Please Sign In

Please enter a valid username and password
  • Log in with Facebook
» Not a member? Take a moment to register
» Forgot Username or Password

Why Register?
Signing up could earn you gear (click here to learn how)! It also keeps offensive content off our site.

Discussion Topic: No-Tolerance Policy Extends Off Campus

Recent Comments

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives

Syndicate

Google Reader or Homepage
Add to My Yahoo!
Add to My AOL

Field Notes
in your Inbox

Enter your email address to get our new post everyday.

November 23, 2009

Discussion Topic: No-Tolerance Policy Extends Off Campus

By Dave Hurteau

You read that right, off campus. In the latest no-tolerance outrage, a California school has expelled a 16-year-old hunter for having two unloaded shotguns in his vehicle parked off campus. If this keeps up, school administrators are just going to take to the field en mass, confiscate guns from any and all student hunters, and promptly kick them out of school.

From the Chico Enterprise Record:

The Willows Unified School District board of trustees has expelled a 16-year-old for having unloaded shotguns in his pickup parked just off the Willows High School campus.

The board voted 4-0 Thursday to expel junior Gary Tudesko after the weapons were discovered via scent-sniffing dogs on Oct. 26. . . .

Susan Parisio defended her son during the 105-minute public hearing at Willows Civic Center . . . question[ing] the district's ability to enforce its policies off Willows High School property.

"My son was not even parked on school property," Parisio said. . . .

Willows High Principal Mort Geivett and other district officials did not appear to dispute that the parking space was off school property, but they cited several justifications. One of them was the legal doctrine of in loco parentis — where school officials may act in place of a parent for school functions. . . .

Geivett said he believed off-campus parking around the school was under the school's jurisdiction, in part because it is primarily used by students.

"I'm erring on the safe side of protecting staff and kids," he said.

Geivett is right about one thing: He is erring.

Be sure to check out the full story and tell us your reaction.

Comments (56)

Top Rated
All Comments
from osobear wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

A student can't even obey the rules without getting in trouble. He knew he couldn't park on campus with his guns in the vehicle so he parks off campus and is still in trouble. Bull-sh**. If they are going to make up rules about off campus parking being controlled the same as on campus parking then they need to make sure that every student knows that. The kid obviously wanted to obey the rules and if he knew of this one he would have obeyed it as well, probably.

Not to mention the other students that broke the rules as well should have gotten the same punishment

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from prairieghost wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

that school district would be facing the biggest damn law suit you can imagine. while i generally oppose litigation, this is a case screaming to settled by a court of law. no one should ever have the right to control when and where i park my car and what i may legally have in the car. it was in all respects an illigal search and as such any evidence is tainted anyway. i'd be organizing a complete recall of that school board. Where's the NRA on this?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from RichardF wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

There is an exclusion to the rule for private property, which would make it legal for a homeowner to have firearms across the street from a school, a vehicle is also private property and when parked on a public property should not be allowed to be searched, or for that matter even have a dog walk by it unless it is by the city police. The school has no rights to leave the school property. Only in Claifornia can you follow the rules and be punnished. I guess this is why their prisions are overcrowded.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I have two questions?

1. With the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 barring possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, does that come into play here?

2. What are the laws in California as it pertains to a 16 year old in possession of a firearm and ammo?

3. With gun laws as they are in today's society (and especially in California) why would a young person's parents allow him/her to carry firearms anywhere near a school?

While it may seem that I'm siding with the school, I'm not, I just wonder if any of the above questions were pondered by the youth and his parents before this happened?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Sorry, not two questions but a few. My mistake.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from horseman308 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Is anybody else curious why there were dogs being used in the first place? Was there a tip on drugs or something, was there just a K9 patrol that happened to be walking by, or is it standard policy to sniff every students' vehicle on and off campus?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from stormn wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

With stories like this popping up on a regular basis I put some of the blame on the 16 year old. It simply does not make sense to bring your guns to school or around school. We live in a hyper-sensative world where everyone must be protected from themselves. The parents and the child should have known that.
On the other hand the school should realize where their jurisdiction ends and it should be at their property line. I am very opposed to school districts and their ever growing need to be the judge jury and executioner in these cases.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from thuroy wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

What next students being expelled for hunting on state game areas where other students may be hunting? The other question why were the dogs being used of school grounds?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

For all the school did wrong, both sides are at fault here. I actually think the term "within range" of a school would apply here.

In the People's Republic of California, no 16-year old should be driving to, near, or around a school with guns. There has been enough news going on for years that some kid should not be stupid enough to take guns to, or near, school. Are 16-year olds in California allowed to even own guns?

If the school was sending gun(?)-sniffing dogs all over the neighborhood every day, he should have been aware of it. If not... he might have been mouthing off about having the guns, got overheard, and reported.

It's not a fair cop, but a dumb kid nontheless.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I don't think people get it. The left wing anti-gun lobby will not have the President take away our guns, no they WANT US TO TAKE THEM TO OUR GRAVES!They are looking 30 years in the future. Brainwash kids into thinking hunting is wrong and harass the youth who appreciate hunting and soon there will be no reason to criticize hunting anymore because no one will be left who does hunt. Then a simple ban on weapons would be easy- no opposition. This is a clear case of harassing a young man who was doing something lawful. The school officials new it was season, they new who hunted, and they new that if they pushed the envelope they would find someone to punish. There was no threat to public safety, this was an intentional act to mock, ridicule and demean a student that hunts.
Well the school board may have awoken adults who vote!!!!!!
The change that is needed, to kick out the deadwood. Kick out those who believe they can think better than we can, that we are too stupid to think for ourselves, that we need to be protected from ourselves. It is time to vote the bums out- out of our school boards, out of our town councils, and out of our states.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I think that this country as a whole is headed in this direction. I feel for the expelled student.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sharkfin wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Does anyone ever notice that we never hear of a gang banger getting expelled for having guns near or on school property it's pretty much hunters, cadets, etc. I don't know if it happeining or not but I only hear about decent kids getting in trouble for guns or knives. Kids that have never hurt anyone. Has gun violence gone down so much that the nazis can start targeting kids that don't start problems? My question is what school policy/rule did he break. It doesn't sound like any. What's next, you had a gun in your car when you drove by the school two weeks ago so you're expelled, or you knew that was a bus stop you passed with guns in your car. This is absolutely insane!! Exactly how much control are we willing to live with. How much freedom are we willing to give up for the facade of safety.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from dmayer4741 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

