Zero tolerance--student expelled for possessing weapon OFF CAMPUS

[TPaine7]

A school conducts a "perfectly legal" search of off campus private property and finds a shotgun, leading to an expulsion.

http://www.khsltv.com/content/localnews/story/NRA-Backs-North-State-Student-Fighting-His/itNEEZIhXkWIp4_44hNJ4w.cspx

http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=1349686

I know California is different, but this zero tolerance story raises some interesting questions:

Since when do schools have police/parental powers outside their boundaries (that don't involve field trips or the like)?

Is it reasonable that if you live, or drive, or walk or park within 1000 ft of school property you can be searched by school personnel--can such a search meet constitutional standards?

Must zero tolerance always equate to zero sense?

[FourScore]

1. This seems unconstitutional to me. n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

2. Not according to the Bong Hits for Jesus case.

Scalia and bis bunch said that schools enforcing their policies off-campus was constitutional. Now it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

Even as a pro-gun guy, I love the irony of this case and revel in the discomfort this case is going to cause the court.

[bluestateguy]

3. If a student breaks the law off school grounds, a school could suspend or expel them

Colleges and universities have had that policy for years.

[X_Digger]

9. No law was broken, that I can tell.

If so, why wasn't he charged?

[sharesunited]

4. Read the fine print of your admissions application. Matriculation is not a right.

[FormerDittoHead]

8. This applies to High School? I don't remember having to apply... n/t

[TPaine7]

15. Freedom from unreasonable searches is n/t

[sharesunited]

17. You can waive that contractually. Plea and probation agreements do it all the time.

[TPaine7]

18. True. It would be good to have the details. If it goes to court, I'll read the briefs. N//T

[TheWraith]

21. Out of curiousity, are you a supporter of torture? How about religious freedom?

Just curious, you obviously don't believe in the second or fourth amendments, wondering if numbers eight and one get thrown under the bus too.

[sharesunited]

25. I'm not happy with every infringement.

But I am willing to accept some of them.

Seems to me that's what politics and jurisprudence are for.

To fashion a working compromise out of a set of principles.

I don't know anybody who hasn't made peace with that process for the common good.

You can still pick favorites about which you remain inflexible.

The 2A is a particularly kooky one.

[eqfan592]

26. Seems like the vast majority of gun owners...

...already do accept some infringements on the 2nd amendment (NFA laws, background checks, waiting periods, etc.) For you, you want the 2nd Amendment TOTALLY infringed, not just "somewhat." That's really the only "kooky" thing about this.

[sharesunited]

29. There is a lot more room for infringement short of abolition.

That's because guns and ammo are so beloved in this country.

It is quite the disorder.

[eqfan592]

30. Oh, I know there's more room.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that you WANT abolition. And you have to provide reasoning for further infringement than we already have, which you time and time again have failed to do.

[sharesunited]

31. Shootings and brandishment in the news speak loudly. All I need to do is say You See?

What I get back in response is resentment at the truth and insistence that the menace is somehow still worthwhile.

My position almost argues its own case. I have it easy.

[eqfan592]

32. You think you have it easy because you completely ignore the other side of the argument.

Not because your position "argues its own case." That mindset is part of what's losing you support across the board. People are looking beyond your anecdotal evidence at the hard numbers, which tell a different story than that which you would paint. They're also recognizing the problems with blaming crimes on the implements a criminal chooses to use at a given time, and deciding it's the criminal that's the problem, not the implement. Not to mention that people are recognizing the defensive gun uses that you also choose to completely ignore.

Sorry shares, but the public at large is becoming far too rational on this issue, which is hurting your position.

[virginia mountainman]

37. I cannot believe, A person with YOUR avatar, would say such a thing..

I'm not happy with every infringement. But I am willing to accept some of them.

I cannot believe you would use Smedley Butler as your avatar, and talk about being happy, with infringing civil rights.....

Major General Smedley Butler

“I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy
investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for.
One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.
War for any other reason is simply a racket."

Looks like General Butler, would have no problem, going to war, against YOU...

