PDA

View Full Version : PLEASE HELP DUCK HUNTING HS STUDENT EXPELLED FOR UNLOADED SHOTGUNS OFF CAMPUS


CDMichel
12-18-2009, 2:18 PM
I am posting this primarily to ask CalGuns activists to assist with contacting the Glenn County Board of Education through www.calnra.com website as requested below.

I don’t want to compete with CalGuns Foundation for funding of cases like these, because CalGuns Foundation does great work funding the defense of people being prosecuted for various unjust firearm law violations. But if this case makes you as mad as it does me, you might want to help out in any way you can.

At least please email the decision makers.

To view the referenced documents please visit the post at www.calgunlaws.com. I made it a public document so you don't have to register to see the post, but if you dont mind registering anyway, I'd appreciate it.

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION FOUNDATION
ASSISTING DUCK HUNTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT WITH APPEAL
OF EXPULSION FOR HAVING UNLOADED SHOTGUNS IN OFF-CAMPUS TRUCK

The NRA and the CRPA Foundation have joined forces under their California Legal Action Project (LAP) to provide legal assistance for high school student Gary Tudesko in his fight to be readmitted to Willows High School. Sixteen-year-old Tudesko was expelled on November 19th for having unloaded shotguns in his pick-up truck that he legally parked on an off-campus, public street near the Willows High School campus. The high school is in a small rural community near Sacramento. The unloaded shotguns were in his truck because he had gone duck hunting in the early morning hours before school. The case has garnered significant national media coverage as an example of zero-tolerance policies run amuck. (See article in Chico Enterprise Record; see article in Sacramento Valley Mirror; see David Workman article; and see Fox News Video Interview of Tudesko and his mother at www.calgunlws.com.)

The shotguns were discovered in the pick up truck by scent-sniffing dogs on October 26th during a questionable school search. Police ran the license plates and determined Tudesko was the owner, then called Tudesko out of class. Tudesko cooperated and readily told the Principal about the shotguns and his early morning hunting trip.

The school first suspended Tudesko for five days, then extended the suspension indefinitely until an expulsion hearing was held. Tudesko’s mother, Susan Parisio defended her son during the November 19th public hearing on his expulsion. She challenged the school district’s legal jurisdiction to enforce the Education Code’s prohibition of guns on campus for her son having unloaded shotguns locked in an off-campus vehicle parked on a public street. Nonetheless, Willows High Principal Mort Geivett told the local School Board that, as a matter of law, it had no choice but to expel Tudesko. The Board did just that. (Notice of Expulsion is posted at www.calgunlaws.com).

Geivett claimed the school had jurisdiction over students traveling to and from school, as well as students off-campus during lunch, and that the school had jurisdiction over off campus vehicles because students could not possess firearms within 1000 feet of campus. But Geivett confused the Penal Code with the Education Code. With a number of exceptions, it is a potential criminal violation of the Penal Code, specifically the Gun Free School Zones law, to knowingly possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school. But that law has nothing to do with the sections of the Education Code Tudesko is charged with violating, which generally prohibit possession of firearms on school grounds. (Education Code sections Tudesko allegedly violalted posted at www.calgunlaws.com). Tudesko’s truck was parked off school grounds. And Gary was not traveling to or from school at the time of the search of the off-campus truck. He was in class. Moreover, schools do not enforce criminal / penal statutes like the Gun Free School Zones law, the District Attorney does. And the District Attorney and Willows Chief of Police have already stated there would be no charges filed against Tudesko, likely because there was no intent to violate the law.

Tudesko is now appealing the local school district’s expulsion order to the Glenn County Board of Education. A hearing is scheduled for January 19, 2010 at 10 a.m. at the Willows Administration Building located at 311 S. Villa Ave, Willows, CA 95988.

Tudesko is now being defended by civil rights lawyers Chuck Michel and Hillary Green of the Long Beach based law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C. (www.michellawyers.com.)

Legal issues aside, Tudesko is in this position because of a short-sighted bureaucratic approach to enforcing the school’s “zero tolerance” policy toward firearms, which in many schools and cases is misapplied. (See Zero Tolerance Memo from Department of Education: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp[/url and at www.calgunlaws.com]). Time and again these policies have resulted in a triumph of irrational political correctness over common sense and justice. Given that Tudesko had gone duck hunting that same morning with friends (hence the two shot-guns), had bird-shot loads as ammunition, had both firearms unloaded, had intentionally parked off-campus to avoid any issues, and had several people corroborate his story, school administrators should have acknowledged that the circumstances did not warrant expulsion. (See Administrator Discretion for Expulsions at www.calgunlaws.com and: [url]http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/expulsionrecomm.asp.)

Gary Tudesko needs your help and support. Please attend the hearing if possible, and at least contact the Board of Education on Gary’s behalf through the “one click” e-mail tools at www.calnra.com or by calling the Board of Education at (530) 934-6575, or fax your note of support to (530) 934-6111

Information about Gary, media coverage, copies of legal submissions, and other documents are being posted at www.calgunlaws.com.

Although the attorneys are largely working pro bono, even so there are significant costs and other fees associated with this type of defense. Donations to the CRPA Foundation / NRA LAP are appreciated. If you are able and want to help fund Gary Tudesko’s defense, as well as other LAP efforts, please visit the CRPA Foundation( http://www.crpa.org/_e/dept/06/The_CRPA_Foundation.htm) website and make a tax deductible donation today.

The NRA/CRPA Legal Action Project is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA Foundation to advance the rights of firearms owners in California. Through LAP, NRA/CRPA attorneys litigate to fight against ill-conceived gun control laws and ordinances, assist individuals like Gary, and educate state and local officials about the programs at their disposal that are effective in reducing accidents and violence without infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Theseus
12-18-2009, 2:32 PM
Ridiculous! I will be sure to communicate my outrage to the proper people.

Barbarossa
12-18-2009, 3:00 PM
This is nuts. It's freaking willows....

kermit315
12-18-2009, 3:10 PM
so, by the schools logic, they can come into any students home to search with scent sniffing dogs.

Last I checked, off campus meant none of the schools business.

Super Spy
12-18-2009, 3:17 PM
Geez this is such BS in so many ways. Granted I spent part of high school in the Northwest where the sight of pickups with occupied gun racks was normal and wouldn't get a second glance. Poor kid.

Synergy
12-18-2009, 3:19 PM
I went to Roseville High in the early 90's and guys had rifles in their gun rack for hunting! No one thought twice about it!

:facepalm:

dustoff31
12-18-2009, 3:23 PM
Geivett claimed the school had jurisdiction over students traveling to and from school, as well as students off-campus during lunch, and that the school had jurisdiction over off campus vehicles....


Somehow, I don't think they would be taking the same position if this were a teacher/administrator rather than a student.

Or maybe they would. That should scare the heck of a bunch of teachers.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
12-18-2009, 3:35 PM
Ridiculous! I will be sure to communicate my outrage to the proper people.

Your outrage is understood and shared by many of us. However, please everyone remember when contacting any of the Board of Education members that they were not the ones who expelled Tudesko; rather, they are the ones whose hands hold his fate. So when contacting them be cordial, resolute in your position, but well-mannered.

Sean A. Brady
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Main: 562-216-4444 / Direct: 562-216-4464
Fax: 562-216-4445
Email: sbrady@michelandassociates.com
Website: www.chuckmichel.com
Gun law info: www.calgunlaws.com

tba02
12-18-2009, 3:36 PM
Did I really just read this - ? - or am I having a bad dream -?
Shoot me now ... wait, you can't, I live within 100 FEET of a school,
I am impervious to your gun toting antics!