HMMM. Something smells fishy to me. I never heard of a gun sniffing dog. Drugs and explosives yes, but guns? C'mon! I believe they searched this students car because they knew he was a hunter...uncalled for!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I believe the kid made a reasonable attempt to abide to the rules .If he had a handgun in the vehicle I could understand the no tolerance stand as it relates to the 1000 ft. boundry.What really, did the kid in was having a family member on the board.The kid should have held himself to a higher standard[at 16 I'm sure he thought having family on the board would help] but members of school boards tend to shrink away from any reasonable discussion on a issue,they would prefer to take a granded view to appeal to the masses. As in any job it is much easier to sight safety as the core of their decision than it is to justify it for any reason.Obviously most people don't adhear to the notion that it's safer not to get out of bed in the morning,some should.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from jeffo52284 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I think it is sad that a kid would have the book thrown at him like this. in my opinion they wer just trying to make an example of him. in the meet ing he admitted it was dumb to still have the guns in his truck but he tried to be responsible about by parking off campus and unloading the guns. if he had been in the school parking lot with loaded guns then i would think this was justified but the kid was just trying to get to class on time. i think if this had been a real issue and not just making an example his buddy that was with him and his fellow classmates with the ammo in their vehicles would have gotten busted as well

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from nateshamp wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

If I were that students parent, I would take it to court. I am usually anti-litigation, and think lawyers and idiot jurors have made many of the problems we face in this country, but in this case I would stand my ground. Thank goodness I live in the midwest where we get opening day of school off for whitetail shotgun season.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

There's no doubt that common sense on parents or the kids part would have prevented this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from MB915 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

So glad I do not live in CA.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Why were the police out checking cars that day? That seems to be the question that is not asked. Do they use a "gun" sniffing dog on the school grounds everyday? Or just during hunting season? I would think a dog trained to find explosives would be a very costly resource, is this the best use of funds in this part of the country? I think this is something that should be looked into.
What I believe will be found is that someone within the school system has an "agenda" and pulled in a favor to have this done. I can not believe this is normal procedure.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

The kid was not charged with any crime or violation, because there wasn't any.If he had brought the knife in the school ,it would be cut and dry [couldn't help myself] he would be expelled.If the two where stupid enough to spout off that they had guns ,they deserved to get jammed up,becaue they had them lock up in nothing more than a glass case.That glass could have been broken by anyone who wanted the guns for any other reason than hunting.
In todays climate if a police dept can afford it ,they will hire a dog trained to sniff out your twenties from your fifties.Gun shot residue is easy.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

As Eddie Canot would say "DISGUSTIPATIN"! (HE HAD A WAY WITH "WOIDS" Intentional) ;)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I'm not justifying the school board decision.
But without common sense your a fool.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Robert Ewing a +1 for you for bringing up the 1000ft boundary. I truly believe Gary Tudesko providing he was parked outside the 1000ft boundary has a case here!

What’s next, expelling students who handled a firearm yet alone went to a gun show in the next State! I remember at age 16 parking my Fathers 4x4 in the School parking lot and you can see the rifles in the gun rack. The Principles would ask where I was going hunting and what caliber the rifle are.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Robert Ewing a +1 for you for bringing up the 1000ft boundary. I truly believe Gary Tudesko providing he was parked outside the 1000ft boundary has a case here!

What’s next, expelling students who handled a firearm in the next State! I remember at age 16 parking my Fathers 4x4 in the School parking lot and you can see the rifles in the gun rack. The Principles would ask where I was going hunting and what caliber the rifle are.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

But those were more innocent days... I quite often kept my .22 or shotgun in my car as a student.

I tried to get a verification of one thing, though. There's a big difference on whether the 1000-foot thing is "from the building", or "from the school property". In the latter case, he would have had to park a half maile away to be safe.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

But those were more innocent days... I quite often kept my .22 or shotgun in my car as a student.

I tried to get a verification of one thing, though. There's a big difference on whether the 1000-foot thing is "from the building", or "from the school property". In the latter case, he would have had to park a half maile away to be safe.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

But those were more innocent days... I quite often kept my .22 or shotgun in my car as a student.

I tried to get a verification of one thing, though. There's a big difference on whether the 1000-foot thing is "from the building", or "from the school property". In the latter case, he would have had to park a half maile away to be safe.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

(I actually only hit submit once. I don't know what happenned, but sorry.)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Since when did people start hiring Nazis to serve as school principals? Seriously, that fellow needs to be fired and drummed out of the educational system to a dirge march.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

The 1000 ft. starts from the boundary line, just as they apply it to drug enforcement.
The laws can also be applied to a vacant lot that was donated to the school.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from dighunter wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

