Duress/legal search

[OHRoadwarrior]

It would start with the school board/superintendent and can escalate into regular court. It can get very expensive quickly.

 

[CdwJava]

I'm not trying to start a fight here-

But who's to say that the brass knuckles weren't given to him OFF property- and the only reason they were ON property is because the kids were dragged back to the school- where then upon search- the knuckles were found.
Which goes back to the OP's original question- is this illegal search?

I think with the right lawyer- this case could be won- because the defense would makes the points that it was after they were dismissed from school- and the kids were literally dragged back to campus.

Illegal searches. They are won all the time.

Ah ... I see ... so, while they were fleeing from the administrator who was right behind them, some local thug just happened to stuff his brass knuckles into the backpack of the unsuspecting youth AFTER wrapping it in notebook paper! Really?! You think a defense attorney would dare to make that argument to a jury and do it with a straight face?

Of course, as of right now there is no mention at all of any criminal prosecution, so the issue of courts is premature.

 

[sMoOtHcRiMiNaL]

Nowhere did i say a local thug was involved here.

But- originally there were 2 students. And only one student is possibly being expelled. The other student could have given him the knuckles OFF campus. and would have never been caught with them if he wasn't dragged back to school. I'm not denying the fact that he HAD the knuckles.

 

[CdwJava]

Nowhere did i say a local thug was involved here.

But- originally there were 2 students. And only one student is possibly being expelled. The other student could have given him the knuckles OFF campus. and would have never been caught with them if he wasn't dragged back to school. I'm not denying the fact that he HAD the knuckles.

Ah, okay ... so, they're running around and somewhere as they are running - with an administrator apparently on their tail - delinquent number one passes off his set of brass knuckles to delinquent number two. Really?

Of course, if it did go to trial, it would be real easy to cast reasonable doubt ... the suspect could throw down his pal. Of course, possession is a crime so even if possessing them off campus, someone would go down. And if he threw down his friend they might BOTH go down.

 

[OHRoadwarrior]

Maybe they were football players and the other accepted a forward lateral. Don't think that would fly as a defense. 5 out of 5 friends surveyed would not accept an illegal weapon, tendered by an associate, while being chased by an administrator.

 

[asiny]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
TEXAS
Two juveniles were dismissed from school after the bell rung. The two students are bus riders and decide they do not want to ride the bus. An administrator notices the two male juveniles go another direction. The administrator calls them over but they decide to run. Another administrator is notified by radio two male students are running towards a metro bus stop (not on campus). The administrator runs after them and brings them back to campus. The administrator begins to search their book bags and pockets, one of the juveniles refuses to let the administrator search his bag. When asked to search his bag again the juvenile is about to take off running, the administrator grabs the juvenile in a choke hold almost. The administrator checks the bag and discovers metallic knuckles wrapped in note book paper. The student is in the process of being sent to an alternative school or expelled.

Was this legal after they were dimissed and brought back to campus?

The class schedule was dismissed, but the student still fell under the duty to supervise of the school district. The school duty extends to the school buses. The students were on school grounds when they were identified NOT boarding their designated school bus, but leaving the grounds. They were on school grounds when they, not only, decided to refuse the request to return, but also run when school admin calls them.
It was reasonable that the school administrator's duty to supervise was still active until the student was on-board the bus (at that point the duty to supervise falls upon the bus driver- who is a representative of the school).

If your position were to hold any weight- if a student was to get into a fight, before boarding the bus and off school grounds, then the school has not duty to stop or intervene, right? And the parents would not sue the school, if their child was badly injured due to the fight not being stopped, right?

Schools may have a duty to supervise students on school grounds before and after school when they have caused them to be there, for example, when the bus drops them off. A duty can be extended if a person assumes additional responsibilities, such as assuming the duty to supervise students before and after school. Schools may acquire a duty to supervise when they have, by their previous actions, assumed the duty to supervise at this time such as when some staff has supervised intermittently or consistently before official time to arrive.

Schools also have a duty to warn of known dangers even when they do not have a duty to supervise. In the general workforce, a supervisor, and ultimately the company, is responsible for the negligent acts of employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

This was posted about this being an illegal search;

I think with the right lawyer- this case could be won- because the defense would makes the points that it was after they were dismissed from school- and the kids were literally dragged back to campus.

Illegal searches. They are won all the time.