After reading PG&E's rate hike concept today and now this, I now know I am Alice, living in Wonderland.

bruss01
12-18-2009, 4:47 PM
I would love to see this play out in court for huge punitive damages. As in million+

And then have the student turn around and donate the money to the school, contingent on the policy being changed and everyone who acted to enforce his expulsions is terminated and never to work there again.

Schools need all the money they can get, but administrators need to learn a hard lesson about civil rights and common sense.

1859sharps
12-18-2009, 5:38 PM
while this is far from the most outrageous misuse of zero tolerance involving "guns" and schools. I say "guns" because some of the really out of control use of zero tolerance didn't even involve guns. they involved a drawing of by a 3rd grader and a kid waring a t shirt that had a pic of a gun on it.

Still, this is an abuse of power and I hope they win.

guayuque
12-18-2009, 6:02 PM
Mr. Michel, as one attorney to another, I am glad to see this young fellow had highly competent representation. Good luck and I will fax the Board.

tenpercentfirearms
12-18-2009, 8:46 PM
This is why I show my students the video Busted from www.flexyourrights.org. I constantly hammer them to refuse consent even on school campus. The problem is they are either too scared or think they have nothing to hide.

How awesome would it have been had the kid said, "I don't know who's vehicle that is. Can I go back to class now? I have nothing to say about that vehicle. Are you detaining me? I have nothing to say until I talk to an attorney."

Hunt
12-18-2009, 10:55 PM
Did I really just read this - ? - or am I having a bad dream -?

After reading PG&E's rate hike concept today and now this, I now know I am Alice, living in Wonderland.
no sir, not a bad dream or Wonderland, you sir, are witnessing a Communist Coup.

bigcalidave
12-19-2009, 12:06 AM
I know it sucks. And especially because its way up here in the north state. But he isn't going to win some huge judgement on a case like this. And since he was only expelled not arrested of imprisoned , he really isn't suffering that greatly. Yes I feel sorry for the kid. But zero tolerance policies are going to stick around with schools. This won't have any impact on laws or lawmaking. What's the goal here ? To get him reinstated ? To sue the district ? Is this worth a big battle ?

RRangel
12-19-2009, 4:17 AM
How does one interpret these poorly thought out ultra politically correct rules in the most extreme manner while keeping a straight face? This shows that these bureaucrats do not posses an ounce of common sense, nor the backbone to stand up for what is right.

Many of such "zero tolerance" policies are the result of a complete lack of leadership thought out by those who want the privilege of promotion without having to carry the responsibility that comes with it.

SteveH
12-19-2009, 6:25 AM
For the purposes of school discipline, not criminal prosecution, the schools claim juristiction over the kids to and from school. Mostly so they can suspend kids that walk across the street after last class to fight, smoke or drink. I'm not surprised by this one at all. I did the same thing as this student did, many times. But I went to school before Columbine.

Kid Stanislaus
12-19-2009, 8:44 AM
This saddens me. I grew up in Orland, about ten miles north of Willows. Willows is surrounded by rice fields and water bird hunting has been a thriving recreational activity there for as long as I can remember. My guess is that over the years THOUSANDS of kids have gone duck/goose hunting before school and left their shotguns in their vehicles for the day. And now this kid is having his education interrupted because some school administrater has misinterpreted the law! It's patently absurd on the face of it.

H Paul Payne
12-19-2009, 9:45 AM
NRA Members' Councils of California
http://calnra.com/skin/mclogoclr2.gif (http://calnra.com)
CALNRA: CAL-ERT 12/18/09 --- 5:00 P.M.-- MEMBER ALERT/MEDIA RELEASE

12/18/2009 5:00 PM - PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY

NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION

ASSISTING DUCK HUNTING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT WITH APPEAL

OF EXPULSION FOR HAVING UNLOADED SHOTGUNS IN OFF-CAMPUS TRUCK

The NRA and the CRPA Foundation have joined forces under their California Legal Action Project (LAP) to provide legal assistance for high school student Gary Tudesko in his fight to be readmitted to Willows High School. Sixteen-year-old Tudesko was expelled on November 19th for having unloaded shotguns in his pick-up truck that he legally parked on an off-campus, public street near the Willows High School campus. The high school is in a small rural community near Sacramento. The unloaded shotguns were in his truck because he had gone duck hunting in the early morning hours before school. The case has garnered significant national media coverage as an example of zero-tolerance policies run amuck.

For the rest of the story, and how you can help, please visit MOST RECENT CAL-ERT (http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert121809.shtml)! (We ask that you always click-through to CalNRA.com to aquire the latest information possible.)

NOTE: As you can see in the MOST RECENT CAL-ERT (http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert121809.shtml), the "ONE-CLICK" email tool is up-and-running and will make contacting the Glenn County Board of Education quite easy to do.

H Paul Payne
12-19-2009, 9:57 AM
IMPORTANT FACT: When contacting the members of the Glenn County Board of Education, please remember that these were NOT the people that expelled him in the first place. Rather, these are the ones that hold Gary’s fate in their hands. So please be courteous in your comments.

These members of the Glenn County Board of Education (who we are asking you to contact (http://www.calnra.com/calerts/calert121809.shtml)) have the authority to overrule the previous ruling (made by another school board) so that Gary Tudesko can be allowed to return to school. Please be polite with your requests.

Thank you,

Paul

inbox485
12-19-2009, 11:48 AM
This is why I show my students the video Busted from www.flexyourrights.org. I constantly hammer them to refuse consent even on school campus. The problem is they are either too scared or think they have nothing to hide.

How awesome would it have been had the kid said, "I don't know who's vehicle that is. Can I go back to class now? I have nothing to say about that vehicle. Are you detaining me? I have nothing to say until I talk to an attorney."

Better yet, "do you have a warrant to search vehicles off campus?" "Can I go back to class or are you going to continue depriving me of an education?"

bwiese
12-19-2009, 12:00 PM
This is a case very worthy of support!

radioman
12-19-2009, 2:29 PM
reading this thread takes me back to my hi school days, it was the spring of 1974 and this kid comes to shop class with an old 410, over the next 2 weeks he cut down the barrel and stock, and turned it into a pistol. he said it was a blast to shot, and got an (A) for it in class, This was in Burlimgame Ca, so why are they trying to burn this kid to the ground? yes bad things have happened over the years, and out of fear we make laws that do nothing to fix what has happened, rather these laws harm the ones they were meant to protect.

ZRX61
12-19-2009, 5:00 PM
If the school wish to claim they are responsible for students on the way to & from school.. then it follows they are also liable for any & all traffic collisions involving those students while travelling to & from school... I wonder how their insurance carrier feels about that?

If two students collide in the school parking lot, the school will be liable for all auto repairs to both vehicles....ditto any & all medical expenses treating the injuries etc

It also follows that if the kid ONLY uses his/her vehicle to travel to & from school there is no need for the parents premiums to skyrocket as they won't have to add the kids to their policies.. :)

Sionadi
12-19-2009, 5:05 PM
If the school wish to claim they are responsible for students on the way to & from school.. then it follows they are also liable for any & all traffic collisions involving those students while travelling to & from school... I wonder how their insurance carrier feels about that?