As for the dogs being off campus, I am a teacher and we bring drug dogs into school at least once a year and usually come up with a few students who park down the street. The city cops then use their own dogs to sniff them out. Seeing as their were a few other students in them same predicament that did not get punished, I would be willing to bet that the student has been trouble in the past. I would like to know all the details before I go crazy. I think the school board was wrong, but we need to know the details before beating up the school board.
A few years ago, our school had a parent write a racist remark on his garage in spray paint and called the local paper who published a picture of it and the man's biracial son trying to spin the article as if students and the school were harrasing his son. When they found out that the Dad spray painted the graffiti himself and that they were wrong, the newspaper wanted nothing to do with it and was nowhere to be found.
Although it sounds like a pretty bad deal, make sure you know the details before hand.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from squirrelgirl wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

whatever happened to the campus carry movement? After the university shootings this year I seriously wish for my .380 when I'm crossing our north county campus in between by night classes.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Fisher Boy wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

for high school and middle school around here, it is only on school grounds where you can't have firearms and what not, but off grounds is not the school's jurisdiction and how is the school taking the place of his guardian at the time?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alex Pernice th... wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

The school is full of Cr*p. I LIVE less that 50 feet from a school and right now im looking at 4 gun cases (Locked and unloaded, of course) and if they were that harsh about gun laws or laws like this, I wouldn't have these. If the kid had the guns in his truck isn't the problem. The kid may have had perfect intentions on leaving them locked up and unloaded. But if some kid came by and saw a nice 12 gauge in that truck, he may grab it, and then the school has to worry. Its the same for knives, if the kid has one but no ill intentions, thats less of a worry for the school. But if some other kid gets it from him somehow and stabs or threatens someone, the school gets sued. See? its not as much that the kid has it, but that someone else can GET it.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I smell a good lawsuit and possibly a school board resignation request. (Rights violation, undue trauma (mental anguish),persecution, etc etc .. a good lawyer would put everything he /she could into littigation.
This is what happens when you let them have their way now it's time to give them checks and balances.

The young man in question was correct in his actions and very responsible. The schools jurisdiction ended at the campus grounds border.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjohn429 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Those kind of a$$holes just piss me WAY off! That is absolutely absurd.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjohn429 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Willows High Principal Mort Geivett should be fired and sent to prison for life for being an absolute $hit-headed idiot! He has NO business telling people what they can and can't have in their vehicles off campus. He should be the one in trouble.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

The bigger picture is even uglier. The school spent thousands of dollars for scent sniffing dogs just to expel a good student.

Zero tolerance laws are laws that prey on the innocent. Much like when the Nazis were trying to persecute the Jews they would create laws making normal everyday activities illegal thus making normal everyday people criminals.

The young man is innocent of any crime but must bear the burden of persecution because law enforcement was unable to enforce the laws against the criminals alone. In other words it's easier to convict an innocent person whom has nothing to hide and pretend the zero tolerance laws are working.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jmoss wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

This case could use some application of the "slippery slope" logic. If the school can expel a student for legally possessing a firearm that isn't even on school property, where does it end? How many feet does the student need to be from school property?

You could say a lot about the political leanings and such related to this, but most of all this is a case of an organization overstepping its bounds.

Where I went to high school, there was a gas station in front of the school property. If I was hunting and stopped there in the early morning to get breakfast or something, could I be expelled? What kind of logic is there?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Carney wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Willows Unified School District.

That would be "wus" District.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from BJJohnson wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Fortunately, not all school boards in California are as narrow-minded as that of the Willows School District. We invite the Tudeskos and Parisios to Placer County, where we have 5 high schools with trapshooting teams, approved by the district! You will not find a more responsible group of kids with firearms than those who are taught proper handling and safety. Punishing a student for having a firearm off campus teaches nothing. Sure, it's probably not a good idea for anyone, at any age, to keep firearms in a parked car, but expolsion is a bit extreme. Granted, if Gary's truck was within 1,000 ft of the school, then there is a possible violation of the state law. However, there are exemptions to the law, which this may fall into, not to mention plain ole' common sense coming into play!

It's not surprising the school board has not made additional comments. At this point, they should be a little worried about the comment of the Principal, Mr. Geivett, "the school was responsible for students traveling to and from school as well as during lunch." Seems they've just taken responsibility for any and all injuries to and actions of the students that happen outside school property while coming and going.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from coho310 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

This is just unfair! How did they know to use the dogs to find the guns?Like I said about the 2 inch pocket knife scandle,people are being way too obsesseive!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

If I was the mother or father of that kid, I would sue the school, school district, principal, superintendent, and anybody involved with getting him expelled. Basically, if somebody could've prevented it, I would sue 'em. And not just any old lawsuit, I'm talking about a LAWSUIT. Something that will get legislatures in California (I like the references to 'the people's republic of california on the thread) to take a look at their so called "no-tolerance" policy.
Also, it's says in the full article that to have weapons such as knives, you need permission from the school. After seeing this incident, how the hell is anybody ever supposed to get permission from the school?!?!?!?!

Nate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Also, if I would take it to court, I would do my best Lincoln impressions (remeber Lincoln's spot resolutions in the eve of the mexican war). Ask where exactly in the rules he did something wrong. SHOW ME THE BOOK DON'T THROW IT AT ME!!!

Nate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

I'm not a fan of litigation, but in this instance, I'd recommend a lawsuit.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

Gary Tudesko did nothing wrong,but I'm sure he would be late for school the next time.Gun ownership is a right and a responsibility.Your responible for; maintenance ,properly loading it,identification of your target,what is beyond your target,how you carry,how you transport and how you store them.
The Gun-Free School Zone Act deals with the transportation of guns. Good ,bad or indifferent it was attempt to go after gang bangers and drug dealers.There many exemptions to the act that would allow any reasonable person their rights.
At 16, Gary Tudesko didn't consider the unreasonble people like the drug dealer,the gang banger, the thief ,Mr.Geivett and the school board.
Mr.Geivett and the school board unreasonably deprived Gary of his 2nd and 14th amendment rights.He waived the 4th amendment right ,at 16 I'm sure he was just complying to the request.The use of "loco parentis" was too far reaching and they should ask their lawyer what it means.
I hope they get the chance when Gary Tudesko retains a lawyer to see they personally pay for his education all the way to graduate school...Ater all it's about education.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

Did anyone post there comments through the newspaper at the bottom of the link in this story?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

i remember as a kid we would put our deer rifle or shotgun in the gun rack of our truck and head out hunting right after school. nothing said and no school shootings. things were more simple back then. school grounds means school grounds, not around school or just off school grounds. if there is a 1000 ft. rule then you should abide by it. i think this kid thought he was abiding by the rules and was punished too severally.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

He did abide by it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from T.W. Davidson wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

All . . .

