• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

High school student expelled for off campus firearms in truck

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

This is a long reply but I have cited my sources (with links).

inbox485 wrote:

We-the-People wrote:
Now it's time for the civil suit for violation of civil rights. Let's see......

1) Unauthorized seach (K9 sniffing) of vehicles outside the school property.
Walking a dog past a car in a public parking lot is perfectly legal. And it was a private company not even employed by the school, so your tax dolors were not involved.

The private company had previously been hired by the schoolbut that daywas "donating" their services (1). A volunteer is an agent of the agency for which they volunteer. The school, in allowing an entity with whom they had a business relationship allowed their presence as volunteers and to "do the perimeter" accepted responsibility and liability for the actions of the security service to a high enough degree to warrant the filing of a lawsuit to determine liability. I don't think (I'm not a lawyer) that the security firm could be held liable on this point but the school/district can. Whether sucessful or not remains to be seen but there is a viable case.

When the private company works fora government agency they become an agent of that agency. The school arguably has no jurisdiction off the campus unless it is a school sponsored event. Getting to school is certainly a school sponsored event if you ride the bus but driving yourself or being driven is not. The vehicle, parked off campus, is NOT within their jurisdiction and the county board of education agreed. Hence there is a case to be made.



inbox485 wrote:

We-the-People wrote:
2) Unlawful request by school to run the license plate of the vehicle.
It was on file with the school as part of the students parking permit.
3) Local PD running the plate for the school without proper legal authority.
Local PD didn't run the plates.

I am not personallyfamiliar with the legal documents but all media reports (1, 2) and the Police Chiefsofficial press release (3) say that the Police department ran the plates at the request of the school.


inbox485 wrote:

We-the-People wrote:
4) Intimidation/color of authority in intimidating the student to "consent" to a search of his vehicle.
The student volunteered the information and was fully corporative. The principal was free to ask. The student was free to not answer.

The facts are in dispute (1). The principal says he "asked", Tudesko's attorney states that the principal "ordered" without indicating that there was an option. Mr Tudesko himself states "I asked him, 'I'm parked on a public street, is that your jurisdiction?', and he said 'Yeah, it is.' I figured he must've been right, or why would he tell me that?"(1)

If Tudesko and his attorney are the correct version then there is clearly a matter of an authority figure abusing his authority and legal obligations when dealing with a minor. The matter is ripe for a civil suit to determine the facts and liability. The principal also, according the Tudesko's attorney, ordered the security personnel to search the vehicle and then to sieze the firearms and other property (1). CLEARLY violations of his authority. The school principal has no authority to order a search and siezure off campus.

Also interesting, when the police property and evidence form was filled out when securing the weapons in police custody, the form stated "Misc. Found Property/Non-Criminal."(1)

The principal can arguably be shown to have intimnidatedyoungMr. Tudesko into consenting to a search. While this is generally not a valid argument in the case of an adult, a minor is more easilly intimidated by someone who has authority over1/3 of theirlife Monday - Friday. While the principal is free to attempt to argue inloco parentis, thematter should be decided in a court of law. We on this board, as adults who are, or should be, well informed of our rights, can not mistakenly apply the same standards to a minor as are applied to one of us who goes out open carrying, encounters the police, and consents to an otherwise unlawful search. The minor must be given the maximum protection from such intimidation, trickery, and such.




inbox485 wrote:

We-the-People wrote:
5) Long term (October/November until now) unjustifiable expulsion.
Discipline was done per school code requirements.

And the guards at Aushwitz were just following the well established orders (rules and regs) of the camp. Again, it should be heard in court.



inbox485 wrote:

We-the-People wrote:
6) Attorney's fees
Good luck


In civil action, should the plantiff (Tudesko) prevail, attorney's fees are likely to be awarded. The county board, in overturning the expulsion, required the school district to pay expenses incurred by Tudesko and his parents (4).



inbox485 wrote:

We-the-People wrote:
7) Defamation of character
Perhaps I missed where the school lied about anything.

A good point. As the truth is an absolute defense to libel, slander, and defamation of character. My bad. The correct charge in civil court would be "Defamation per se". Defamation per se includes statements by the defendant that were false when the dedefendant knew, or reasonably should have known them to be false when they were made.

The principals public statements, communicated to third parties (a required element of such a charge), saying that the education code prohibited Tudesko from having the shotguns in his vehicle were false. As a school principal who admits by his own statements that he knows the education code, and even if he didn't by mere fact of his position, reasonably should have known that his public statements that Tudesko violated the education code were false. Another decision for the jury!