If two students collide in the school parking lot, the school will be liable for all auto repairs to both vehicles....ditto any & all medical expenses treating the injuries etc

It also follows that if the kid ONLY uses his/her vehicle to travel to & from school there is no need for the parents premiums to skyrocket as they won't have to add the kids to their policies.. :)

:party:


if only, if only, if only.....

ZRX61
12-19-2009, 5:30 PM
:party:


if only, if only, if only.....


Someone needs to point this out to the school anyway.... "oh, btw, if you are going to insist the students are your responsibility.. blah blah blah" .....can you imagine the lawsuits???

Sionadi
12-19-2009, 5:40 PM
I'l send them a Email in the morning regarding this.

tombinghamthegreat
12-19-2009, 9:14 PM
Its too bad that this case could not be used to overturn the GFZ

Someone needs to point this out to the school anyway.... "oh, btw, if you are going to insist the students are your responsibility.. blah blah blah" .....can you imagine the lawsuits???

It is surprising they say that but a about two months ago when a 15 year old girl was gang raped on school grounds after a dance in Richmond the school said that it was not their responsibility to protect the kids once they left the dance...

Sionadi
12-19-2009, 9:16 PM
This school would probably say the same thing when a kid gets run over or raped on school grounds after or before school.

Meplat
12-19-2009, 10:06 PM
Why not just frighten the bejesus out of them?:43:Your outrage is understood and shared by many of us. However, please everyone remember when contacting any of the Board of Education members that they were not the ones who expelled Tudesko; rather, they are the ones whose hands hold his fate. So when contacting them be cordial, resolute in your position, but well-mannered.

Sean A. Brady
MICHEL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
180 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 200
Long Beach, CA 90802
Main: 562-216-4444 / Direct: 562-216-4464
Fax: 562-216-4445
Email: sbrady@michelandassociates.com
Website: www.chuckmichel.com
Gun law info: www.calgunlaws.com

Meplat
12-19-2009, 10:28 PM
This principle is a statist, a fool, or a coward. None of which should have any part in educating our youth.

BTW, the .410 pistol was illegal even in 1974.





reading this thread takes me back to my hi school days, it was the spring of 1974 and this kid comes to shop class with an old 410, over the next 2 weeks he cut down the barrel and stock, and turned it into a pistol. he said it was a blast to shot, and got an (A) for it in class, This was in Burlimgame Ca, so why are they trying to burn this kid to the ground? yes bad things have happened over the years, and out of fear we make laws that do nothing to fix what has happened, rather these laws harm the ones they were meant to protect.

H Paul Payne
12-19-2009, 11:27 PM
Why not just frighten the bejesus out of them?:43:
Two reasons:
1) Because we want to win. And winning is helping this young man go back to school, not just thumping on our own chests so we feel good about our efforts.
2) Because we are contacting the people who matter. The people that we are contacting are NOT the same people who made the bad decision to expel the student/hunter. But they are the people who can make the right decision that will allow him to return to school.

In this effort, winning is everything. And like so many other things we come across in this politically-charged world: It's good to fight hard, but to win we must also fight smart!

Paul

RideIcon
12-20-2009, 1:29 AM
that is going way too far

krushem2000
12-20-2009, 10:30 AM
nuts.. since when you can you search anything off campus? Dog sniffing dogs? For what? Sure wasnt the cattle poop on truck tires that attracted the officers? I think someone ought step up and homeschool this guy, school system is a joke anyway up in those places.. is there a park on main street?

HowardW56
12-20-2009, 11:38 AM
BTW, the .410 pistol was illegal even in 1974.

Really... I could have sworn that I had seen them in gunshope sometime in the past....

CDMichel
12-21-2009, 3:13 PM
Thank you everyone for weighing in on this. Please let me know if you experience technical difficulties sending emails or opening links. There were a few bugs but hopefully we've got them worked out.

sbrady@Michel&Associates
12-23-2009, 3:25 PM
Hey everybody, the Glenn County Board of Education is receiving your e-mails and phone calls. They have informed us that they are compiling all comments into a record to be considered by the Board in rendering its decision on Mr. Tudesko's fate. So your responses are important. Thank all of you who have made your voices heard on this matter already. We encourage those of you who have not to please at least send an e-mail. You can do so by visiting: www.calnra.com. And remember to be cordial when contacting the Board. They were not the ones who made the horrible decision to expel Mr. Tudesko, but are the ones who can remedy it.

Merry Christmas

Shotgun Man
12-23-2009, 5:23 PM
I know it sucks. And especially because its way up here in the north state. But he isn't going to win some huge judgement on a case like this. And since he was only expelled not arrested of imprisoned , he really isn't suffering that greatly. Yes I feel sorry for the kid. But zero tolerance policies are going to stick around with schools. This won't have any impact on laws or lawmaking. What's the goal here ? To get him reinstated ? To sue the district ? Is this worth a big battle ?

The goal is to beat back the opposition, deter future such happenings and possibly have the school's policy declared illegal and avoid traumatizing other youngsters.

H Paul Payne
12-24-2009, 10:30 AM
I know it sucks. And especially because its way up here in the north state. But he isn't going to win some huge judgement on a case like this. And since he was only expelled not arrested of imprisoned , he really isn't suffering that greatly. Yes I feel sorry for the kid. But zero tolerance policies are going to stick around with schools. This won't have any impact on laws or lawmaking. What's the goal here ? To get him reinstated ? To sue the district ? Is this worth a big battle ?

SEE: Below

Two reasons:
1) Because we want to win. And winning is helping this young man go back to school, not just thumping on our own chests so we feel good about our efforts.
2) Because we are contacting the people who matter. The people that we are contacting are NOT the same people who made the bad decision to expel the student/hunter. But they are the people who can make the right decision that will allow him to return to school.

In this effort, winning is everything. And like so many other things we come across in this politically-charged world: It's good to fight hard, but to win we must also fight smart!

Paul

I hope this helps.

Paul

Nessal
12-24-2009, 1:41 PM
so, by the schools logic, they can come into any students home to search with scent sniffing dogs.

Last I checked, off campus meant none of the schools business.



I could have sworn this exact thing happened before. I can't remember where I heard it but it was like 2 years ago.

CDMichel
12-25-2009, 9:08 AM
LATEST NEWS COVERAGE OF TUDESKO CASE

Please keep those calls and emails going in through www.calnra.com and support the case if you can.

Thank you.


Student expelled for shotguns to appeal
By RYAN OLSON-Staff Writer
Posted: 12/23/2009 12:06:36 AM PST


Related Articles
Willows gun expulsion
Nov 29:
Editorial: Leave room for common senseNov 25:
National spotlight shines on Willows teen expelled after storing shotguns off-campusNov 20:
Student expelled for having unloaded shotguns in truckStudent expelled for having unloaded shotguns in truckWILLOWS — Attorneys representing a Willows teenager have appealed his expulsion from Willows High School after he had unloaded shotguns in his pickup parked just off campus.
Chuck Michel, owner of Michel and Associates, said he and fellow attorney Hillary Green took the case of 16-year-old Gary Tudesko "because this is an example of zero-tolerance policies run amuck."

Michel said the appeal was filed with the Glenn County Office of Education last week, with supplemental documents due Jan. 5.

There was no one available at the Willows Unified School District office available for comment Tuesday afternoon.

Student expelled for shotguns to appeal
http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_14054780

five.five-six
12-25-2009, 9:24 AM
can we have zero tolerance for crappy teachers and administrators?..... oh that's right, we have to protect their precious tenured jobs

CDMichel
01-06-2010, 6:25 AM
For those of you following this, we have posted the appeal brief that we filed to the Glenn County Board of Education at www.calgunlaws.com. It is available through a link within the article about the case.