I have several concerns about this incident--

The first is whether the school has any jurisdiction over a vehicle that isn't on school property. Unless there is a specific statute to that effect, the answer is no. If so, the school engaged in an illegal search and seizure and violated the student's constitutional rights. If so, I hope the student and his parents sue the crap out of the school and make it and its administration retreat several steps back toward sane behavior.

The second issue is whether the police had any pre-existing reasonable suspicion to search (via dogs) the vehicle in question. If the vehicle was legally parked, if there was no sign of any criminal activity in or near the vehicle, if the student appeared to be an okay law-abiding kid (when he was in or near the vehicle, and while on campus), if the student/vehicle owner did not give consent for a search, and presuming the police did not (and never had) a search warrant, then the police search (assuming the dogs belonged to the police) was almost certainly unconstitutional and both the police and the school (which were almost certainly working in concert with each other) are liable.

One question is whether an "open air search" (which is supposedly what drug dogs do, though I've never heard of a gun-sniffing dog) constitutes enough of an invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy to amount to an illegal search if there was no preexisting reasonable suspicion or probable cause to perform a "normal" search (by hand, for instance). Under this theory, any cop with a drug dog could walk down main street of any California city for no reason at all and seize and search any vehicle the dog "alerted" on. I strongly doubt this type of police activity would ever be tolerated for long in the federal appellate court (the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules over CA cases that go federal) or the U.S. Supreme Court. If this was the logic the police/school used in conducting its search, I suspect the 9th Circuit or the Supremes will express an opposing viewpoint.

Alternative analysis:

If the student in question, while on or near campus, talked or bragged about guns being in his vehicle . . .

If the person or persons who heard this information believed it to be honest and accurate . . .

If he/she/they themselves gave an appearance of being honest and accurate to the police/school . . .

And if the tipster(s) told school officials or the police about what they had heard, then reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may have (reasonably) arisen in the minds of the school and the police. If so, the school/police had a right--actually, a duty--to investigate, but this does not mean the search was legal if the vehicle was off campus, was legally parked, or if it had not been particularly identified to the police/school.

For the school/police to, in essence, search every vehicle within a certain distance of the school on the premise that one of the vehicles might have guns in it is almost certainly an unconstitutional search. If the police/school reasonably believed a certain vehicle had guns in it, the question is whether guns in a vehicle parked off campus was a violation of the law or not, or of some constitutionally legal (and written and published) school policy.

If the police were given sufficient information to arouse in their minds (or in the minds of the school) a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was taking place, or had taken place, or was about to take place, the police likely had the right to detain the suspect vehicle in place (if they knew which one, but not every vehicle in a parking lot or on a street) long enough to get a search warrant from a judge. The search warrant, however, had to be based on reasonable probable cause that a crime had been committed. If the PC never existed, then the search of the vehicle was very likely illegal. And if the school was following provisions within a policies and procedures manual, that manual still has to be constitutional and in compliance with state and federal law. If not, then the search was illegal even if the police were not involved in it.

Last issue: I've never heard of a gun-sniffing dog, and given what I do for a living--I am a criminal defense attorney--it seems likely I would have run across one by now. I suspect the gun-sniffing dog is a fairy tale. I would certainly challenge the science, expertise and "qualifications" of a supposed gun-sniffing dog via what is known as a Kelly-Daubert hearing. (I have witnessed drug dogs in action. I'm aware of cadaver dogs, as well as people/clothing sniffing bloodhounds. Even sight hounds. But gun-sniffing dogs? Smells like bullsh*t to me.)

Summary: I'd like to see the statute or statutes and school policies and procedures manual by which the school and the police conducted their very questionable search. Even if the statute or statutes exist, and even if the school policies and procedures manual exists, this does not mean the statute(s) and manual are constitutionally valid. I think the kid and his family should jump into this and fight back. The NRA should join in the fight, too. Hell, and amazingly, even the ACLU might jump into this one. Right and Left may meet in the middle to take on and defeat a powerful enemy.

TWD

TWD

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

I was not aware Gary Tudesko was charged with any crime for which he needed a defense.I do believe his rights where violated and It's for that ,he should seek compensation.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from bigrossi wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

for TW DAVIDSON I Agree with you 100 per cent and would love to have you on my side!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fliphuntr14 wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

our principal tryd telling us we couldn't have our bows in the back of our cars i live about 15minutes away from school and could get into my stand a half hour earlier... my bow was cased and in my car everyday...she was also very extreme in many other aspects and was fired a year later which is what sounds like what is happening in this case

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Winchester 92 wrote 4 years 19 weeks ago

This makes me very angry. How can he do that? T.W. Davidson hit the nail on the head +1 for you

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nycflyangler wrote 4 years 18 weeks ago

The parent sounds gutless. She should be suing the district and the cops and everybody involved. Were a nation of laws. Litigating when your rights have been violated is a responsibility just like voting. Where's the NRA in this? Why aren't they offering to foot the legal bills on this?

As for gun sniffing dogs. Dogs can be trained to sniff for just about anything. They use them for bed bugs and for some types of cancer. I remember reading somewhere they're trained to sniff out the oils used to clean and lubricate firearms.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 4 years 18 weeks ago

I know several lawyers who would love this case.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bigmac wrote 4 years 15 weeks ago

I can maybe see if they ask him to not do it again but the kid did not break any of the rules so the school should have no right to expel him for school. The school system to day has all kinds of things that the have gone back on. When I was younger they always told us that if you brought a knife to school that you should tell the teacher and give them the knife and they would not do any thing to you but now you are better off hiding it because you do what you are suppose to do and you still get in trouble for it. So I think that the school should say something and realy mean it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MadMom wrote 4 years 13 weeks ago

The date for Gary Tudesko's Appeal Hearing has been changed to Tuesday, January 19th at 10am. This will be posted on the Glenn County Office of Education site tomorrow.