In regards to this "illegal search";
New Jersey v. TLO which was overturned by the Supreme Court - who set a U.S. precedent that;
The Supreme Court early on decided that need by teachers and administrators to maintain order outweighs the privacy interests of students. School searches are only justified according to the Supreme Court "when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of school."
The students were violating rules of the school- if they were meant to use the school district bus service- and, being on school grounds when requested to return, violated rules of the school by refusing and running from the school administrator.. yes they exited school grounds, but the students were witnessed, on school property, and all the way returned to school property.

§ 37.007. EXPULSION FOR SERIOUS OFFENSES.
(a) A student shall be expelled from a school if the student, on school property or while attending a school-sponsored or school-related activity on or off of school property:
Texas Education Code - Section 37.007. Expulsion For Serious Offenses - Texas Attorney Resources - Texas Laws

 

[davew128]

The students were violating rules of the school- if they were meant to use the school district bus service- and, being on school grounds when requested to return, violated rules of the school by refusing and running from the school administrator.

Hogwash. By this logic every student who is known to normally need the bus MUST take the bus each and every day, period, end of discussion. Of course no student who takes the bus would EVER have other activities that would preclude using the bus, such as going work, visiting a family member, or heaven forbid, going to a classmate's home near the school.

yes they exited school grounds, but the students were witnessed, on school property, and all the way returned to school property.

They were forcibly returned by the administrator and IMO that is a serious problem....for the administrator.

 

[asiny]

Hogwash. By this logic every student who is known to normally need the bus MUST take the bus each and every day, period, end of discussion. Of course no student who takes the bus would EVER have other activities that would preclude using the bus, such as going work, visiting a family member, or heaven forbid, going to a classmate's home near the school.

So what happens if a student is given detention after school? Do they get a pass because they have a job, visit a family member or, heaven forbid, going to a classmate's home near the school?

They were forcibly returned by the administrator and IMO that is a serious problem....for the administrator.

I agree with this completely.. but it really depends on what use of force was used- and what is allowed by Texas EDU Law when a student is in violation of the school rules.

 

[davew128]

So what happens if a student is given detention after school? Do they get a pass because they have a job, visit a family member or, heaven forbid, going to a classmate's home near the school?

1) I've never heard of detention extending that long. 2) You've never heard of MORNING detention? It exists specifically for the reasons you just listed.

 

[CavemanLawyer]

There are too many variables to even predict what will or should happen. What can be said with certainty is that the principal has authority to take immediate temporary disciplinary action for any criminal (and many non-criminal) accusations whether the acts occurred on or off the campus. Any final decision will be made by the school board or its designee. The student is entitled to due process and can be represented by a lawyer. The Board may or may not allow for some form of appeal/rehearing process but ultimately their decision is final and can only be appealed to district court. The lawfulness of any search and the constitutionality of the school's actions and discipline can be argued in the Board hearing and/or in the District Court appeal.

The lawfulness of bringing the student back to campus and the subsequent search are fact specific. Sure a school employee has plenty of discretion to do these things but the amount of force used is also a factor. There are limits to how much force a school employee can use to physically bring the child back to campus, even if they are authorized to do so. If the student was lawfully detained on or around the campus area, I have almost no doubt that the search was lawful. But it is certainly something for some attorneys to argue about.

An important point is that possession of brass knuckles in the great State of Texas is a Class A misdemeanor no matter where you are. Penal Code 46.05 (6).

Chapter 37 of the Education Code specifies when a school is REQUIRED to remove you from the school (ie: expel or send to alternative school) and when they have the DISCRETION to do so. Possessing brass knuckles on campus falls into the category of mandatory removal. Because that conduct would allow mandatory removal if done on campus, there is another provision that allows discretionary removal if the act occurred within 300 feet of the campus. So... one question is how far the student ran before being caught. If he never got further than 300 feet away then you don't have to determine whether the conduct occurred on campus or not. Either way the school is authorized to remove him.

Finally, Education Code 37.0081 provides a sort of catch all to remove any student when the district has determined that "the student’s presence in the regular classroom threatens the safety of other students, will be detrimental to the educational process, or is not in the best interests of the district’s students." The school can invoke this authority whether the conduct occurred on the school campus or not and it just becomes a matter of whether it was reasonable for them to do so.

Bottom line, if the school calls for a disciplinary meeting then consider hiring an attorney and see what the punishment is. Appeal it if desired. Regardless of what the school does the incident can absolutely be referred to the Juvenile Court for criminal prosecution. If that happens then the child (juvenile) will absolutely be required to have an attorney.

 

[asiny]

1) I've never heard of detention extending that long. 2) You've never heard of MORNING detention? It exists specifically for the reasons you just listed.