The article is made public, so you don't have to register on the site to read it. But I would appreciate it if you would register anyway, so we can keep you posted on our efforts in Califonia on behalf of our many clients.

The hearing on this appeal is still scheduled for January 15, 2010 at 10 am. We need folks who are available to attend to show support, and we also need folks to send emails to the Board of Education supporting Gary Tudesko, the expelled student. Its easy to do tht with the contact tools at www.calnra.com.

And if you feel like making a contribution to the CRPA Foundation to support NRA / CRPA California specific efforts and litigation like this, that is welcome too. You can donate to the CRPA Foundation through http://www.crpa.org/search.aspx?si=&sp=foundation. Everyhting sent to CRPA Foundation is used in California for NRA's California efforts.

Please do whatever you can. This is crunchtime, with the hearing coming up fast. Let the Board of Education know Gary has your support!

Thank you for being involved in the fight for the RKBA

CDMichel
01-07-2010, 5:24 AM
Latest News on Tudesko - Local Paper Editorial in Support


EDITORIAL: It's just common sense: A student acted responsibly -- and was expelled for it
News & Review (Chico, CA)
http://www.newsreview.com/chico/content?oid=1349686
January 7, 2010

Please keep emailing the Board of Education through www.calnra.com

Thanks

MudCamper
01-07-2010, 8:28 AM
But Geivett confused the Penal Code with the Education Code. With a number of exceptions, it is a potential criminal violation of the Penal Code, specifically the Gun Free School Zones law, to knowingly possess a gun within 1000 feet of a school.

But this PC (626.9) doesn't even apply to shotguns, only handguns. So it's even less relevant.

CDMichel
01-13-2010, 8:40 AM
Please take note that the expulsion appeal hearing before the Glenn County Board of Education has been postponed from January 15, 2010 to Tuesday January 19, 2010 at 10 a.m.

Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused for those of you who hope to attend, but this change was unavoidable and we will work to the benefit of this situation.

Visit www.calgunlaws.com for the latest details on the case. Please visit www.calnra.com to send your email in support of Gary Tudesko to the Board of Education.

Thank you all for your efforts on behalf of our client and for your support of this case.

CDMichel
01-13-2010, 9:15 AM
For those of you who hope to attend Gary Tudesko's expulsion hearing on January 19, 2010 at 10:00 a.m., it will be held at the Glenn County Office of Education Building at 311 S. Villa Avenue in Willows.

FreedomIsNotFree
01-13-2010, 3:16 PM
Just heard an interview on KGO 810 AM with Gary, his mother and Hillary Green. Good stuff indeed.

Most troubling to me, outside the fact that Gary and his family have suffered at all, is the fact that the "random" search via canine was performed NOT by any law enforcement agency, but by a private company, Interquest (http://www.interquestk9.com/), that was attempting to drum up business from the school district. Interquest was not under contract with the school district. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY OUTRAGEOUS!

The Board MUST reinstate Gary. They will be lucky if they don't face a rather large civil case due to their mistakes.

I've done as Chuck has asked and have contact the Glenn County Board of Education via fax. Now for the next step...

The hearing was recently changed to Jan. 19th 10am, which is great news for me because I have the day off. I plan to drive up, from the South Bay, that morning and attend the hearing in support of Gary and his family.

If anyone is interested in attending, I would be happy to pick you up on my way. I will drive the wife's SUV so there is room for at least 3 additional, 4 if someone doesn't mind riding in the middle of the back seat. :)

Who's in?

GrayWolf09
01-13-2010, 4:36 PM
Great show on KGO with Gil Gross. Completely one sided -- ours for a change. Nobody can understand why the school should be concerned with something that happened off campus. No police charges have been filed. The school said he was a danger to himself or others. confiscated his shotguns, and then sent him home alone? WTF. Even the non gunnies were outraged. Good intro and good callers. Best of luck!

WokMaster1
01-13-2010, 5:19 PM
email sent. This is ridiculous! Hope the Board of Education will do the right thing.

So what can be done with the Administrator? He should be held accountable for his decisions, no?

CDMichel
01-15-2010, 9:22 AM
LATEST NEWS COVERAGE

NRA backs Willows student expelled for carrying gun in truck
KXTV (Sacramento, CA)
http://www.news10.net/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=73348&provider=top
January 15, 2010
Byline: Karen Massie

Please keep those emails coming through www.calnra.com!

obeygiant
01-15-2010, 11:53 AM
Email Sent. All of these over-reaching Zero-Tolerance Policies need to be done away with as it appears every school board has lost their grip on reality.

Markinsac
01-18-2010, 9:47 PM
Email sent to Chuck Michel regarding some statements in the local paper on the case.

http://www.sacbee.com/384/story/2469453.html

joemama
01-18-2010, 11:47 PM
any news on what happened at the hearing today?

gotgunz
01-19-2010, 1:17 AM
I am very willing to personally refund to the vice-principal the sum of $25.00 that he spent on his NRA membership.

He obviously wasted his money on something he appears to not be serious about.

fd15k
01-19-2010, 5:42 AM
Willows Police Chief Bill Spears said he decided not to file criminal charges against Tudesko because he felt the teen, whom he had taught in a course on the administration of justice, had no criminal intent.

kid didn't break any laws, how could they file anything to begin with ?

duscati
01-19-2010, 6:08 AM
School released documentation detailing the child's propensity for using racial slurs. Had to watch to kill a mockingbird in class and kept shouting n***er. Called a TA a "stupid mexican". Sounds like a great steward...idiot.

haveyourmile
01-19-2010, 10:44 AM
School released documentation detailing the child's propensity for using racial slurs. Had to watch to kill a mockingbird in class and kept shouting n***er. Called a TA a "stupid mexican". Sounds like a great steward...idiot.

Kid sounds like a real gem.

I'm not sure how I feel about expelling him, but the kid is a moron for having a shotgun in his car if he is parking for school. Everyone knows how school districts feel about the mere mention of any firearm, and while it looks like is should be thrown about because of the way it was discovered, I think the kid should have known better than to have a shotgun in his car. Yes I know he was duck hunting, yes I know kids his age hunt. I also think he should have had the foresight to drop the shotgun off at home before school. Just my .02

TexasBulldog
01-19-2010, 11:19 AM
Kid sounds like a real gem.

I'm not sure how I feel about expelling him, but the kid is a moron for having a shotgun in his car if he is parking for school. Everyone knows how school districts feel about the mere mention of any firearm, and while it looks like is should be thrown about because of the way it was discovered, I think the kid should have known better than to have a shotgun in his car. Yes I know he was duck hunting, yes I know kids his age hunt. I also think he should have had the foresight to drop the shotgun off at home before school. Just my .02

He wasn't on school property!..

What if his home was near the school and he walked to school? Should they still Expell him?

Give me a break. The company who had the dog was not even contracted with the school.

joemama
01-19-2010, 11:26 AM
School released documentation detailing the child's propensity for using racial slurs. Had to watch to kill a mockingbird in class and kept shouting n***er. Called a TA a "stupid mexican". Sounds like a great steward...idiot.


didnt know that had anything to do with the illegal search of his truck that was off school campus. :rolleyes:

JGarrison
01-19-2010, 11:40 AM
Doesn't the education code mention something about firearms not being allowed coming to or going from school? What about that rule?

fd15k
01-19-2010, 12:17 PM
Doesn't the education code mention something about firearms not being allowed coming to or going from school? What about that rule?