***This is is breaking information***

Please forward it to any one you know who was planning on attending the hearing on Friday, the 15th. The GCOE link is below. Thank you.

http://www.glenncoe.org/__admin/Board.html

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment

from T.W. Davidson wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

All . . .

I have several concerns about this incident--

The first is whether the school has any jurisdiction over a vehicle that isn't on school property. Unless there is a specific statute to that effect, the answer is no. If so, the school engaged in an illegal search and seizure and violated the student's constitutional rights. If so, I hope the student and his parents sue the crap out of the school and make it and its administration retreat several steps back toward sane behavior.

The second issue is whether the police had any pre-existing reasonable suspicion to search (via dogs) the vehicle in question. If the vehicle was legally parked, if there was no sign of any criminal activity in or near the vehicle, if the student appeared to be an okay law-abiding kid (when he was in or near the vehicle, and while on campus), if the student/vehicle owner did not give consent for a search, and presuming the police did not (and never had) a search warrant, then the police search (assuming the dogs belonged to the police) was almost certainly unconstitutional and both the police and the school (which were almost certainly working in concert with each other) are liable.

One question is whether an "open air search" (which is supposedly what drug dogs do, though I've never heard of a gun-sniffing dog) constitutes enough of an invasion of a reasonable expectation of privacy to amount to an illegal search if there was no preexisting reasonable suspicion or probable cause to perform a "normal" search (by hand, for instance). Under this theory, any cop with a drug dog could walk down main street of any California city for no reason at all and seize and search any vehicle the dog "alerted" on. I strongly doubt this type of police activity would ever be tolerated for long in the federal appellate court (the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rules over CA cases that go federal) or the U.S. Supreme Court. If this was the logic the police/school used in conducting its search, I suspect the 9th Circuit or the Supremes will express an opposing viewpoint.

Alternative analysis:

If the student in question, while on or near campus, talked or bragged about guns being in his vehicle . . .

If the person or persons who heard this information believed it to be honest and accurate . . .

If he/she/they themselves gave an appearance of being honest and accurate to the police/school . . .

And if the tipster(s) told school officials or the police about what they had heard, then reasonable suspicion of criminal activity may have (reasonably) arisen in the minds of the school and the police. If so, the school/police had a right--actually, a duty--to investigate, but this does not mean the search was legal if the vehicle was off campus, was legally parked, or if it had not been particularly identified to the police/school.

For the school/police to, in essence, search every vehicle within a certain distance of the school on the premise that one of the vehicles might have guns in it is almost certainly an unconstitutional search. If the police/school reasonably believed a certain vehicle had guns in it, the question is whether guns in a vehicle parked off campus was a violation of the law or not, or of some constitutionally legal (and written and published) school policy.

If the police were given sufficient information to arouse in their minds (or in the minds of the school) a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was taking place, or had taken place, or was about to take place, the police likely had the right to detain the suspect vehicle in place (if they knew which one, but not every vehicle in a parking lot or on a street) long enough to get a search warrant from a judge. The search warrant, however, had to be based on reasonable probable cause that a crime had been committed. If the PC never existed, then the search of the vehicle was very likely illegal. And if the school was following provisions within a policies and procedures manual, that manual still has to be constitutional and in compliance with state and federal law. If not, then the search was illegal even if the police were not involved in it.

Last issue: I've never heard of a gun-sniffing dog, and given what I do for a living--I am a criminal defense attorney--it seems likely I would have run across one by now. I suspect the gun-sniffing dog is a fairy tale. I would certainly challenge the science, expertise and "qualifications" of a supposed gun-sniffing dog via what is known as a Kelly-Daubert hearing. (I have witnessed drug dogs in action. I'm aware of cadaver dogs, as well as people/clothing sniffing bloodhounds. Even sight hounds. But gun-sniffing dogs? Smells like bullsh*t to me.)

Summary: I'd like to see the statute or statutes and school policies and procedures manual by which the school and the police conducted their very questionable search. Even if the statute or statutes exist, and even if the school policies and procedures manual exists, this does not mean the statute(s) and manual are constitutionally valid. I think the kid and his family should jump into this and fight back. The NRA should join in the fight, too. Hell, and amazingly, even the ACLU might jump into this one. Right and Left may meet in the middle to take on and defeat a powerful enemy.

TWD

TWD

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from osobear wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

A student can't even obey the rules without getting in trouble. He knew he couldn't park on campus with his guns in the vehicle so he parks off campus and is still in trouble. Bull-sh**. If they are going to make up rules about off campus parking being controlled the same as on campus parking then they need to make sure that every student knows that. The kid obviously wanted to obey the rules and if he knew of this one he would have obeyed it as well, probably.

Not to mention the other students that broke the rules as well should have gotten the same punishment

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from Sharkfin wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Does anyone ever notice that we never hear of a gang banger getting expelled for having guns near or on school property it's pretty much hunters, cadets, etc. I don't know if it happeining or not but I only hear about decent kids getting in trouble for guns or knives. Kids that have never hurt anyone. Has gun violence gone down so much that the nazis can start targeting kids that don't start problems? My question is what school policy/rule did he break. It doesn't sound like any. What's next, you had a gun in your car when you drove by the school two weeks ago so you're expelled, or you knew that was a bus stop you passed with guns in your car. This is absolutely insane!! Exactly how much control are we willing to live with. How much freedom are we willing to give up for the facade of safety.