[proteus_lives]

19. You don't believe in rights.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. I went to a private high school and you could get detention/suspended for actions outside school.

I imagine a private university s no different.
It's usually referred to as a "code of conduct" violation.

I do imagine that the search itself may be illegal though - not being school property.

[tburnsten]

33. Sure, but since when is going duck hunting a conduct violation?

Especially when the student takes great pains (parking well off school property and walking the rest of the way in) to make sure he doesn't violate any actual policy?


Imagine if school officials just went around on weekends stopping students and searching their vehicles, it would be outrageous.

[FormerDittoHead]

7. Schools have gone, excuse me, crazy in stopping any more Columbine, etc shootings.

I feel for the victims for Columbine and Virgina Tech, etc. I couldn't imagine losing one of my children.

But I have a story.

I had a THREE YEAR OLD IN DIAPERS in a preschool run in a church.

One day the teacher put my boy in a time out because he wanted to dance around instead of sit in a circle. He didn't like being put in the time out. Doing his time out on a chair next to the toy workbench, he picked up a GREEN PLASTIC wrench, "pointed" it at the teacher and said, "I shoot you"...

I'll give you one guess why I know this.

The teacher was WHITE IN THE FACE while telling me about this, and I kid you fucking-not, SHE RECOMMENDED THAT I TAKE DIAPERED MY THREE YEAR OLD TO ANGER MANAGEMENT CLASSES.

Yes, things have gotten crazy.

ON EDIT:

AS FOR THIS CASE - The matter should have been investigated to the point to find out he hadn't broken any law (did he?) and at that point he should have been told not to do it again. BUT EXPULSION FROM HIGH SCHOOL??

[FourScore]

13. Unbelievable.

What a story...

[benEzra]

10. For those who didn't read the link in the OP:

Like many Willows youths, Gary is a hunter, and last November he and a friend went duck hunting before school. Returning just as classes were starting, and knowing that guns weren’t allowed on campus, Gary parked his pickup on nearby Willow Street, with the two shotguns unloaded and the doors locked. The dogs, after finding no drugs or guns on campus, had searched the surrounding area and located his vehicle.

As it turned out, there is nothing in the student handbook about unloaded weapons in locked vehicles off campus, and Gary had no way of knowing it was a no-no. Nevertheless, Willows High School officials kicked him out of school—a decision subsequently upheld by the Willows Unified School District board. In their determination to carry out a zero-tolerance policy, these officials defied common sense.

It seems to me that if the vehicle was off-campus, the search was probably illegal, and it also seems that kicking someone out for violation of an unwritten rule while trying in good faith to comply with the written rules is wrongheaded.

Unfortunately, "zero tolerance" usually equates to "zero thought," in practice.

[SteveM]

11. In mechanics, "zero tolerance" equates to "nothing works." nt

We are getting a full-throated return to the days of in loco parentis. Damn, did the "60s crowd" fail, even here?

[FourScore]

12. I'm not pro-gun, but I have to agree with you. n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

14. There's an interesting series of constitutional questions

"The dogs, after finding no drugs or guns on campus, had searched the surrounding area and located his vehicle."

The dogs were provided by a company called Interquest, a search dog for hire company, like a "Bow-wow Blackwater."

http://www.interquestk9.com/

The Constitution restricts the government's ability to conduct searches. When drug dogs are used in the military, the dog handler always has the Commander hide some dope and lets the dog find it. The demonstration is to establish the dog as "reliable informant" thus when the dog alerts, the Commander has probable cause to order a search in compliance with both the Constitution and the rights of the accused under Article 31 UCMJ.

In this case, under what authority does the school have to search a vehicle parked on a public road based on an alert from a "PAID INFORMANT"?

Is the schools position that expulsion is an administrative sanction and therefore no violation of rights occurs since no criminal proceedings arise from the illegal search?

Can a school conduct a search without probable cause by claiming implied consent, that is by enrolling in school you give them permission to conduct searches as they see fit as a condition of enrollment? If that claim is made how far does that go? Your person, your locker, your car, your home?