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/zerotolerance.asp

Hoop
01-19-2010, 12:20 PM
Kid sounds like a real gem.


If it's true and not an exaggeration.

No matter who you are I can guarantee you that you have said things during the course of your years that would not like to have published.

fd15k
01-19-2010, 12:23 PM
Doesn't the education code mention something about firearms not being allowed coming to or going from school? What about that rule?

So yeah, they have "on the way to or from school" under recommendation for expulsion :

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/expulsionrecomm.asp

HowardW56
01-19-2010, 12:33 PM
So yeah, they have "on the way to or from school" under recommendation for expulsion :

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/expulsionrecomm.asp

The actual Education Code section states:

The principal or superintendent of schools shall immediately suspend, pursuant to Section 48911, and shall recommend expulsion of a pupil that he or she determines has committed any of the following acts at school or at a school activity off school grounds:

(1)Possessing, selling, or otherwise furnishing a firearm. This subdivision does not apply to an act of possessing a firearm if the pupil had obtained prior written permission to possess the firearm from a certificated school employee, which is concurred in by the principal or the designee of the principal. This subdivision applies to an act of possessing a firearm only if the possession is verified by an employee of a school district.

(2)Brandishing a knife at another person.

(3)Unlawfully selling a controlled substance listed in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11053) of Division 10 of the Health and Safety Code.

(4)Committing or attempting to commit a sexual assault as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 48900 or committing a sexual battery as defined in subdivision (n) of Section 48900.

(5)Possession of an explosive.

inbox485
01-19-2010, 12:36 PM
didnt know that had anything to do with the illegal search of his truck that was off school campus. :rolleyes:

The situation stinks but to play devils advocate for a moment:

Is it illegal to walk around a public parking lot with a dog?
Is it illegal if that dog is trained to smell drugs and explosives?
Is it illegal to notify the school that a nearby truck has drugs and or explosives in it?
Is it illegal to ask the student if he has anything in the truck?
Was the student not participating in a school activity (going to and from school - and therefore under school jurisdiction) in possession of a firearm and ammunition?
Did the student not voluntarily admit the contents of truck?

The principle showed a lack of judgment and overreacted, but it was the kid that screwed up in the first place. It is very likely that like most schools, his school issued him a student handbook that clearly specified that going to and from school is a school activity where the school has jurisdiction and also that being in possession of a firearm on school grounds or during any school activity was prohibited.

kermit315
01-19-2010, 12:54 PM
the kid didnt break any laws or school rules, so how did he mess up again? going to school doesnt fall under school jurisdiction until he is on their property. Since it was a POV, parked off school property, until he is on their property he is free of their rules.

pingpong
01-19-2010, 12:55 PM
The appeal is today. Does anyone know if there's been any updates regarding the situation?

JGarrison
01-19-2010, 1:00 PM
The actual Education Code section states:


It also reads in 48900

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=48001-49000&file=48900-48927

48900. A pupil shall not be suspended from school or recommended
for expulsion, unless the superintendent or the principal of the
school in which the pupil is enrolled determines that the pupil has
committed an act as defined pursuant to any of subdivisions (a) to
(r), inclusive:

(b) Possessed, sold, or otherwise furnished a firearm, knife,
explosive, or other dangerous object, unless, in the case of
possession of an object of this type, the pupil had obtained written
permission to possess the item from a certificated school employee,
which is concurred in by the principal or the designee of the
principal.

(s) A pupil shall not be suspended or expelled for any of the acts
enumerated in this section, unless that act is related to school
activity or school attendance occurring within a school under the
jurisdiction of the superintendent of the school district or
principal or occurring within any other school district. A pupil may
be suspended or expelled for acts that are enumerated in this section
and related to school activity or attendance that occur at any time,
including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(1) While on school grounds.
(2) While going to or coming from school.
(3) During the lunch period whether on or off the campus.
(4) During, or while going to or coming from, a school sponsored
activity.

pingpong
01-19-2010, 1:40 PM
The appeal is today. Does anyone know if there's been any updates regarding the situation?

Answered my own question. Friday.

http://www.sacbee.com/384/story/2473698.html

inbox485
01-19-2010, 2:26 PM
the kid didnt break any laws or school rules, so how did he mess up again? going to school doesnt fall under school jurisdiction until he is on their property. Since it was a POV, parked off school property, until he is on their property he is free of their rules.

Actually he did. It's been posted at least half a dozen times on this thread alone.

N6ATF
01-19-2010, 2:44 PM
Answered my own question. Friday.

http://www.sacbee.com/384/story/2473698.html

Requires registration. Sigh.

JGarrison
01-19-2010, 2:50 PM
Actually he did. It's been posted at least half a dozen times on this thread alone.

Actually reading more into it, according to the AG's opinion, he did NOT break any school law. He was not in possession of the shotguns on his way to school.

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/96-906.pdf

pingpong
01-19-2010, 3:16 PM
Requires registration. Sigh.

Didn't ask me for registration. Here ya go:

Published: Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010 - 2:00 pm
Last Modified: Tuesday, Jan. 19, 2010 - 4:03 pm

The Glenn County Board of Education heard an appeal Tuesday in the case of an expelled high school student who had left unloaded shotguns in his truck parked next to the Willows High School tennis courts after duck hunting.

The county board heard more than three hours of arguments from the principal and school district attorney saying the expulsion was necessary, and from a gun rights attorney who called it unwarranted. The board said it would announce its decision Friday morning.

The county board has the power to overturn the decision by the Willows Unified School District in November to expel Gary Tudesko, 16.

Lawyers for Tudesko argued Tuesday that school officials had no authority to discipline Tudeskco because the truck was parked on a city street next to the campus.

Tudesko's lawyer, Chuck Michel, a prominent gun rights attorney from Long Beach, said the district had exceeded its authority by expelling a student whose guns were off school property.

He said repeated references to Tudesko's lengthy discipline problems -- and raising the specter of Columbine -- missed the point and that school officials over-reacted.

Matt Juhl-Darlington, the Willows Unified counsel, argued that times have changed, given Columbine and other mass shootings at public schools. Even in small towns like Willows where hunting is a way of life, guns can no longer be tolerated near or on campus.

He said the district acted within its authority to discipline Tudesko.

The high school school principal said that there have been 340 shooting incidents on school campuses since 1992. The case wasn't about gun rights, he told the board. It was about school safety.

The guns were discovered by gun-sniffing dogs at the school.

The Glenn County hearing attracted a packed chamber, including many of the teen's supporters, wearing hunting attire.

bigstick61
01-19-2010, 3:41 PM
So guns cannot be tolerated NEAR schools now, either. What's next, someone proposing a ban on owning guns if you live near a school? This kind of stuff is ridiculous. I will not have kids until I can ensure I can pay for them to go to a private school.

chuckdc
01-19-2010, 3:42 PM
"Even in small towns like Willows where hunting is a way of life, guns can no longer be tolerated near or on campus."

So, since I live "near" a campus, I am not allowed to have my guns at my home?:eek::mad: Sorry, there, dude, but you're headed down the path to totalitarianism.. but I suppose it's OK, because 'it's for the children':nuts:

kermit315
01-19-2010, 5:09 PM
Actually he did. It's been posted at least half a dozen times on this thread alone.

