I've got zero problems with the concept of privacy protections. I just think that the concept of "damages" and remedies in these situations is interesting.
How can you put the genie back in the bottle?
If you owned a company that employed a person who engaged in highly objectionable conduct but that conduct only came to light because of an illegal search, do you have to put blinders on, pretend it didn't happen and welcome that person back to your workplace? (set aside the concept of employment at will)
Did damages occur to these individuals that shouldn't have? It is a fairly simplified answer. No charges or investigation should have been brought forward, yes you can argue what they did was was against the law, the issue is not only was it illegally obtained, no one else is being held to the same standard, literally no other college has had an investigation like this. Then you throw in someone like Shannon, who did nothing illegal, yes he violated NCAA rules, but bet a nominal amount on a woman's game and is suspended for the season. Again, you don't see any harm? Let alone the wrestlers, baseball players and higher level football players at Iowa State. It gets back to my Reynolds statement I threw out earlier. Most agencies 1 are not willing to do an illegal search, 2 do not want to do something like this afraid of what they might find. Otherwise every single other college D1, DII, and DIII would have similar investigations. Crickets. No one else wants to know the information even though they know its occurring.
If someone is going to take on a class action lawsuit like the players did against the football program, I can guarantee you there will be class actions against the state of Iowa. It really comes down to should the investigation occurred, and because it did were these individuals negatively impacted? You are the lawyer . . . LOL, I would think this would be something you would say is a guaranteed lawsuit. The other is, this is guaranteed to be settled before it goes to court. Iowa will not want this out in the public. Heads will roll and they will move on.
There is a lawsuit going on in southern Iowa against a local school filed by Parrish. The nuts and bolts of the situation is a counselor was texting and regularly pulling out a student out of class. Some of the conversations were deemed inappropriate. There were also previous concerns of inappropriate interactions with other students about this employee. The parents raised concerns and took it to the police. They refused to file charges, but it did arise to a level 2 investigation by the county prosecutor that raised concerns on the behavior and potential grooming. The counselor was let go in close door session, ultimately to protect the minor. The minor was also taking nursing classes at the time with the counselors wife through the local college. They claim she was inappropriate with her and failed her after she claimed the student was cheating. The lawyers claim it was retaliation. A teacher also called the student a homewreaker. Beyond that, it can be said the student is not a great historian, she was open enrolled to the school and even after suing the school, is still attending the school the following year open enrolled. Yet the lawyers have claimed she suffers "mental anguish, humiliation, degradation, public ridicule, loss of personal reputation, and emotional distress." In this case I would argue the harm is much less than the iowa and iowa state case. Difference is it includes a minor and the minor was doing nothing illegal. Parrish is likely looking for a big payday from the school district and the community college. My guess is it gets settled prior to the case as I don't think anyone wants the minor on the stand getting grilled and they don't want anymore information getting out. I think lawyers are willing to take any case, even if the client has a history of lying or a poor reputation. If the accused has money, there will be a lawsuit.
