We-the-People
Regular Member
imported post
This is a long reply but I have cited my sources (with links).
inbox485 wrote:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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:
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
This is a long reply but I have cited my sources (with links).
inbox485 wrote:
We-the-People wrote:
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.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.
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.
Local PD didn't run the plates.3) Local PD running the plate for the school without proper legal authority.
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:
The student volunteered the information and was fully corporative. The principal was free to ask. The student was free to not answer.4) Intimidation/color of authority in intimidating the student to "consent" to a search of his vehicle.
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:
Discipline was done per school code requirements.5) Long term (October/November until now) unjustifiable expulsion.
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:
Good luck6) Attorney's fees
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:
Perhaps I missed where the school lied about anything.7) Defamation of character
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:
Getting busted tends to do that even if you didn't intend to do something wrong.8) Mental anguish
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:
Good luckI 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!!!!!
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