A federal civil rights lawsuit has been filed against the Jim Thorpe Area School District and two of its administrators, alleging that they violated a student’s constitutional rights by conducting an unwarranted and invasive search of his personal cellphone.

The complaint, which was filed May 29 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, names the district, Principal Thomas Lesisko and Assistant Principal Ryan Delong, who is taking over as principal when Lesisko retires next month, as defendants.

The plaintiffs are Melinda and Jesse Walck, acting on behalf of their minor son, a junior at Jim Thorpe Area High School. Jesse Walck, the executive director of financial planning for the Allentown School District, was the former business manager at Panther Valley School District.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of violating the student’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, asserting the search was conducted “without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.”

According to the complaint, the events began on March 25, when the student allegedly took a photo of Assistant Principal Delong, added a caption reading “rizzy Delong,” and posted it to Snapchat. The school obtained a printed copy of the image and summoned the student to the office.

“When he arrived at the office, Lesisko and Delong had the photo printed out as evidence,” the suit states.

The complaint alleges that the administrators instructed the student to hand over his phone.

“This was not made as a question or request, but as an instruction,” the lawsuit claims. “He did not feel he had the option to refuse, given the apprehension from being interrogated in a small room with two grown adult males.”

Although the stated intent was to search for additional photos of teachers, the complaint alleges, “the defendants slowly and methodically scrolled through all of his personal photos.”

“The search conducted by defendants was excessive, unjustified, and conducted without consent,” the complaint states. “It invaded Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures of his personal electronic device.”

The suit asserts that because the administrators already had a printed copy of the alleged violation, “there would have been no valid reason to conduct the search.” It also notes that the search extended beyond social media content and into personal messages, photos, and internet history, allegedly without legal justification.

After the initial search, the suit claims Lesisko sent the student to another room but kept possession of the phone.

“What was done with the cellular phone during this timeframe is unknown,” it states.

The lawsuit cites New Jersey v. T.L.O. as the legal precedent governing searches in public schools, which allows searches only when they are justified at inception and reasonable in scope. The plaintiffs allege that neither condition was met in this case.

“Defendants did not have reasonable suspicion they would find evidence of a violation because they already had the evidence they sought,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit includes five counts:

Count I: Violation of the Fourth Amendment, claiming an unreasonable search and seizure.

Count II: Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process rights.

Count III: A Monell claim alleging that the school district failed to implement policies or train employees on lawful searches.

Count IV: A second Monell claim asserting that Lesisko acted as a final policymaker when authorizing the search.

Count V: Violation of Article I, Section 8, of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The lawsuit further claims that the school district’s policies failed to address electronic devices, despite having procedures in place for searching lockers, coats and bags.

“The school board of the district made a conscious choice not to develop a policy addressing the search and confiscation of student cellphones,” the complaint alleges.

It also argues that administrators acted without notifying the student’s parents and failed to limit the search to what was necessary.

“To engage in a full scope evidentiary review of a minor student’s cellular phone without sufficient legal basis and without informing the parents … is conscience shocking,” the plaintiffs claim.

The complaint demands compensatory and punitive damages, attorney’s fees, and declaratory relief stating that the administrators’ actions were unconstitutional.

A jury trial has been requested.

Attorney Kyle Anthony Adams of Montgomery Law Group, PLLC, based in Philadelphia, represents the plaintiffs. As of press time, the defendants have not filed a response in court.