A Story of Surveillance in Our Schools: The Bait Phone Program and Entrapment
The Bait Phone Program
The Bait Phone Program was created by Constable Hood, a School Resource Officer, in 2012. A “Bait Phone” is an ordinary cell phone that has a tracker installed. Hood created the program because he was having difficulty investigating a specific student. As he claims, “[I] did not have sufficient information to ‘arrest and charge’ students suspected of stealing phones.”
Below is an excerpt from police documents that show Hood’s frustration and how creating a “Bait Phone” would allow him to arrest and charge this student:
“The perpetrator(s) is/are mainly targeting cell phones, which have been left unattended in student lockers. The location of choice, within the school, is the male gymnasium locker room, as there are no surveillance systems which operate in this area due to privacy issues. I have identified one individual whom I think is involved, but as yet have been unable to gather sufficient evidence to arrest and charge.”
His proposal was accepted and the program was trialed in Eastglen High School. The trial and project received the full support and backing of Eastglen school administrators.
The Role of Administrators
Our analysis of this program demonstrates the active role school administrators, teachers, and principals play in the school-to-prison pipeline. This is seen most clearly through the stated purpose of the program. Which, according to the SRO Standing Operating Procedure is as follows:
“The Goals of the Program are to “identify the suspect(s) and seek appropriate consequences through the judiciary system.”
Of note, no mention of diversion is brought up in the standard operating procedure. Instead, the program's primary goal is judicial punishment. Police describe this goal as “self-explanatory and needing no further explanation.” This signals a normalization of using a ‘bait’ phone to entrap students. It is also taken as an ethical way to identify (and catch) suspects, who are students at the school.
Something to consider: Almost every student has stolen something or broken a ‘rule’ at a point in their lives. Should every student then experience the full brunt of the criminal justice system when they make a mistake? Are there not alternatives that can reduce harm while socializing students in non-punitive ways?
It is clear from the Bait Phone Standard Operating Procedure that students are not being given a chance and that administrators are culpable in their criminalization.
The Standard Operating Procedure makes this culpability clear. As stated in the document:
“[The SRO] will also seek appropriate permission of the Principal/Assistant Principal in order to deploy the telephone.”
This collaboration should be of concern to school board trustees who are responsible for administrators and the school environments they create.
Tragically, this case study shows the lie of "diversion" that has been consistently promised by School Resource Officers.
The Lack of Diversion
The programs primary goals of arrest and deterrence directly contradict repeated assertions that the SRO program helps avoid introducing system into the criminal justice system. As stated on the EPS Youth Support Branch Website:
"Our officers play an essential role in redirecting youth who are, or may become, involved with the criminal justice system. SROs work with school administrators, the Service and community programs to help navigate youth away from traditional processing and improve their access to community resources."
As mentioned before, the goals and the way the Bait Phone program operates directly contradicts this statement. Furthermore, the Standard Operating Procedure outlines how to charge and detain a student who commits theft of a bait phone.
The document notes that the “SRO Office” in the school would be used for detaining the student. The student’s release would then have to be approved by the assistant principal of the school.
The use of the SRO office as a separate space for dealing with incidents like this give more evidence for SROs creating police precinct-type spaces in our school system. At the same time, it is clear these spaces operate under the enthusiastic approval of administrators.
Surveillance
A disturbing revelation is that students were tracked by Edmonton Police Officers and placed in a “dossier” prior to the phones deployment. According to Bait Phone Programme documents:
“Person(s) of interest in these thefts have been identified by the SRO; a dossier containing these identified individuals will be available prior to deployment.”
The existence of this list is shocking and proves that students are survelled from within their learning environments.
Conclusion
The Bait Phone programme and its creation is just one example of the active policing that has happened in our school system for decades. We should make clear that the program represents a small percentage of the amount of work done by School Resource Officers.
Rather, the school-to-prison pipeline in Edmonton most often manifests as investigations, arrests, and fines. Nevertheless, this program is an important case study that shows how surveillance - with the support of administrators - is commonplace.
Trustees must ask themselves if this is a system they want to continue supporting. A system that has operated without oversight and has invaded the privacy of thousands upon thousands of students.