13-year-old student arrested for burping

(CBS/AP) Albuquerque, NM 12/1/11

A 13-year-old was handcuffed and hauled off to a juvenile detention for burping in class, according to a civil rights lawsuit filed against an Albuquerque public school principal, a teacher and a city police officer.
The suit was filed Wednesday, the same day the district was also sued by the family of a 7-year-old autistic boy who was handcuffed to a chair.The Albuquerque Journal reports the unnamed seventh grader was arrested last May 11 at Cleveland Middle School after he "burped audibly" in his P.E. class. "Criminalizing of the burping of a thirteen-year-old boy serves no governmental purpose," the lawsuit said. "Burping is not a serious disruption, a threat of danger was never an issue."
The lawsuit alleges the boy was transported to the juvenile center without his parents being notified. It also says he was denied his due process rights because he was suspended for the rest of that school year without "providing him an explanation of the evidence the school claimed to have against him." He was not allowed to call witnesses or defend himself against the burping allegation.
The boy was never charged. He scored a - 2 on a scale of 1 to 10 according to a risk assessment given by the jail staff, 10 being extremely dangerous.
It also details a separate incident this school year when administrators became suspicious because the boy had $200 in his pocket. He claimed it was because he was going to go shopping after school, but administrators accused him of selling pot to another student. The boy asked to call his mother; instead, they forced the student to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched.
He was not charged with any crime related to that incident either.
A spokeswoman for Albuquerque Public Schools said she had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment.

Now I've heard everything... I've posted on this blog about students arrested for turning in contraband, for following creative writing assignments, and for bringing candy to school, but this? This baffles me. How can you possibly foster a learning environment when you're handcuffing kids to chairs? What's next, strait jackets and ball gags? This kind of administration contributes more to the problems than it does to solve them.

Wednesday May 25 2011, San Antonio Express-News

Shortly after a supervisor told Daniel Alvarado to stay with the victim of a minor assault and not search for the suspect, the school district officer ran into the backyard of a Northwest Side home with his gun drawn.

Moments later, Alvarado fired his weapon, killing an unarmed 14-year-old boy.
The November incident was not the first time the officer had ignored an order, according to records recently obtained by the San Antonio Express-News.

Since 2006, Alvarado's supervisors at the Northside Independent School District Police Department had reprimanded or counseled him on at least 12 occasions — six for not following orders. In other cases, Alvarado failed to show up for assignments, and his bosses appeared to suspect him of lying.

Alvarado was suspended at least four times, and his supervisors warned of impending termination four times — once even recommending it.

But Alvarado, 46, never was fired. Six months after the death of student Derek Lopez, as an investigation into the shooting continues, the 17-year veteran of the Police Department remains with the school district.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Still-on-patrol-1388322.php#ixzz1NQSq4MpQ

 

Criminal proceedings, please. In this country, no person--no matter what their position, or authority--should be able to shoot an unarmed child after directly disobeying orders. That this murderer continues to serve as an officer while the investigation is ongoing is a disgrace to the justice system. He should be held in custody, like any other human being would. I hope that justice will be served and if any of my readers find a follow-up story, please share it in the comments.

Student Expulsion Overturned

Orland Press Register, January 22 2010

Gary Tudesko can go back to Willows High School Monday.

The Glenn County Board of Education overturned the high school junior's expulsion for having shotguns and ammunition in his pickup truck on a street next to, but not on, the high school campus.

The board held the appeal hearing on Tuesday. It announced its decision Friday morning.

"I'm excited. I want to go back to school as soon as I can. I can't wait for the first day to be right back in there," Tudesko said.

In addition to reversing the Willows Unified School District board's decision, the county trustees ordered Tudesko's expulsion be removed from the school record.

It also ordered "any costs incurred by the pupil or his parents be reimbursed by the district.

The county board ruled the district had "acted in excess of its jurisdiction" because the act "did not occur on school grounds or at a school activity."

Furthermore, the county board stated that Tudesko did not have an opportunity for a "fair hearing" before the district board, because he "was not provided timely written notice of all evidence...."

The board also found "prejudicial abuse of discretion by the district" because it failed to show how other discipline choices were not feasible, or that Tudesko was a "continuing danger to the physical safety of the student and others."

The final finding stated that the board "need not reach a determination" about whether relevant and material evidence existed or "was improperly excluded at the hearing before the district governing board."

GCOE board president Judy Holzapfel reported that the trustees had met for about three hours between sessions on Thursday night and Friday morning.

"We felt it extremely important to get this correct and in the proper order," she said to a room filled with Willows Unified school administrators and Tudesko supporters, including several NRA representatives, at least one from Washington, D.C.

Willows High Principal Mort Geivett's reaction to the reversal was disappointment.

"I'm disappointed, but not surprised, due to the political climate we have here and the fact we have school board members who are going up for re-election and a superintendent who might be running for re-election," he said.

"And, the fact they had to face folks who are avid hunters. In this community, you have to dig down deep to stand up and do the right thing," he added.

Of greater concern, Geivett said, is "the decision clearly compromises the safety and security of kids and staff members on my campus and this clearly goes beyond Willows High."

Willows Unified Superintending Steve Olmos' response was one of confusion.