+5 Good Comment? | | Report
from prairieghost wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

that school district would be facing the biggest damn law suit you can imagine. while i generally oppose litigation, this is a case screaming to settled by a court of law. no one should ever have the right to control when and where i park my car and what i may legally have in the car. it was in all respects an illigal search and as such any evidence is tainted anyway. i'd be organizing a complete recall of that school board. Where's the NRA on this?

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from dmayer4741 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

HMMM. Something smells fishy to me. I never heard of a gun sniffing dog. Drugs and explosives yes, but guns? C'mon! I believe they searched this students car because they knew he was a hunter...uncalled for!

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I believe the kid made a reasonable attempt to abide to the rules .If he had a handgun in the vehicle I could understand the no tolerance stand as it relates to the 1000 ft. boundry.What really, did the kid in was having a family member on the board.The kid should have held himself to a higher standard[at 16 I'm sure he thought having family on the board would help] but members of school boards tend to shrink away from any reasonable discussion on a issue,they would prefer to take a granded view to appeal to the masses. As in any job it is much easier to sight safety as the core of their decision than it is to justify it for any reason.Obviously most people don't adhear to the notion that it's safer not to get out of bed in the morning,some should.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I'm not justifying the school board decision.
But without common sense your a fool.

+4 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Robert Ewing a +1 for you for bringing up the 1000ft boundary. I truly believe Gary Tudesko providing he was parked outside the 1000ft boundary has a case here!

What’s next, expelling students who handled a firearm yet alone went to a gun show in the next State! I remember at age 16 parking my Fathers 4x4 in the School parking lot and you can see the rifles in the gun rack. The Principles would ask where I was going hunting and what caliber the rifle are.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Alex Pernice th... wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

The school is full of Cr*p. I LIVE less that 50 feet from a school and right now im looking at 4 gun cases (Locked and unloaded, of course) and if they were that harsh about gun laws or laws like this, I wouldn't have these. If the kid had the guns in his truck isn't the problem. The kid may have had perfect intentions on leaving them locked up and unloaded. But if some kid came by and saw a nice 12 gauge in that truck, he may grab it, and then the school has to worry. Its the same for knives, if the kid has one but no ill intentions, thats less of a worry for the school. But if some other kid gets it from him somehow and stabs or threatens someone, the school gets sued. See? its not as much that the kid has it, but that someone else can GET it.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Carney wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Willows Unified School District.

That would be "wus" District.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from MB915 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

So glad I do not live in CA.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

The kid was not charged with any crime or violation, because there wasn't any.If he had brought the knife in the school ,it would be cut and dry [couldn't help myself] he would be expelled.If the two where stupid enough to spout off that they had guns ,they deserved to get jammed up,becaue they had them lock up in nothing more than a glass case.That glass could have been broken by anyone who wanted the guns for any other reason than hunting.
In todays climate if a police dept can afford it ,they will hire a dog trained to sniff out your twenties from your fifties.Gun shot residue is easy.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from nateshamp wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

If I were that students parent, I would take it to court. I am usually anti-litigation, and think lawyers and idiot jurors have made many of the problems we face in this country, but in this case I would stand my ground. Thank goodness I live in the midwest where we get opening day of school off for whitetail shotgun season.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from stormn wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

With stories like this popping up on a regular basis I put some of the blame on the 16 year old. It simply does not make sense to bring your guns to school or around school. We live in a hyper-sensative world where everyone must be protected from themselves. The parents and the child should have known that.
On the other hand the school should realize where their jurisdiction ends and it should be at their property line. I am very opposed to school districts and their ever growing need to be the judge jury and executioner in these cases.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from BJJohnson wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Fortunately, not all school boards in California are as narrow-minded as that of the Willows School District. We invite the Tudeskos and Parisios to Placer County, where we have 5 high schools with trapshooting teams, approved by the district! You will not find a more responsible group of kids with firearms than those who are taught proper handling and safety. Punishing a student for having a firearm off campus teaches nothing. Sure, it's probably not a good idea for anyone, at any age, to keep firearms in a parked car, but expolsion is a bit extreme. Granted, if Gary's truck was within 1,000 ft of the school, then there is a possible violation of the state law. However, there are exemptions to the law, which this may fall into, not to mention plain ole' common sense coming into play!

It's not surprising the school board has not made additional comments. At this point, they should be a little worried about the comment of the Principal, Mr. Geivett, "the school was responsible for students traveling to and from school as well as during lunch." Seems they've just taken responsibility for any and all injuries to and actions of the students that happen outside school property while coming and going.

+3 Good Comment? | | Report
from horseman308 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Is anybody else curious why there were dogs being used in the first place? Was there a tip on drugs or something, was there just a K9 patrol that happened to be walking by, or is it standard policy to sniff every students' vehicle on and off campus?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Mike Diehl wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Since when did people start hiring Nazis to serve as school principals? Seriously, that fellow needs to be fired and drummed out of the educational system to a dirge march.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from thuroy wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

What next students being expelled for hunting on state game areas where other students may be hunting? The other question why were the dogs being used of school grounds?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I have two questions?

1. With the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 barring possession of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school, does that come into play here?

2. What are the laws in California as it pertains to a 16 year old in possession of a firearm and ammo?

3. With gun laws as they are in today's society (and especially in California) why would a young person's parents allow him/her to carry firearms anywhere near a school?

