I’ve Decided to Expand My Authority
December 15th, 2009
At first glance this Willows, California, story seems reasonable: Student expelled for having unloaded shotguns in truck
The board voted 4-0 Thursday to expel junior Gary Tudesko after the weapons were discovered via scent-sniffing dogs on Oct. 26.
Zero tolerance means zero tolerance. You bring guns to school, you’re out of here, mister.
But let’s look at that first sentence again:
The Willows Unified School District board of trustees has expelled a 16-year-old for having unloaded shotguns in his pickup parked just off the Willows High School campus.
Not on school property. Busted anyway.
The school’s principal says that since the area is used mostly by students, he considers it part of the school’s jurisdiction. He also says the school is responsible for students while they travel to and from school.
Does school insurance cover students who get into a traffic accident while on their way to school?
Well, probably not that responsible. That would be crazy.
Now, I’m not really defending this kid for leaving a couple of hunting guns in his car on the street while he went to school. That’s not something I probably would have done. But this school is using dogs to search student cars parked off of school property and enforcing school rules based on what they find.
One thing the principal brings up is the 1995 Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 which bars possession of firearms withing 1,000 feet of a school. But non-concealable weapons on private property are perfectly legal. The students truck, I believe, qualifies.
For the sake of argument, let’s say we agree with the 1,000 foot limit. What if students commonly park on a street 1,010 feet from the school? Does that vehicle suddenly pop into the school’s jurisdiction, too? There are limits to jurisdictions for a reason. You can’t just decide to expand your coverage.
Tags: CA
December 15th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Gun sniffing dogs?
I would be putting used bore patches and sprinkles of gunpowder all over the area.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Well, this is why God made the ACLU. TO SUE little Eichmans’ like this and take lots and lots of money from the school district so they can’t hire more fascist teachers or give raises to the little Eichmans already there.
December 15th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Didn’t everyone notice where this happened – California – Dah!
December 16th, 2009 at 1:11 am
Hmmm
First:
If the arms were legal, and the storage method ( locked in truck) was legal, then the student broke no law. No crime committed.
Second:
School rules extend to the limit of the school property no doubt, but how can jurisdiction be extended beyond the physical limits of the school?
As an example, it used to be against the school rules to chew gum ( maybe it still is). Could a school, using the rationale presented, take action against a student for chewing gum on Maple street, two blocks off campus?
Schools someimes enforce conduct rules against students for off-campus conduct, but in every case of which I am aware, the alleged misconduct involved breaking the law, not breaking of a school rule.
Third:
It appears a student has been punished for excercising a legal and constitutional right ( having the empty guns in his truck) off campus.
Fourth:
Students necessarily give up SOME of their rights of privacy when they enter a campus, and it MAY be acceptable under some circumstances to dog-sniff cars on campus. This student, however, was NOT on campus, and had therefore given up NONE of his 4th amendment rights. In spite of that, someone, ( I wonder who) authorized a warrantless search stemming from no probable cause which then discovered… Ta dahhhh…. LEGAL things, namely unloaded shotguns.
Fifth:
Student hasn’t committed a crime, a state agent ( the principal) has acted against him in a clearly arbitrary and capricious way ( it is arbitrary and capricious because there is no way for students in a similar situation to know how far they must park, away from campus, in order to be spared being in the “principal defined” expanded campus zone… or whatever you wish to call it.
To sum up- a student who committed no crime, was excercising a constitutional right, and was outside of every conceivable reasonable jurisdiction for school “rule” enforcement and has been subjected to an illegal, warrantless search, stemming from no probable cause, which search then discovered legal items, has been PUNISHED?
My, Oh my.
If I were the school district, I would have someone in the District Risk Managers Office start preparing a check made out to Student with numerous zeros in it. They should also prepare a grovelling apology, and send the principal back to take Civics 101 “What the Bill of Rights Means”.
Maybe the could avoid an embarassing lawsuit.
Not being a Communist, I would not want the ACLU to represent me in a fight over a bucket of warm spit, but there are GOOD Second Amendment and civil rights lawyers out there. I hope Student engages one. A good time will be had by all.
Regards
GKT
December 16th, 2009 at 1:26 am
From what I got at the article, he voluntarily opened up his car on request from the authorities, so I don’t think involuntary search is going to stand up. Also, it said he is 16, and I’m not entirely sure he can legally be in possession of a long arm without an adult supervising. I know you have to be 18 to buy one in California. They can probably make this stand up in court, though it doesn’t make it any more right.
I understand authorities are nervous about letting the next Virginia Tech or Columbine happen on their watch, and are taking no chances. But common sense has just gone out the window. A suspension along with an admonition not to do it again would have been more than enough.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Ah. I hadn’t considered that he might not have been allowed to have those guns in his car without an adult. That’s a good point and I don’t know the answer. Hopefully someone can fill us in.
And yes, he did agree to the search.
December 16th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Nadnerbus: You don’t have to be that old to possess a longarm with your parent’s permission.
As for Columbine or V-tech … as long as campuses are disarmed, the massacres will continue.
The school’s in loco parentis powers end out side of school property or school transport … they had no business even asking a minor for permission to search without a parent there … minors cannot give informed consent. Period.
You do not have a clue here.
The kid needs a good pro-gun lawyer, and needs to sue till they bleed.
December 17th, 2009 at 3:58 am
according to the Cal DOJ FAQ it’s OK to give or lend a firearm to a child (PC section 12078(c)) So yes my postulating in type was incorrect.
And I didn’t say I agreed with people’s actions or reactions in this situation, only that I understand their motivation. And suing the school only makes the schools and the taxpayer poorer. Suing to get it overturned and making sure precedent is set so this doesn’t happen again would be OK by me though.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm
I went to another high school in that county back in the late 70’s and early 80’s and that hole area is ring neck pheasant and duck, goose hunting so it was not unusual at all to go to school with unloaded shotguns in the gun rack of our trucks. Very rural area though Willows is the largest town and the county seat. Things sure have changed.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
RobD, nothing has changed. I’m from Willows, and it’s practically the same school but a different situation. The school board members are blood-red conservatives, but this expulsion is purely political. The student’s mother was responsible for a campaign against a school district measure against additional funds through taxes. Another kid did the same thing in 2005/06 (though he was parked on-campus in our senior parking lot), but he was let go with a pat on the back for being one of the privileged farming kids (as well as an asset for rural high school sports until the end of the year so we can’t punish him!)
Yeah, it’s really over overly dramatic small-town politics. But being the son of a proud Willows gun owner, I am glad the NRA is taking on this case. Hopefully it will knock some sense into this community’s brain.
December 27th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
What do cops do when then go to a school? Check thier guns at the station? If Zero Tolerance means no exceptions, why do cops carry guns on school grounds? Look at how many cops have wacked out and shot people. I’m more afraid of a cop with a gun then a kid with a truck off campus…
March 8th, 2010 at 11:41 am
You can get a life insurance policy in a few different ways. The traditional method involves getting in contact with an insurance agent, who’ll help you find the perfect policy. Just remember that your agent might not be able to access all the plans available. Another possibility is getting in touch with a financial planner to discuss your insurance options. You can also do all the shopping by yourself, and buy a life insurance plan online. This is a good way to get deals on your insurance, but also carries the risk of a bad choice. After all, there’s no expert around to tell you which plans you should steer clear of.