In the case of Helisek v. Dearborn Public Schools, in my opinion, before cameras were automatically installed, other measures could have been taken to see if the physical education teacher was in fact stealing money or not. Although the likelihood of him confessing to stealing money from the students was highly unlikely, however, as an employee, he deserved that much at least. It is understandable that the teachers would expect privacy in their office and locker room because it is in fact where they change and shower, however, when it comes to one specific teacher or coach, it is obvious that you will not have complete privacy there because it is indeed a high traffic area where numerous people enter and exit everyday. In this situation, the …show more content…
In order to catch the person, you must be able to see it when it happens. Although surveillance cameras are widely known to be used at schools in order to promote safety and protection, they can also be the cause of a variety of legal confrontations and issues, especially when dealing with the Fourth Amendment, privacy acts, and reasonable expectation of privacy. In order to violate the Fourth Amendment right, the defendant or party must believe that they personally have an expectation of privacy and that it is reasonable (Lazerson, 2015). When placing a camera in the school to watch the teachers and coaches, it does matter where the camera is placed in order to actually violate their reasonable expectation of privacy. Video evidence is irrefutable and almost impossible to deny which is why the school decided to place those cameras to catch the physical education coach. Even though the coaches and teachers know and understand that they share the office with other coaches and teaches and it is also where they sometimes change, as well as where coaches from other schools and referees of games may change too they have a reasonable