While it may seem that I'm siding with the school, I'm not, I just wonder if any of the above questions were pondered by the youth and his parents before this happened?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jjas wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Sorry, not two questions but a few. My mistake.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I don't think people get it. The left wing anti-gun lobby will not have the President take away our guns, no they WANT US TO TAKE THEM TO OUR GRAVES!They are looking 30 years in the future. Brainwash kids into thinking hunting is wrong and harass the youth who appreciate hunting and soon there will be no reason to criticize hunting anymore because no one will be left who does hunt. Then a simple ban on weapons would be easy- no opposition. This is a clear case of harassing a young man who was doing something lawful. The school officials new it was season, they new who hunted, and they new that if they pushed the envelope they would find someone to punish. There was no threat to public safety, this was an intentional act to mock, ridicule and demean a student that hunts.
Well the school board may have awoken adults who vote!!!!!!
The change that is needed, to kick out the deadwood. Kick out those who believe they can think better than we can, that we are too stupid to think for ourselves, that we need to be protected from ourselves. It is time to vote the bums out- out of our school boards, out of our town councils, and out of our states.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RJ Arena wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Why were the police out checking cars that day? That seems to be the question that is not asked. Do they use a "gun" sniffing dog on the school grounds everyday? Or just during hunting season? I would think a dog trained to find explosives would be a very costly resource, is this the best use of funds in this part of the country? I think this is something that should be looked into.
What I believe will be found is that someone within the school system has an "agenda" and pulled in a favor to have this done. I can not believe this is normal procedure.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from RichardF wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

There is an exclusion to the rule for private property, which would make it legal for a homeowner to have firearms across the street from a school, a vehicle is also private property and when parked on a public property should not be allowed to be searched, or for that matter even have a dog walk by it unless it is by the city police. The school has no rights to leave the school property. Only in Claifornia can you follow the rules and be punnished. I guess this is why their prisions are overcrowded.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from buckhunter wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

The bigger picture is even uglier. The school spent thousands of dollars for scent sniffing dogs just to expel a good student.

Zero tolerance laws are laws that prey on the innocent. Much like when the Nazis were trying to persecute the Jews they would create laws making normal everyday activities illegal thus making normal everyday people criminals.

The young man is innocent of any crime but must bear the burden of persecution because law enforcement was unable to enforce the laws against the criminals alone. In other words it's easier to convict an innocent person whom has nothing to hide and pretend the zero tolerance laws are working.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Koldkut wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I think that this country as a whole is headed in this direction. I feel for the expelled student.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from dighunter wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

As for the dogs being off campus, I am a teacher and we bring drug dogs into school at least once a year and usually come up with a few students who park down the street. The city cops then use their own dogs to sniff them out. Seeing as their were a few other students in them same predicament that did not get punished, I would be willing to bet that the student has been trouble in the past. I would like to know all the details before I go crazy. I think the school board was wrong, but we need to know the details before beating up the school board.
A few years ago, our school had a parent write a racist remark on his garage in spray paint and called the local paper who published a picture of it and the man's biracial son trying to spin the article as if students and the school were harrasing his son. When they found out that the Dad spray painted the graffiti himself and that they were wrong, the newspaper wanted nothing to do with it and was nowhere to be found.
Although it sounds like a pretty bad deal, make sure you know the details before hand.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

I was not aware Gary Tudesko was charged with any crime for which he needed a defense.I do believe his rights where violated and It's for that ,he should seek compensation.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jeffo52284 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I think it is sad that a kid would have the book thrown at him like this. in my opinion they wer just trying to make an example of him. in the meet ing he admitted it was dumb to still have the guns in his truck but he tried to be responsible about by parking off campus and unloading the guns. if he had been in the school parking lot with loaded guns then i would think this was justified but the kid was just trying to get to class on time. i think if this had been a real issue and not just making an example his buddy that was with him and his fellow classmates with the ammo in their vehicles would have gotten busted as well

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from 86Ram wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

I smell a good lawsuit and possibly a school board resignation request. (Rights violation, undue trauma (mental anguish),persecution, etc etc .. a good lawyer would put everything he /she could into littigation.
This is what happens when you let them have their way now it's time to give them checks and balances.

The young man in question was correct in his actions and very responsible. The schools jurisdiction ended at the campus grounds border.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from squirrelgirl wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

whatever happened to the campus carry movement? After the university shootings this year I seriously wish for my .380 when I'm crossing our north county campus in between by night classes.

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from jmoss wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

This case could use some application of the "slippery slope" logic. If the school can expel a student for legally possessing a firearm that isn't even on school property, where does it end? How many feet does the student need to be from school property?

You could say a lot about the political leanings and such related to this, but most of all this is a case of an organization overstepping its bounds.

Where I went to high school, there was a gas station in front of the school property. If I was hunting and stopped there in the early morning to get breakfast or something, could I be expelled? What kind of logic is there?

+2 Good Comment? | | Report
from Clay Cooper wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Robert Ewing a +1 for you for bringing up the 1000ft boundary. I truly believe Gary Tudesko providing he was parked outside the 1000ft boundary has a case here!

What’s next, expelling students who handled a firearm in the next State! I remember at age 16 parking my Fathers 4x4 in the School parking lot and you can see the rifles in the gun rack. The Principles would ask where I was going hunting and what caliber the rifle are.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from jamesti wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

i remember as a kid we would put our deer rifle or shotgun in the gun rack of our truck and head out hunting right after school. nothing said and no school shootings. things were more simple back then. school grounds means school grounds, not around school or just off school grounds. if there is a 1000 ft. rule then you should abide by it. i think this kid thought he was abiding by the rules and was punished too severally.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

If I was the mother or father of that kid, I would sue the school, school district, principal, superintendent, and anybody involved with getting him expelled. Basically, if somebody could've prevented it, I would sue 'em. And not just any old lawsuit, I'm talking about a LAWSUIT. Something that will get legislatures in California (I like the references to 'the people's republic of california on the thread) to take a look at their so called "no-tolerance" policy.
Also, it's says in the full article that to have weapons such as knives, you need permission from the school. After seeing this incident, how the hell is anybody ever supposed to get permission from the school?!?!?!?!

Nate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from 60256 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Also, if I would take it to court, I would do my best Lincoln impressions (remeber Lincoln's spot resolutions in the eve of the mexican war). Ask where exactly in the rules he did something wrong. SHOW ME THE BOOK DON'T THROW IT AT ME!!!