If you read JGarrison's post #73, you will see what I based my opinion on. I, however, did believe it had already been posted. I must have read it somewhere else though.

My mistake for not being more clear.

My375hp302
01-19-2010, 9:41 PM
From my local paper the Appeal-Democrat:

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/school-90880-appeal-expulsion.html

School board hears gun expulsion appeal
Comments 25 | Recommend 3
Willows student has backing of NRA
January 19, 2010 05:04:00 PM
By Lydia M. Harris/Tri-County Newspapers
A case that has drawn national attention because of the involvement of the National Rifle Association had no mention of gunowner rights at all at a Tuesday morning expulsion hearing.

Instead, the appeal of the expulsion of Willows High School junior Gary Tudesko, 17, turned more on the interpretation of the state Education Code and what discretion the school district had in the matter.

The 3 1/2 hour hearing before the Glenn County Board of Education did not have an immediate resolution. The board is expected to issue its decision about whether Tudesko will be allowed to return to class at 10 a.m. Friday.

Tudesko's expulsion came after sniffer dogs alerted trainers to two shotguns and hunting ammunition in his pickup truck on Oct. 26. He and a friend had gone duck hunting before school. The truck was parked off campus.

Susan Parisio, Tudesko's mother, appealed to the Willows Unified School board, which upheld the expulsion. The appeal then went to the county board on Dec. 16.

The NRA and another gun rights group helped pay for the attorney fees to defend Tudesko. The gun rights element of the case has stirred a lot of controversy in a community with a large hunter population.

Marc Juhl-Darlington, Willows Unified School District's attorney, cited the state Education Code in support of the expulsion, claiming schools have jurisdiction over student actions on or near school grounds, while on their way to or from school or during school activities.

Willows High Principal Mort Geivett told the board that based on that interpretation, he "had no choice" but to expel Tudesko.

Tudesko's attorneys, C.K. "Chuck" Michel and Hillary Green, argued the school was not mandated to expel Tudesko because he did not take a gun onto school property.

"He was parked on a public street," Michel said, pointing out that the Education Code specifically states that mandatory expulsion is required for possessing guns "at school."

He interpreted that to mean on school property.

"Expulsion is mandatory only when an act is at school or school activity off school grounds," he said. "When the dogs alerted to the truck, it was not on private property."

A sign warning that no firearms and no alcohol are permitted on campus is "inside the gate," Michel noted, explaining no such signs are posted along the street next to the school.

He further argued that Tudesko was "not in possession" of a gun at school or during a school activity, since, when the dogs were alerted to his truck, he was sitting in class and did not have physical possession or immediate control of a gun.

Darlington told the board that to keep students safe, a school's jurisdiction extends beyond school property. One question the county board has to answer, he told them, is, "how far does the arm reach?"

A reasonable approach should have been used in deciding what disciplinary action, if any, to take, Michel said, explaining that Tudesko had been duck hunting before school is common practice in the community and that Tudesko did not present a threat.

Darlington said other factors entered into the Willows school board's decision to uphold the expulsion. Tudesko has a history of discipline issues at the school.

Tudesko admits to using foul language, calling teachers names, fighting and being disruptive in class. He has received 24 referrals for his behavior.

The school district contended that previous disciplinary measures — detention, Saturday school and even two suspensions — have not changed Tudesko's behavior.

Michel argued that none of the previous referrals related to Tudesko possessing a gun and, therefore, the application of that code does not apply. Darlington disagreed.

Green also argued that students did not get a "fair and proper notice of where the school is and where it isn't," so Tudesko could not have known what he was doing was wrong.

Geivett said his primary concern is school safety, referring to the 340 school-related shootings in the United States since 1994.

"What if someone else took the guns out his truck and used them against someone?" the principal asked.

"We have a safe campus," Geivett emphasized. "(But) I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and pretend that it will never happen here."

In closing arguments, Green said the school had other choices, including asking Tudesko to take the guns home.

She said that Tudesko told Geivett, "I will take the guns home, if it's such a big problem."

The state Department of Education lists five items that lead to mandatory expulsion: Possessing a firearm without prior written permission or selling or otherwise furnishing a firearm; brandishing a knife; selling a controlled substance; sexual assault or sexual battery; and possessing an explosive.

The code states that students fall under school authority while on school grounds, during lunch time on or off campus, while attending school activities on or off campus and while going to and from school.

"The best thing that can come of this is official recognition of how poorly the Education Code tells people what is legal and what isn't," Michel said.

tombinghamthegreat
01-21-2010, 3:32 PM
So i was wondering is this an example where the federal gun free zone is not enforceable regarding long guns?

scootergmc
01-22-2010, 6:58 PM
Don't know if this is duped (I assume it is), but the kid's expulsion was overturned today. Great news.

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2481590.html

rabagley
01-22-2010, 7:38 PM
Very nice. Thanks for the link.

Ding126
01-22-2010, 8:31 PM
On tonights news, the kid was allowed back into school..Congrat's to all the players who made it happen. Thanks Chuck, CGN & NRA

tenpercentfirearms
01-22-2010, 10:34 PM
The principal was disappointed in the decision. What a moron. Everyone needs to teach their teenagers not to consent to searches. Especially off campus. The kid should have said, "I don't consent to searches, can I go back to class now? I have nothing more to say to you. Can I go back to class now? I have an important class I am missing." Seriously, drug sniffing dogs off campus? I would be raising hell if that were my community and I wouldn't let this stop there. I would be putting major pressure on the board to review its policies and also reconsider the principals performance.

Meplat
01-23-2010, 12:22 AM
My nephew and a few friends were instructed, with all students, to leave their backpacks in the classroom and assemble on the Lawn of there high school so drug sniffing dogs could check out their belongings. My nephew and his friends (all good students, with good records) picked up their backpacks and took them with them to the assembly point and told the school administration to go pound sand, they would not consent to any search. They were not searched. I know without a doubt that my nephew had no contraband beyond, maybe a Boy Scout knife. When his parents were contacted to complain about his behavior his mother (a school principle herself) told them she was proud of him and they would peruse this at their own peril. They dropped it.

You cannot go to a ****** family reunion and throw a rock without hitting an educator. They universally say that our public school system is designed to produce obedient serfs that show up for work on time, not independent thinkers.




The principal was disappointed in the decision. What a moron. Everyone needs to teach their teenagers not to consent to searches. Especially off campus. The kid should have said, "I don't consent to searches, can I go back to class now? I have nothing more to say to you. Can I go back to class now? I have an important class I am missing." Seriously, drug sniffing dogs off campus? I would be raising hell if that were my community and I wouldn't let this stop there. I would be putting major pressure on the board to review its policies and also reconsider the principals performance.

tenpercentfirearms
01-23-2010, 8:02 AM
My nephew and a few friends were instructed, with all students, to leave their backpacks in the classroom and assemble on the Lawn of there high school so drug sniffing dogs could check out their belongings. My nephew and his friends (all good students, with good records) picked up their backpacks and took them with them to the assembly point and told the school administration to go pound sand, they would not consent to any search. They were not searched. I know without a doubt that my nephew had no contraband beyond, maybe a Boy Scout knife. When his parents were contacted to complain about his behavior his mother (a school principle herself) told them she was proud of him and they would peruse this at their own peril. They dropped it.

You cannot go to a ****** family reunion and throw a rock without hitting an educator. They universally say that our public school system is designed to produce obedient serfs that show up for work on time, not independent thinkers.