The decision "has left me dumbfounded, almost speechless," he said.

The county board "is undermining our authority. They are definitely saying we don't have jurisdiction off campus," he complained.

"We are even responsible for monitoring students in cyber space," he said, noting that school are expected to keep an eye out for cyber bullying, which does not have to happen on school grounds.

Still, the overriding concern among school administrators is safety.

Olmos said the county board said in its ruling that Tudesko "can park in that spot with guns in his truck and, my concern, is that other people will know or believe he has guns near school. And you never know what other people may do."

He also noted that two city streets go through campus, which means students have to cross city streets to go from class to class.

He questioned whether the Board of Education's ruling means the school does not have jurisdiction when students are on those streets.

Tudesko's mother, Susan Parisio, said "I'm so relieved. It's been such a long, long battle."

It was a battle Tudesko has said he did not want to pursue, but his mother thought it was important.

And apparently, gun rights adovates agreed.

Tudesko's appeal, presented by Long Beach attorneys C.K. "Chuck" Michel and Hillary Green, was funded in part by the National Rifle Association's and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation's combined Legal Action Project.

Michel and Assoc. specializes in firearms, environmental, land use and employment law.

At a press conference following the Board of Education's ruling, Michel said he was pleased with the decision.

"We want to keep kids safe," but he said school administrators "need to know the difference between a good kid and a bad kid."

Referring to the 340 school-related shootings since 1994, Michel said, arguing there is a big difference between those shooters and young hunters.

Tudesko and a friend had been duck hunting prior to the start of school on the day two shotguns were discovered in his truck by detection dogs.

"We don't want anymore tragedies on campuses. But we have to have common sense," Michel said.

Olmos could not say whether the district will take the ruling to court. He and the school board will have weigh the options before deciding what to do next.

"If they'll stay out of court, we'll stay out of court," Michel countered.

County Superintendent of Schools Arturo Barerra did not participate in the board's closed sessions,

At Tuesday's appeal hearing, Willows Unified attorney Matt Juhl-Darlington, who did not attend Friday's meeting, had asked the board to exclude the Barerra because of previous issues between he and Olmos.

The board denied that request.

Still, Olmos thought the board made a political decision.

"Unfortunately I think it did," Olmos said.

The county board members declined to comment on their decision.

Thankfully, sanity does prevail! The county board's decision is a stern reprimand of the school's almost totalitarian attitude regarding its students. It's hardly surprising to hear the superintendent whining about how they don't have jurisdiction off campus; whoever these people are, they seem to like running their little empire. They're also in flat denial that they even DO have limits to their authority; they complain that this decision was politically motivated.

It's good to see that justice can be served, but from the school board's attitude nothing is going to change. This sort of thing should never have had to go to court in the first place.

Student charged despite lack of evidence

The Register-Herald, October 3 2007

A Woodrow Wilson High School student was arrested Wednesday and charged with bringing a weapon to school, Beckley police said.

The 17-year-old boy from the Beckley area was charged with bringing a dangerous weapon into an educational facility, Cpl. Sam McClure said. Police will obtain juvenile petitions against the boy. He was released to a guardian’s custody.

Wednesday morning, school officials told police a student reportedly had a handgun in his possession, McClure said. The campus was placed under lockdown and searched by K-9 units. No weapon was found.

However, police obtained witness statements at the scene, McClure said. Based on information gathered in the investigation, police charged the boy, believing he had brought a weapon to school at some other point.

Woodrow Principal Bob Maynard said the lockdown began around 8:45 a.m. and ended around 10:15 a.m. During a lockdown, all students are kept inside classrooms and no one is allowed in the hallways.

Maynard said Beckley police officers and their K-9 units would have been at the school Wednesday anyway for a random search. During that time, school personnel received the gun report.

“They were there for a random search, and they happened to be there when the report of the weapon was made,” Maynard said.

“(The K-9s) are very useful and prevalent. They are a good tool to have to help schools out. We have a good working relationship with the Beckley Police Department.”

Personnel at Woodrow will always work to ensure the school is a safe environment for all students, Maynard said.

Witness statements are cause for investigation, but to return no evidence and yet still arrest the accused on the same charges is a heinous presumption of guilt. In our justice system, the enforcers first must prove that a crime was committed; then the judicial system determines whether the crime was committed by the accused. The crime is based on possession of a weapon, and if none can be found then the accusations are nothing but hearsay. I hope the family's lawyer rips apart the police's procedures at the hearing.

"The arrest was based on witness reports that led police to believe the boy had brought a gun to school at some point." How much more uncertain and ambiguous can we get? How can we tolerate this kind of attack on our freedom? And how ironic that it is all in the name of safety; where anyone can be accused, arrested, and charged for vaguely defined crimes in the past or present, and have their lives ruined without a shred of evidence, then NOBODY is safe.

We need to be reminded that "Freedom" and "Liberty" are not merely words or mottoes or political tokens, they are genuine ideas that need our support. If you want to argue that 'freedom is not free' then I challenge you to dismiss charges against this student and have the school formally apologize to him. Freedom means freedom from fear, from oppression, from tyranny and from persecution, and this student--like all Americans--has a right to be free.