible for dissipating in his removal from that i think all of them are in this case and that in that instance it would be van in that instance it would mccurry  except for the mccurry camp vollies and mr way mars client smith who wrote the letter mccurry is there any evidence that believes would have had a copy of it i believe that's reflected in the record in the in the deposition and she also indicated she had reviewed it previously but kemp and smith did not and i think we can just for me personally i don't think camp and smith have any liability here my question concerns right she had read it and what she indicated was and i think she was very forthright in her deposition that she forgot that it was there but also i'm not certain  i so she she had read it she said she forgot about that when the event occurs she's consulted about his removal is that right that's correct as the writer of the letter consultant but telephone he lives in another quite a quite a ways away he stays  the during the week and then goes home on the weekends and hate confirms to believe he's right that he should be there the parent shouldn't be there he said he was going to leave it up to you and he even also testified that he may be misunderstood and thought that there was another incident that took place and but what i was going to point out is that i'm not you know i don't know of anything that would that would show that this letter necessarily creates the right to be there and that i'm not given that o c t a twenty dash to eleven eighty if subsection f i think that the law would would allow m do even if mr mccurry had said you can be there under these circumstances to determine later on that he shouldn't be there when he'd have a determination be based on sheet she said that she kept rethinking about what happened with the coaches and how concerned the coaches were and she said that several times in her deposition i just kept thinking about those coaches and so perhaps you know if she if nothing else it would be reasonable for her ditch decide at a later time he's not supposed to be here or he shouldn't be here because he's making these coaches nervous and by the way she did also testify that it was after the ceremony for the senior night had taken  a former school that they now use as an administration building so it is school middle school high school it is not in the middle school was anything else that she wanted to get to that she didn't have an opportunity well i was going to talk about the one thing that i thought was stood out as far as the breeze is the difference between designated public forum and limited public forum and behalf of deputy ryan smith and from the court's comments so far i take it that there is very little debate about deputy smith and whether summary judgment should be affirmed so i'm primarily here to answer the courts questions i have some three minutes on the issue of the search and seizure on senior night so for the record the record shows that officer smith went over to mr kemp and said i don't think he should be there and that's when mr camp called up miss philly's and said what should i do she called up mr mccurry mr superintendent mccurry said i leave it to you at that time he didn't remember he said he forgot about the letter that he had read giving my client mr jackson the opportunity to attend his daughter's volleyball girlies testify that she had also forgotten about the contents on  yes and so this is why it's i think it's very important your honor so after and this family's said to directed to mr camp don't remove mr jackson until the end of senior night and don't create a scen that's not what happened that's exactly the opposite they went over the games were still going on that's when mr jackson was removed and almost immediately after he was removed from the high school that's when camp again called and said by the wait mr jackson said there is a letter saying i can be here and that's when mr camp called the israelis and said oh go to my office and look at the letter again and that's when she realized after the letter was read to her that she had made this gross mistake and then mr mccurry of course had also admitted that i just forgot to tell miss philly's that mr jackson was allowed to be at the games so i think that's very important facts in the record that show that this was not a justified objective based on probable cause to remove mr jackson that he was trespassing on school property that evening because he was not i have a very short time but getting back to the on the first amendment issue with the school board i'll just let the court read the briefs and based other than the case the judge rosenbaum of course road and barrett versus walker that i rely on the contents of those principles apply to this case but in regard to the search i asked the court to look particularly at saff unified school district and because that case by the supreme court i think is important in that the court recognize there are different levels of search based on t l o that initially you may search a backpack or something like that and based on results to but when you go beyond that as in stafford which was a strip search case searching the under gardens of students that that's where there's a heightened privacy interest and i'm just going to submit to the court that's the same thing i'm trying to argue in this case that searching the cell phone beyond that you go to target we have your case thank you know the court is a