I teach personal rights in my contemporary issues class at a continuation high school. Now keep in mind a lot of these kids are boneheads that really need to be caught doing the stupid things they do and be held accountable. At the same time, their rights are trampled on by the cops frequently due to their being young and/or minorities. I explain to them that their rights are limited to a certain extent on campus, but they always have a right to refuse consent to search. I keep waiting for the dean to call me in and ask why a kid refused consent to search in his office and said Mr. Morris said he could do it.

However, all we need is reasonable suspicion to search (less than probable cause) so it won't be hard to find or even create a reason.

It is all just a big game.

CDMichel
01-24-2010, 8:34 PM
Just want to take a moment to say THANK YOU to everyone who called in, emailed, contributed money, or in any other way assisted the NRA, the CRPA Foundation, and this office in getting Gary Tudesko reinstated to Willows High School. You guys helped us get the ball over the goal line.

Now I just hope the school district realizes it has nothing to gain, and potentially much to lose, by taking this any higher to court. Because if they go to court, Gary can and we will bring his own legal claims.

The school district went to great lengths in the end to smear Gary with a bunch of distorted claims about his disciplinary referral record. That was the most frustrating aspect of this case. None of those referrals were ever serious enough to warrant counselling or other intervention, and none of the referring teachers recommended any further disciplinary action even though they could have simply by basically checking a box on the referral form. Yet when they knew they were losing on the law the district tried to paint Gary as some kind of a violent racist. All of those distorted and borderline defamatory claims could have been countered and explained with evidence that would have made it clear Gary is a good kid, even if he sometimes mouthed off too much in class (reminds me of me at 17). We were ready to do that, but it would have required a trial "de novo." We argued the Board of Education didn't need to take any additional evidence, because there were sufficient grounds to reverse the expulsion without more evidence. The Board agreed, and that's good. But now regrettably the misimpression created by the smear campaign lingers.

Anyhow, thanks again, and especially thanks to Paul Payne, Ed Worley, the CRPA Foundation Board of Directors, and my co-counsels Hillary J. Green and Glenn S. McRoberts.

Next case . . .

rromeo
01-24-2010, 9:56 PM
Congratulations on the victory.

SIGscout
01-25-2010, 6:26 AM
congrats!! I'm glad to see good people helping good people.

artherd
01-25-2010, 6:49 AM
Every time I hear "Zero Tolerance" - I think "No Brains".

Support this case!

scc1909
01-25-2010, 9:15 AM
So yeah, they have "on the way to or from school" under recommendation for expulsion :

http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/expulsionrecomm.asp
IANAL, but IMO this matrix does not have anything like the force of law. Oh sure, if the principal/administration claims this authority, and if the student doesn't fight it, they de facto have it, but that doesn't give it the force of law, as the Willows HS principal found out to his embarrassment.

It also reads in 48900

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=48001-49000&file=48900-48927

48900. A pupil shall not be suspended from school or recommended
for expulsion, unless the superintendent or the principal of the
school in which the pupil is enrolled determines that the pupil has
committed an act as defined pursuant to any of subdivisions (a) to
(r), inclusive:

(b) Possessed, sold, or otherwise furnished a firearm, knife,
explosive, or other dangerous object, unless, in the case of
possession of an object of this type, the pupil had obtained written
permission to possess the item from a certificated school employee,
which is concurred in by the principal or the designee of the
principal.

(s) A pupil shall not be suspended or expelled for any of the acts
enumerated in this section, unless that act is related to school
activity or school attendance occurring within a school under the
jurisdiction of the superintendent of the school district or
principal or occurring within any other school district. A pupil may
be suspended or expelled for acts that are enumerated in this section
and related to school activity or attendance that occur at any time,
including, but not limited to, any of the following:
(1) While on school grounds.
(2) While going to or coming from school.
(3) During the lunch period whether on or off the campus.
(4) During, or while going to or coming from, a school sponsored
activity.
Emphasis added. Again, IANAL, but it strikes me that the key to the school's legal power over students (their claim of in locus parentis) lies in the parts I highlight above. The activity must meet both one of conditions 1-4 above AND be related to a school activity or attendance. Claims that the school has blanket "door to door" authority are specious, because if they did a kid couldn't go hunting in the morning or afternoon, or directly to an after school job, a friend's house or to the mall prior to going home first without the express written permission of the principal, and we know that happens all the time.

Oh sure, if you are out for a before-classes morning run with the cross-country team and rob a convenience store on your way, you are at a "school activity" and subject to their jurisdiction. Likewise if you are off school grounds at an officially sponsored school activity like the parade those kids in Alaska got busted at for holding up a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner. But merely "on your way to school" doesn't meet that test IMO, and it looks to me like the kid's lawyer convinced the School Board of this basic reality.

Now, I don't know all the details of this case and could be totally off base, but that's my take on it. The important thing to me is that he didn't just take it laying down, but stood up for his rights. And now that this ruling has been splashed all over the front pages of every newspaper in California, I suspect that we'll see other kids saying "not so fast" when schools automatically reach for authority they don't have.

inbox485
01-27-2010, 6:55 PM
Actually reading more into it, according to the AG's opinion, he did NOT break any school law. He was not in possession of the shotguns on his way to school.

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/pdfs/96-906.pdf

I would still say he was in possession even per that opinion. The opinion cited the example of having a gun in a backpack. The only difference between that and a trunk is a little extra time involved in retrieving it.
"Possession" in this context has been defined by the courts as the immediate control of an object; the thing possessed must be under the dominion of the possessor.
Something in your trunk is under your immediate control and dominion.
Possession may be in the hand, clothes, purse, bag, or other container.
This furthers the idea assuming a trunk is a container.

To be clear, I'm glad the kid got a pass on this one, but in a strict sense, I would say he violated school policy. If he had a kilo of cocaine in his trunk I don't think people would be clamoring to his defense saying he was not in possession.

Surf&Skeet
01-27-2010, 9:46 PM
[/QUOTE]
Something in your trunk is under your immediate control and dominion.

This furthers the idea assuming a trunk is a container.
[/QUOTE]

1) he had no trunk, he had a pickup truck.

2) even assuming he did have a trunk (or that the cab of his truck qualified as a container), he did not possess the "container" while on school grounds. How is something locked away in a truck cab/trunk off campus under one's immediate control or dominion while they are across the street in a class on campus?

Sorry, I don't think your argument holds up. But it is good to see some people are still fair minded and able to look at the law despite their biased feelings about the situation involved. You should be commended, as that is an attribute of an intellectually honest person, not an ideologue.

tenpercentfirearms
01-28-2010, 5:48 AM
To be clear, I'm glad the kid got a pass on this one, but in a strict sense, I would say he violated school policy. If he had a kilo of cocaine in his trunk I don't think people would be clamoring to his defense saying he was not in possession.Ah the classic argument of comparing guns and illicit drugs. Nice. :rolleyes:

If he had illegal drugs in the vehicle, you are correct, we would not be so upset that he would have not only been expelled, but probably prosecuted for a serious felony.

However, he didn't have a kilo of cocaine in his vehicle. He had a hunting shotgun. A hunting shotgun that is perfectly legal for him to possess, unlike a kilo of cocaine. He can possess said shotgun off campus all he wants and he is breaking no law as he has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. When the school pulled him out of class and asked to search his vehicle off campus, they were violating his rights and he wasn't smart enough at the time to realize it. He should have never consented to a search as the school has no business worrying about what he has in his vehicle parked off campus.

