Principal knowingly allows false trespassing charges to be filed.

[jojajn]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Minnesota


My son was recently falsely accused and charged with trespassing on school property. There was no evidence other than a fabricated confession written down by the officer who questioned my son. This questioning session took place in the school supply room with the principal as a witness. No recording or written statement was taken. My son never trespassed and never confessed to such. When I asked the principal, via email, if he heard my son confess to trespassing, he did not reply. The principal permitted these charges to be filed.

After $3000 in legal fees, the court dismissed the case due to violation of my son's constitutional rights (no Miranda warning when questioned) and no evidence.

My question is: do I have a legal basis for restitution of my son's legal expenses from the school for false accusations?

 

[tranquility]

It depends.

What evidence was excluded? (How did the purported statements implicate the OP's child?)

What were the facts of the alleged trespassing?

If the evidence was not excluded, would there be a reasonable belief that the OP's child committed the trespassing?

 

[jojajn]

It depends.

What evidence was excluded? (How did the purported statements implicate the OP's child?)

What were the facts of the alleged trespassing?

If the evidence was not excluded, would there be a reasonable belief that the OP's child committed the trespassing?

Thank you for your interest. There is absolutely no evidence.

My son never trespassed. Miranda warnings must be given to students who are questioned on school property and charges result from that questioning. This was ruled as the constitutional right of a student by the SCOTUS (see: J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S. Ct. 2394,2402 (2011). This is why the charges were dismissed-because my son never received these Miranda warnings. The point is, my son never trespassed and never made a confession as such even during this questioning session. The so-called confession was fabricated by the chief of police who is already on probation for violating rights (according to our defense attorney).

The trespassing charge had to do with a lounge some students set up in a false room above the sound proof band rooms. In order to move furniture and gaming equipment into this false room, some students duct-taped an exterior door to enter at night. My son was never involved in any of that activity. There was evidence of two students involved because the items were found to belong to them. The students who were involved were ready to testify that my son was never with them if it would have gone to trial (the next step had it not been dismissed). None of the items found there belonged to my son. No one saw my son trespass. The principal would not tell me how/why my son was named as a suspect. The principal would not answer whether, as a witness, he actually heard my son make the alleged admission when I asked him via email.

The court dismissed the case because there was no evidence. The so called confession from my son was not recorded and there was no written/signed statement by my son. In addition, the judge said this questioning of my son at school violated his constitutional rights because he was not given his Miranda Warning. The police and principal, who were witness to the questioning, stated on the police report that he confessed and proceeded to charge him.

 

[tranquility]

Thank you for your interest. There is absolutely no evidence.

Which question was this meant to answer?

My son never trespassed.

As you say.

Miranda warnings must be given to students who are questioned on school property and charges result from that questioning.

I believe the holding was that age must be a factor in the totality of the circumstances as to if a person is subjectively in custody.

This is why the charges were dismissed-because my son never received these Miranda warnings.

No. The charges were [probably] dismissed because the court found the child was "in custody" and thus required Miranda warnings before interrogation. This was not done, so the admissions of your son were excluded. Without that, the prosecutor or court felt there was not enough evidence to convict.

The point is, my son never trespassed and never made a confession as such even during this questioning session. The so-called confession was fabricated by the chief of police who is already on probation for violating rights (according to our defense attorney).

Actually, the point is, my questions. I asked them for specific reasons.

 

[Humusluvr]

My question is: do I have a legal basis for restitution of my son's legal expenses from the school for false accusations?

No. You only won your case on a technicality, not on you proving he didn't do it. The school did not falsely accuse him, you just found a loophole.

 

[jojajn]

No. You only won your case on a technicality, not on you proving he didn't do it. The school did not falsely accuse him, you just found a loophole.

I'm sorry. I actually thought this was a forum that provided informed legal discussion and knowledge.

There was NO evidence that he did do it. It is up to the prosecution to prove the case not up to the defendant to prove he didn't do it. Look up "burden of proof" sometime.

 

[jojajn]

Which question was this meant to answer?
As you say.I believe the holding was that age must be a factor in the totality of the circumstances as to if a person is subjectively in custody. No. The charges were [probably] dismissed because the court found the child was "in custody" and thus required Miranda warnings before interrogation. This was not done, so the admissions of your son were excluded. Without that, the prosecutor or court felt there was not enough evidence to convict. Actually, the point is, my questions. I asked them for specific reasons.

There was no evidence other than an alleged confession that was not recorded.

 

[Silverplum]

I'm sorry. I actually thought this was a forum that provided real legal knowledge.

It is.

There was NO evidence that he did do it. It is up to the prosecution to prove the case not up to the defendant to prove he didn't do it. Look up "burden of proof" sometime.

This is helpful.

 

[jojajn]

It is.




This is helpful.

You call this knowledgeable information of the law?

No. You only won your case on a technicality, not on you proving he didn't do it. The school did not falsely accuse him, you just found a loophole.

 

[Silverplum]

You call this knowledgeable information of the law?

Yep, I do.

 

[jojajn]

Yep, I do.

Please provide information about what circumstances put the burden of proof on the defendant in a criminal proceeding.

Also, how would a defendant "prove" he did not trespass when there is no evidence that he did and no date provided that this alleged trespassing occurred?

We are talking about the judicial system in the US where a person in innocent until PROVEN guilty, right?

 

[Banned_Princess]

I do too.

he won on technicality, not found not guilty, or innocent.


charges dropped. no harm no foul.

 

[jojajn]

I do too.

he won on technicality, not found not guilty, or innocent.


charges dropped. no harm no foul.

Except the $3000 I am out to fight erroneous charges. Two others, in the same situation, took a plea deal because they could not afford an attorney.

 

[I'mTheFather]

Why do you think the school is at fault? You said the chief of police conducted an investigation. How is this the school district's fault?

 

[Antigone*]

Yep, I do.

You hit a bullseye on this one. Mom/Dad is whack