1) I never gave a timeframe of how long detention was for- your argument was that if they have a prior commitment, then they don't have to take the bus - my point was that if they are held in detention, how does having a prior commitment have any change of that?
If there is, then a PRIOR notification to the school may well be required in order to excuse the student from using the bus service. And, as has been stated, there are unknown variables to this story.
2) I have, but the school don't have to allow it just because they have a job, visit a family member or, heaven forbid, go to a classmate's home near the school.
It's a punishment, not something that is built to work around the students schedule.

 

[cyjeff]

I'm not trying to start a fight here-

You have tried to start a fight on every single thread you have been on... and all in the same way.

"I think the law should be like this" you say... and are routinely and completely wrong. Like here.

But who's to say that the brass knuckles weren't given to him OFF property- and the only reason they were ON property is because the kids were dragged back to the school- where then upon search- the knuckles were found.
Which goes back to the OP's original question- is this illegal search?

A) because the kids hadn't left school property yet; and, B) well, A is all you really need.

I think with the right lawyer- this case could be won- because the defense would makes the points that it was after they were dismissed from school- and the kids were literally dragged back to campus.

I say this as not only a parent but the husband of a school teacher.

Kids are the responsibility of the school up to and until they are delivered home by the way authorized by the parent or guardian for each child.

A PARENT can't take a child off school grounds in a way not previously authorized unless they sign the child out or send a note outlining the new method.

Children cannot simply decide not to ride home on the bus. It is NOT optional and NOT discretionary.

You are 100%, not a little but competely, utterly and "even if" wrong.

Jesus Christ himself couldn't make wine out of this water.

Illegal searches. They are won all the time.

yeah, that's another thing you don't understand. Searches of students on school grounds have taken on an entirely different legal stance since the rash of school violence.

 

[davew128]

1) I never gave a timeframe of how long detention was for- your argument was that if they have a prior commitment, then they don't have to take the bus - my point was that if they are held in detention, how does having a prior commitment have any change of that?

Some day Junior, when you actually REACH high school, you'll know the answer to this. In fact I already posted (and you conveniently ignored) the answer,

If there is, then a PRIOR notification to the school may well be required in order to excuse the student from using the bus service. And, as has been stated, there are unknown variables to this story.

None of which are relevant to the bus issue.

2) I have, but the school don't have to allow it just because they have a job, visit a family member or, heaven forbid, go to a classmate's home near the school.
It's a punishment, not something that is built to work around the students schedule.

Actually yes it IS built to work around the student's schedule Junior. That's why it EXISTS.

 

[davew128]

Children cannot simply decide not to ride home on the bus. It is NOT optional and NOT discretionary.

Really now. So you're telling me that Bruce, a junior, cannot get a ride to go somewhere after school with his buddy Alfred, also a junior who has a car and drives to school.

 

[asiny]

Some day Junior, when you actually REACH high school, you'll know the answer to this. In fact I already posted (and you conveniently ignored) the answer,

You posted something that eluded to timeframe? Sorry, I just saw you post that if they had somewhere else to go - other than home - then they were excused from taking the bus. My mistake- please continue.

None of which are relevant to the bus issue.

The issue for the NON use of the bus is exactly that- that prior notification should exist for the student to NOT take the bus. Your argument was that they don't have to take the bus if they have a job, or somewhere else to go.. I guess I missed the part where you mentioned prior notification.. oh wait, you didn't. You pointed out they don't need any.

Actually yes it IS built to work around the student's schedule Junior. That's why it EXISTS.

No, it's not built to work around the student schedule- it's there as a punishment and the teachers availability.

I know when I suffered a detention, it was not uncommon to have a 1 hour detention- strange.. I would have been late to be somewhere else- like a job, or a friends house to hang out, or visiting a family member... I guess the school not having any prior notification of this- never realised that I had these commitments.

The point is if the students were to be excused from using the bus, then prior notification should have been given to the school - from the parents.

Really now. So you're telling me that Bruce, a junior, cannot get a ride to go somewhere after school with his buddy Alfred, also a junior who has a car and drives to school.

Last time I checked- the OP posted that the students are BUS RIDERS and never had a car.

And what's with the Junior comment? Or are you just attempting to be funny regarding my post count being, below, a 1/4 of yours?

Bottom line- they were not dismissed from school and were still on school property when they violated school rules by 1) not using the bus 2) refusing to respond when the school administrator called them and 3) fleeing from the administrator.
The only thing that is in question is the 'choke hold almost'.... completely unknown variable on the exact circumstances and what the limitation of restraint the school representative is allowed by law.