[paulsby]

20. schools do not need probable cause to search

they need "reasonable suspicion", a lower standard. however, as far as i know, they have no authority to search a student's car parked off campus.

[LiberalFighter]

16. I have a problem with a school having powers to search beyond their physical boundaries.

Based on the article the school can search any home that is within 1000 feet of the school boundaries. They may not argue they have that authority but when they contend they can search the student's vehicle even though parked on public streets what is to stop the school from searching the home of the parents if within the 1000 feet?

I know I would be causing a lot of trouble with any school personnel trying to stop me on public streets.

[OttavaKarhu]

22. Agreed, and I'll push your question a bit more.

The question is not only of boundaries of terrain but of law:

How did school personnel end up with

A) the powers of law enforcement and
B) the ability to abrogate the Fourth Amendment?

I trust readers here are familiar with the GOP Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
http://gunowners.org/fs9611.htm

Which was outlawed, then changed.

In my view that is the kernel of this nut. I.e, public schools being morphed into agents of social control and punitiveness in ways that make old-fashioned assimilationism pale by comparison. WHERE they do that (1,000 versus 100 feet) isn't the issue. THAT they do it at all strikes me as unreasonable.

Surely if they're spending all this time playing Kiddie Kops they don't have a lot of time left to fucking TEACH.

Scuse me, did I say that out loud?

[GreenStormCloud]

23. The school is coming under a lot of pressure.

The internet has spread this story far and wide and fast.

[benEzra]

24. I'd think the ACLU would be on this one pretty quick...

as this is primarily a search-and-seizure/privacy issue, not a gun issue. The school is asserting extralegal search powers that IMHO it does not have.

[eqfan592]

27. Perhaps...

..but it does seem like the national ACLU gets cold feet when it comes to anything dealing with firearms.

[tburnsten]

34. I haven't noticed ACLU picking up many cases involving firearms in any way

Don't think the 2nd is one of their favorite civil rights.

[eqfan592]

35. There are some local chapters that are breaking away from...

...the national organization on the issue of the 2nd Amendment, but as a whole the ACLU is really not on the ball when it comes to this issue. But change of that sort tends to take time, and it does appear to be happening.

[Euromutt]

36. Interestingly, the ACLU just launched a campaign on a related topic

Namely, the "school-to-prison pipeline" http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/school-prison-pipeline

A large part of the ACLU's argument is that "Zero Tolerance" policies are exceedingly harmful, as they result in students getting suspended for minor infractions, falling behind while on suspension, and then being unable to catch up, and then being muscled out of the school so as not to jeopardize the school's scores. Well, anyway, read the web page.

[derby378]

28. We're through the looking glass, boys and girls...

...and yes, this whole notion of "zero tolerance" got old a long time ago.

[aikoaiko]

38. UPDATE: Explusion overturned.

Expulsion of Willows High student with shotguns near campus overturned
[email protected] http://www.sacbee.com/latest/story/2481590.html
Published Friday, Jan. 22, 2010

A Willows High School student who was expelled for having firearms in his pickup that was parked near the school will be reinstated and have the disciplinary action expunged from his record.

That ruling was made this morning by the Glenn County Board of Education acting on an appeal filed by Gary Tudesko. The hearing was open to the public at the request of Tudesko's parents.

Board President Judy Holzapfel, reading from a written version of the board's decision, said that in expelling Tudesko, the Willows Unified School District exceeded its jurisdiction based on acts "that did not occur on school grounds or at a school activity off of school grounds."

The Oct. 26 incident occurred a few days after the start of waterfowl hunting season in an area where duck hunting is a major pastime. Tudesko said he was returning from a morning hunt and did not have time to take the shotguns home without being late for school.

[rd_kent]

39. OMG!! You mean REASON prevailed?

Too bad REASON was ignored in the first place, but then again, REASON in not in the vocabulary of anti-second amendment types.

[rd_kent]

40. aikoaoko...I am going to repost this, ok?

This should be its own thread, IMO.