Nate

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Fisher Boy wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

for high school and middle school around here, it is only on school grounds where you can't have firearms and what not, but off grounds is not the school's jurisdiction and how is the school taking the place of his guardian at the time?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Nycflyangler wrote 4 years 18 weeks ago

The parent sounds gutless. She should be suing the district and the cops and everybody involved. Were a nation of laws. Litigating when your rights have been violated is a responsibility just like voting. Where's the NRA in this? Why aren't they offering to foot the legal bills on this?

As for gun sniffing dogs. Dogs can be trained to sniff for just about anything. They use them for bed bugs and for some types of cancer. I remember reading somewhere they're trained to sniff out the oils used to clean and lubricate firearms.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

There's no doubt that common sense on parents or the kids part would have prevented this.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

The 1000 ft. starts from the boundary line, just as they apply it to drug enforcement.
The laws can also be applied to a vacant lot that was donated to the school.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

Gary Tudesko did nothing wrong,but I'm sure he would be late for school the next time.Gun ownership is a right and a responsibility.Your responible for; maintenance ,properly loading it,identification of your target,what is beyond your target,how you carry,how you transport and how you store them.
The Gun-Free School Zone Act deals with the transportation of guns. Good ,bad or indifferent it was attempt to go after gang bangers and drug dealers.There many exemptions to the act that would allow any reasonable person their rights.
At 16, Gary Tudesko didn't consider the unreasonble people like the drug dealer,the gang banger, the thief ,Mr.Geivett and the school board.
Mr.Geivett and the school board unreasonably deprived Gary of his 2nd and 14th amendment rights.He waived the 4th amendment right ,at 16 I'm sure he was just complying to the request.The use of "loco parentis" was too far reaching and they should ask their lawyer what it means.
I hope they get the chance when Gary Tudesko retains a lawyer to see they personally pay for his education all the way to graduate school...Ater all it's about education.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

Did anyone post there comments through the newspaper at the bottom of the link in this story?

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Robert Ewing wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

He did abide by it.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

But those were more innocent days... I quite often kept my .22 or shotgun in my car as a student.

I tried to get a verification of one thing, though. There's a big difference on whether the 1000-foot thing is "from the building", or "from the school property". In the latter case, he would have had to park a half maile away to be safe.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

But those were more innocent days... I quite often kept my .22 or shotgun in my car as a student.

I tried to get a verification of one thing, though. There's a big difference on whether the 1000-foot thing is "from the building", or "from the school property". In the latter case, he would have had to park a half maile away to be safe.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

But those were more innocent days... I quite often kept my .22 or shotgun in my car as a student.

I tried to get a verification of one thing, though. There's a big difference on whether the 1000-foot thing is "from the building", or "from the school property". In the latter case, he would have had to park a half maile away to be safe.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

(I actually only hit submit once. I don't know what happenned, but sorry.)

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjohn429 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Those kind of a$$holes just piss me WAY off! That is absolutely absurd.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from hjohn429 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

Willows High Principal Mort Geivett should be fired and sent to prison for life for being an absolute $hit-headed idiot! He has NO business telling people what they can and can't have in their vehicles off campus. He should be the one in trouble.

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from bigrossi wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

for TW DAVIDSON I Agree with you 100 per cent and would love to have you on my side!!!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from coho310 wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

This is just unfair! How did they know to use the dogs to find the guns?Like I said about the 2 inch pocket knife scandle,people are being way too obsesseive!

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from fliphuntr14 wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

our principal tryd telling us we couldn't have our bows in the back of our cars i live about 15minutes away from school and could get into my stand a half hour earlier... my bow was cased and in my car everyday...she was also very extreme in many other aspects and was fired a year later which is what sounds like what is happening in this case

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Winchester 92 wrote 4 years 19 weeks ago

This makes me very angry. How can he do that? T.W. Davidson hit the nail on the head +1 for you

+1 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jeff Bowers wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

For all the school did wrong, both sides are at fault here. I actually think the term "within range" of a school would apply here.

In the People's Republic of California, no 16-year old should be driving to, near, or around a school with guns. There has been enough news going on for years that some kid should not be stupid enough to take guns to, or near, school. Are 16-year olds in California allowed to even own guns?

If the school was sending gun(?)-sniffing dogs all over the neighborhood every day, he should have been aware of it. If not... he might have been mouthing off about having the guns, got overheard, and reported.

It's not a fair cop, but a dumb kid nontheless.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from bigmac wrote 4 years 15 weeks ago

I can maybe see if they ask him to not do it again but the kid did not break any of the rules so the school should have no right to expel him for school. The school system to day has all kinds of things that the have gone back on. When I was younger they always told us that if you brought a knife to school that you should tell the teacher and give them the knife and they would not do any thing to you but now you are better off hiding it because you do what you are suppose to do and you still get in trouble for it. So I think that the school should say something and realy mean it.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from jbird wrote 4 years 20 weeks ago

I'm not a fan of litigation, but in this instance, I'd recommend a lawsuit.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 4 years 21 weeks ago

As Eddie Canot would say "DISGUSTIPATIN"! (HE HAD A WAY WITH "WOIDS" Intentional) ;)

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from Jere Smith wrote 4 years 18 weeks ago

I know several lawyers who would love this case.

0 Good Comment? | | Report
from MadMom wrote 4 years 13 weeks ago

The date for Gary Tudesko's Appeal Hearing has been changed to Tuesday, January 19th at 10am. This will be posted on the Glenn County Office of Education site tomorrow.

***This is is breaking information***

Please forward it to any one you know who was planning on attending the hearing on Friday, the 15th. The GCOE link is below. Thank you.

http://www.glenncoe.org/__admin/Board.html

0 Good Comment? | | Report

Post a Comment