A better analogy for you to use would have been to compare him to a school shooter. Would we have been so upset if he also had an attack plan and a hit list in the vehicle? Possibly not. However, the point still stands, he had no such things. He was a law abiding citizen being a responsible young man and the school over reacted just as "zero tolerance laws" are designed to do. They take away common sense and an educational approach away from school discipline and cause more damage than good. All in the name of safety are America's students being thrown to the side.

What would have happened if a principle with a little common sense said, "Hey, what in the hell are you doing searching vehicles on the street? And he said he was out duck hunting, put his gun back in his truck right now and let's not do this again."

And what would have happened if someone had found out about the principle putting the shotgun back into the car and it got into the media? "Yes I have a statement. Our security officer clearly overstepped their legal bounds and searched vehicles off campus. We clearly have no jurisdiction or right to do such things. During the course of these unwarranted searches, we did discover one of our students had a hunting shotgun in his vehicle that he was using for hunting that same day before school. This is not illegal and we are not going to criminalize this youth for being a responsible citizen. We would encourage students to please not leave firearms in their vehicles off campus as it might encourage theft and miscommunication, but no crimes were committed, there was no threat to the school, staff, or students and this issue is closed. Thank you."

inbox485
01-28-2010, 8:27 AM
1) he had no trunk, he had a pickup truck.
Quite right on that point. My point was it was in his vehicle which was under his control and dominion.
2) even assuming he did have a trunk (or that the cab of his truck qualified as a container), he did not possess the "container" while on school grounds. How is something locked away in a truck cab/trunk off campus under one's immediate control or dominion while they are across the street in a class on campus?
The school had jurisdiction while the student was going to or from school even if it is off campus. The jurisdiction of school codes are not limited to school grounds. They can, have, and will likely continue to tell students what they can or can't do while at or coming to or from any school activity on or off school grounds.
Sorry, I don't think your argument holds up. But it is good to see some people are still fair minded and able to look at the law despite their biased feelings about the situation involved. You should be commended, as that is an attribute of an intellectually honest person, not an ideologue.
Thanks. I'm a big believer in seeing the law for what it is and not what I'd like it to be, and more often than not, I don't like it as it is.

inbox485
01-28-2010, 8:55 AM
Ah the classic argument of comparing guns and illicit drugs. Nice. :rolleyes:

If he had illegal drugs in the vehicle, you are correct, we would not be so upset that he would have not only been expelled, but probably prosecuted for a serious felony.

However, he didn't have a kilo of cocaine in his vehicle. He had a hunting shotgun. A hunting shotgun that is perfectly legal for him to possess, unlike a kilo of cocaine. He can possess said shotgun off campus all he wants and he is breaking no law as he has a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. When the school pulled him out of class and asked to search his vehicle off campus, they were violating his rights and he wasn't smart enough at the time to realize it. He should have never consented to a search as the school has no business worrying about what he has in his vehicle parked off campus.
Just in case you need it: :chillpill:

The school did have jurisdiction over the truck since he drove to school in it. The dog sniff was not a police search nor was it illegal. I can walk my dog where I please, and if it where trained to smell explosives, I could notify whomever I felt like if the dog sniffed something. The student was asked if he had anything in the car and volunteered information he didn't have to and consented to the search. So the principal didn't violate his rights either.

The irony is that had he parked on campus, the dog wouldn't have had access to sniff the truck.
A better analogy for you to use would have been to compare him to a school shooter. Would we have been so upset if he also had an attack plan and a hit list in the vehicle? Possibly not. However, the point still stands, he had no such things. He was a law abiding citizen being a responsible young man and the school over reacted just as "zero tolerance laws" are designed to do. They take away common sense and an educational approach away from school discipline and cause more damage than good. All in the name of safety are America's students being thrown to the side.
Just like the cocaine example, it doesn't quite compare. Planning to shot up the school is a serious crime on a higher caliber than drugs since it could easily result in terrorist charges. I just couldn't think of another irrational evil substance that is prohibited by the same school code that wasn't also a serious crime.
What would have happened if a principle with a little common sense said, "Hey, what in the hell are you doing searching vehicles on the street? And he said he was out duck hunting, put his gun back in his truck right now and let's not do this again."

And what would have happened if someone had found out about the principle putting the shotgun back into the car and it got into the media? "Yes I have a statement. Our security officer clearly overstepped their legal bounds and searched vehicles off campus. We clearly have no jurisdiction or right to do such things. During the course of these unwarranted searches, we did discover one of our students had a hunting shotgun in his vehicle that he was using for hunting that same day before school. This is not illegal and we are not going to criminalize this youth for being a responsible citizen. We would encourage students to please not leave firearms in their vehicles off campus as it might encourage theft and miscommunication, but no crimes were committed, there was no threat to the school, staff, or students and this issue is closed. Thank you."
I could easily make the argument that the principal's hands were tied. Zero tolerance policies are designed to do just that. That said, I knew of somebody when I was in high school that got busted for almost the exact same thing only he was on school property. I don't recall if it was already state law at the time, but it was after columbine and I know for certain that the district had a zero tolerance policy with almost the exact wording as the current state law. The principal knew there was no mal-intent and did everything he could to drag his feet until the district rejected expulsion. In the end I think he had on-campus suspension for three days and no actual school days missed. So while the principal may not have been able to legally ignore the situation, he could have handled it more reasonably.

norm365
01-28-2010, 9:06 AM
"The school had jurisdiction while the student was going to or from school even if it is off campus. The jurisdiction of school codes are not limited to school grounds. They can, have, and will likely continue to tell students what they can or can't do while at or coming to or from any school activity on or off school grounds."

Glad to see that school codes over ride constitutional rights of students on or off school grounds.

inbox485
01-28-2010, 9:23 AM
"The school had jurisdiction while the student was going to or from school even if it is off campus. The jurisdiction of school codes are not limited to school grounds. They can, have, and will likely continue to tell students what they can or can't do while at or coming to or from any school activity on or off school grounds."

Glad to see that school codes over ride constitutional rights of students on or off school grounds.

The student can't posses a gun going to or from school and I can't posses an unlocked handgun within a gun free school zone.

As I've mentioned before, there is no second amendment right in CA nor will there be until it is rammed down the throats and up the butts of the legislature.

You can wave what is considered toilet paper to much of our government all you want, but welcome back to reality.

norm365
01-28-2010, 9:42 AM
But what is the zone by your argument school codes have no limits to tell students what to do. Then buy driving by a school with a secure firearm is illegal ?.

Did we lose the right to keep firearms in Kalifornia?.

And what kind of T.P. are we talking about because I'll fight for triple ply, its good stuff are we in reality yet.

inbox485
01-28-2010, 10:12 AM
But what is the zone by your argument school codes have no limits to tell students what to do.
The jurisdiction of a school is based on conditions not zones. In general the conditions are:

The person involved is a student
The person is going to, coming from, or at a school activity

It is the exact same authority that allows a school to discipline students for fighting on the way home from school.
Then buy driving by a school with a secure firearm is illegal?
Locked and unloaded is fine, but otherwise you get to join the 626.9 club.
Did we lose the right to keep firearms in Kalifornia?.
To what right are you referring to? It hasn't been criminalized entirely if that is what you are asking.
And what kind of T.P. are we talking about because I'll fight for triple ply, its good stuff are we in reality yet.
I'm referring to the constitutional variety. It's single ply, and full of splinters. It has a way of biting back when used for toilet paper but some politicians insist.