OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL LEGAL BULLETIN
TEAM Lindsay A. Chapman General Counsel Nnamdi C. Nnedu Assistant General Counsel Jeffrey A. Robinson Director of Contracts, Compliance, and Risk Management Julie K. Schlueter Legal Administrative Assistant
Office of General Counsel University of Central Missouri 208 Administration Building Warrensburg, MO 64093 660.543.4730 ogc@ucmo.edu
September 2022
Ohio Court Issues Limited Decision Regarding Student Privacy and Online Testing A district court opinion from Ohio is getting a lot of media attention as it is the first of its kind to speak to a student’s right to privacy during online test proctoring. The decision sets no legal precedent in Missouri and remains subject to appeal in Ohio; however, it provides interesting fodder for discussion. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” Plaintiff Aaron Ogletree, a student at Cleveland State University during the spring 2021 semester, brought a Fourth Amendment challenge after the proctor for an online chemistry exam required him to display his surroundings in his bedroom on camera to promote the integrity of the testing process. Plaintiff alleged that his family circumstances during the pandemic made his bedroom his only suitable testing space and that because he received short notice of the required room scan, he was forced to display confidential documents that he did not
have time to secure. Ruling in favor of Mr. Ogletree, the court first held that a room scan is a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The court then held under the “special needs” doctrine that although the University has a legitimate interest in academic fairness and integrity, it was outweighed in this case by the plaintiff’s asserted expectation of privacy in an area of the home where that expectation is at its highest, particularly in light of what the court found to be a lack of argument or evidence that room scans are the only or most effective means to combat cheating on remote exams. It’s critical to note that the Ogletree decision was fact specific, relying in part on the following findings of the court: Cleveland State would not allow this particular student to take tests on campus at the time in question; the plaintiff was informed less than two hours before the test that the room scan would be occurring; plaintiff had tax documents and medications in his bedroom that he did not have opportunity to relocate prior to the exam; Cleveland State required him to take the test in a room with no other