The principals statements are a matter of the public record.



inbox485 wrote:

We-the-People wrote:
8) Mental anguish
Getting busted tends to do that even if you didn't intend to do something wrong.

Yes it does, and when done so unlawfully, merits award of civil penalties. There is probably also the possibilityof federal civil rights violations since Tudesko's second and fourth amendment rights were violated. I wouldn't hold your breath though, I just don't see the federal government prosecuting such a charge in this case. It is counter to the federal agenda.



inbox485 wrote:

We-the-People wrote:
I think the entire student body (with drivers licenses) should get locking firearms racks and park off campus with their hunting shotguns or rifles in the rear window. Oh the horror!!!!!
Good luck

Okay, I'll settle for everyone in Willows putting their long guns in their gun racks (unloaded and locked) and parking next to the school every day until the principal is fired.



Additionally: The police department did not sieze the weapons, the private security company did after which they turned them into the police (3). With no authority to sieze the weapons, the argument can be made that it constituted theft of private property and as an agent of the school, the school is most likely criminally liable.

SOURCES:

(1) http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?id=4832232

(2) http://www.chicoer.com/ci_13863225

(3) http://www.cityofwillows.org/vertical/Sites/%7B7D6DB31A-99CB-469D-88CF-327433878F6D%7D/uploads/%7BDA1DE84C-3966-45EA-9A08-57C23ED0B7C6%7D.DOC

(4) http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/school-90949-tudesko-willows.html
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

inbox485 wrote:
We-the-People wrote: Interesting. Very different from the early articles I read. It wouldn't be a first, but it appears I was wrong. I'll read up some more when time allows.

Not being a lawyer, I may well be wrong on someof my points as well. However, having grown up in that area (15 miles from Willows) I took particular interest in this case and have done a LOT of reading. I'm also studying business law (tort or civil law) and strangely, those of us on this board seem to already know firearms laws pretty well.

It's also great practice for my English Comp (argumentative writing) classes to do the research and cite the sources.

Bottom line, I think the principal got a bit of a "generals complex" and overstepped his authority while reading into the law to "find" that authority.

Most of us are familiar with the 1000' school zone prohibition in California as applies to the sidearms we carry but how many have read it for application to long guns? Very few I'm sure. It's just like the UOC guy who trys to tell a CC guy that he can't take a gun inside a school zone. 626.9 which UOCers know prohibits within 1000' exempts (in C.4) persons licensed to carry concealed.

I carry (open and concealed) with a concealed license but have to research when someone asks me about unlicensed open carry. I have more lattitude than they do by nature of my concealed license.I now livein Oregon and the license grants access (open or concealed) to nearly ever place a sworn officer can go.
 

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
imported post

i am glad to see you following this case and writing about it so well.... this kid got rail roaded to the max...i always knew this was a bad bust....that he was a fine upstanding young man...didnt deserve this crap! glad it is now turning out better
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,221
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
imported post

1245A Defender wrote:
i am glad to see you following this case and writing about it so well.... this kid got rail roaded to the max...i always knew this was a bad bust....that he was a fine upstanding young man...didnt deserve this crap! glad it is now turning out better

Well he is 17 (16 at time of incident) and I'm not sure we could say "fine upstanding young man" about most any kid that age but he certainly isn't the Columbine type in early stages that the school principal seems to have portrayed him as.

Ironically, I think the principal has actually harmed his (and other officials) ability to protect our children from someone who they really would need to act on by trying to press the issue on this case. Had they just dropped it after the point where the weapons were turned over to the cops the guns would have been removed from the vicinity of the school, no charges or expulsion would have occurred, and likely Tudesko would have been reluctantly willing to do some detention for his "wrong". The principal would have made a statement to the student body, kids wouldn't have brought their hunting arms and parked on the street, etc. Now, the cat is out of the bag an the principal has been effectively castrated at the school property line.

Sounds like a lose-lose-lose situation to me. Principal lost some ability to use common sense when he might need it down the road - Tudesko lost a lot of school time and is likely behind - society lost a bit of protection in that this made national news so the bad kids in Cali will now feel less fearful of having firearms in the car parked off campus.

All because a school principal overstepped his bounds and then wouldn't back off in order to save face.

About the only win in this whole ugly mess is that a lot of people have exposed to the convoluted insanity known as "California law".
 
Top