oldspewey writes:
"... because wall warts with a tail..."

Wall warts? Pear pimples for hairy fishnuts?

Troy writes:
"From reading the report, it's pretty clear that the student had multiple opportunities to come clean before being arrested, and refused to take advantage of them. "

You're trying to cleverly avoid the glaring fact that "multiple opportunities" did not include simple, tried-and-true tactics like giving detention or suspending the student, much less asking the student to leave the class.

I'm willing to give the officer the benefit of the doubt that their affidavit is true but I'm not willing to assume, as others have, that certain things happened when they are not mentioned in the incident report (which is precisely the place where one would record it).

Troy continues:
"Yes, I agree that arresting the girl was overkill, but the report mentions that the officer had prior [negative] dealings with the student before, so I would suspect that there is a story here that goes back a little farther than "ZOMG STUDENT ARRESTED FOR TEXTING." "

Here's the law:

WI Statute 947.01: Disorderly Conduct. Whoever, in a public or private place, engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

First, there is nothing at all in the law which allows for "prior negative dealings" to color the officer's determination that the law had been violated. Zero.

Second, let's go through the criteria for disorderly conduct:

Violent? No.
Abusive? No.
Indecent? No.
Profane? No.
Boisterous? No.
Unreasonably loud? No.

How about "otherwise disorderly conduct under circumstances in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance?"

Good luck with that. I guarantee this gets thrown out by the judge (if it even gets that far) and when cops begin charging people with violation of laws for reasons which are sufficiently vague in order to achieve a desired end, that's harassment.

Troy continues:
"When sane, measured discipline isn't getting through to a kid, it may be a good time to over-react and try to get the kid's attention."

Again, there is no evidence that "measured discipline" was attempted.

Troy, let's take this from another angle...

Suppose we are dealing with an adult at a college who was texting in class. Further, like the real-world incident we're discussing, suppose the officer arrived as the class ended and the students were leaving.

Would the officer have a right to demand that the student reveal the existence of a cellphone? No.

Would the officer have a right to arrest the student for disorderly conduct? Of course not. Remember, the class is over and the student has never been asked to leave the class.

So you're forced to either explain why I'm wrong with my two conclusions or explain why the younger student in a high school is not entitled to the same equal protection under the law.

If you choose the former, show me an example of where this has occurred. Ever.

If you choose the latter, please cite law.

oldspewey writes:
"If I were to guess, I'd say the student escalated the situation to the point where a disorderly conduct citation was appropriate and warranted. The summary makes for fabulous reading with the whole "heinous case of texting without permission" bit, but there's a whole story (that's not detailed in TFA) around how many times she was told to stop, how she reacted when told to stop, how she reacted when told to hand over the phone, etc."

Wow.

What could be more germane to an incident report than actions by the student that would warrant an arrest?

"Guessing" that the student did something to warrant an arrest when we have the complaint in front of us (and making no mention of such behavior) is downright bizarre.

arthurpaliden writes:
"The parents would have the teacher charged with force able confinement and the school board would be sued."

OK, I'll bite. Cite one example where a school or teacher was sued for "force able confinement" when giving detention or suspension.

cream wobbly writes:
"They felt the need to involve the police because they had no way to remove this pupil otherwise. School personnel have been stripped of their powers of apprehension. You can't detain a school pupil any more -- they have to leave class of their own accord."

Strawman. There's nothing in the complaint about the student being asked to leave, much less refusing.

An AC writes:
"No, because in today's world the brat's parents would sue."

Cite an example of this ever happening for similarly-mundane infractions.

RockMFR writes:
"Students shouldn't be texting in class."

Agreed.

"If a student refuses to follow the rules, you have to do something."

Perhaps you've heard of "detention" and "suspension?"

"In our lawsuit-happy culture, calling the police is pretty much the only option."

Sure, if you want to pretend that there aren't more reasonable steps available.

"If you were being insubordinate at work, you would be fired and they'd have security escort you from the building. If you refused, you would be arrested."

Bingo! You'd have to refuse to leave in order for police to arrest or charge you.

Neither of these things happened. Therefore your reply makes ...well, pretty much no sense.

ZzZzz...

ring
ring

*yawn. [fumble for cell on nightstand.] "Hello?"

*snap snap snap

"What the...??" [pressing "send" by accident]

Now naked pics of my wife are all over the internets. Great.

What ever happened to detention??!

Shouldn't you be kernel hacking or something? =P

Hummassa writes:
"If a battered wife wants to talk directly to her abusive husband, then she is absolutely stupid. Sorry. Battered wives should talk to abusive husband thru lawyers and police officers only.

"Wants" has nothing to do with it. Sure, some people might be rich enough to have their $200/hr lawyer handle setting up visitation but most don't.

Hyppy writes:
"So use a prepaid cell phone. The only thing the "abuser" will be able to get is a cell number, which can be turned off at will."

Why should the burden be foisted upon the abused?

And why do you put "abuser" in quotes?

CD writes:
"While we're on the subject, how many people in the US don't have either cable or satellite TV? Seriously...I've asked as many low-income people I know or run into, and I've yet to find ANYbody that gets their TV through rabbit ears or a roof antenna.?"

I work in a retail electronics store just outside Albany, NY, and we sell perhaps 20-40 tv-top antennas per month. And this is a strip mall.