Confusing gun + school ruling from the SJC

Should he????

Wandered onto campus, presumably to meet someone. Probably a drug deal or something. But they just stopped him, detained him and had him frisked. Just entering school grounds wasn't probable cause enough for a search.
 
The important thing about this decision transcends the gun issue. The court held that even if school staff has a relaxed standard for searches (presumably of students), the police are held to the same standard that applies in the non-academic world, and cannot piggyback on the relaxed standard of school staff by acting in concert with them.

What is left unsaid is if the school staff expanded search authority applies to non-students, and to what extent school staff is allowed to use force to compel an uncooperative subject to submit to a search.

As always, the key is NEVER CONSENT and go on record as objecting. Note that the subject's objection to the search of his backpack was on the record.
 
\So as long as you don't say anything, if they frisk you and find the gun. . . . they can't use it against you.

Not exactly. The ruling was consistent with long standing precedent: Terry v. Ohio and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. It was a failure of the witness, Sgt. Murphy, to testify that she had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the kid was engaged in criminal activity and was armed and a safety risk and therefore pat-frisked him, that led the SJC to overturn.
 
Last edited:
For the reasons articulated by Rob Boudrie and qqac, you should not read much into this decision -- and certainly not much about firearms. The case rather was a more or less garden variety of 4th Amendment and Terry principles in what may have been a bit of an unusual situation. By all means, do not take this decision as standing for the proposition that you can safely carry on school grounds so long as your lips are sealed. The folks who deal with the next case will have learned their lesson.
 
IANAL but disagree with the decision. If a guy walks into a school during the school day, the staff and police should be suspicious and try to figure out why is he is there. They, the staff and police, would be negligent to allow unknown people to wander through the school while school is in session.
 
Not exactly. The ruling was consistent with long standing precedent: Terry v. Ohio and fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. It was a failure of the witness, Sgt. Murphy, to testify that she had a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the kid was engaged in criminal activity and was armed and a safety risk and therefore pat-frisked him, that led the SJC to overturn.


because he hadn't committed a crime.
 
Does this mean that guy whom got jacked up walking away from a Boston University graduation a few years ago now has precedence to have his case dismissed?
 
Does this mean that guy whom got jacked up walking away from a Boston University graduation a few years ago now has precedence to have his case dismissed?

Only insofar as a college graduation has anything to do with a high school conference room.

So, no.
 
Only insofar as a college graduation has anything to do with a high school conference room.
That incident has the additional problem that the courts have held that once you indicate you are consenting to an entrance search via your actions, you lose your right to withdraw consent.

The subject in the recent case did everything right - not offering physical resistance, but going on record as not consenting to the search.
 
If a guy walks into a school during the school day, the staff and police should be suspicious and try to figure out why is he is there.
"Trying to figure out why he is there" is a different matter from "searching his personal belongings against his consent and without a warrant".

The important point here is that "School" is not a root password police can use to undermine legal protections enjoyed in non-school environments.
 
"The school principal and vice principal brought Villagran into a conference room and called police, who reported the room already smelled of marijuana by the time the first officer arrived a few minutes later".

What about false imprisonment?
 
"Trying to figure out why he is there" is a different matter from "searching his personal belongings against his consent and without a warrant".

The important point here is that "School" is not a root password police can use to undermine legal protections enjoyed in non-school environments.

Why did they bring him in in the first place? Why not boot him off campus?
 
"The school principal and vice principal brought Villagran into a conference room and called police, who reported the room already smelled of marijuana by the time the first officer arrived a few minutes later".

What about false imprisonment?

He apparently did not have the presence of mind to say "I will be glad to leave if you wish, but I do not consent to go anywhere with you."
 
Last edited:
He apparently did not have the presence of mind to say "I will be glad to leave it you wish, but I do not consent to go anywhere with you."

Rob, you need to create a iPhone and Android app where as necessary, you can quickly thumb through a short list of detainment/legal scenarios and a voice states "I will be glad to leave it you wish, but I do not consent to go anywhere with you." or, "I do not consent to any search", or "I want an attorney" all while simultaneously send video and audio recording to a secure cloud based storage site.
 
Rob, you need to create a iPhone and Android app where as necessary, you can quickly thumb through a short list of detainment/legal scenarios and a voice states "I will be glad to leave it you wish, but I do not consent to go anywhere with you." or, "I do not consent to any search", or "I want an attorney" all while simultaneously send video and audio recording to a secure cloud based storage site.
You forgot the audible warning "NOTICE TO ALL PRESENT: VOICE IS BEING RECORDED".

Also, you forgot an important menu item: "Am I free to go?".
 
For the reasons articulated by Rob Boudrie and qqac, you should not read much into this decision -- and certainly not much about firearms. The case rather was a more or less garden variety of 4th Amendment and Terry principles in what may have been a bit of an unusual situation. By all means, do not take this decision as standing for the proposition that you can safely carry on school grounds so long as your lips are sealed. The folks who deal with the next case will have learned their lesson.

I don't think I'd take it as "as long as I'm not doin nuttin, I'm good" type of arrangement. I'm not THAT brave. But it did set a nice example of what schools and police dept's are NOT allowed to do.

IANAL but disagree with the decision. If a guy walks into a school during the school day, the staff and police should be suspicious and try to figure out why is he is there. They, the staff and police, would be negligent to allow unknown people to wander through the school while school is in session.

To the extent of a search? "I'm here meeting Person XYZ." "Frisk him, Danno!"

That incident has the additional problem that the courts have held that once you indicate you are consenting to an entrance search via your actions, you lose your right to withdraw consent.

The subject in the recent case did everything right - not offering physical resistance, but going on record as not consenting to the search.

Pretty smart for a 19yo potential drug dealer. One has to wonder how he was so well coached, or read-up.

Yet they can stop you on the highway at a BP checkpoint for no reason, search you and your vehicle...

Only with probly-cawz. It's a royal PITA to refuse to consent, but if enough people do it, they'll get the message. Especially when they are looking for illegal Central/South Americans coming SOUTH on 93 in New Hampshire. ????
 
Only with probly-cawz. It's a royal PITA to refuse to consent, but if enough people do it, they'll get the message. Especially when they are looking for illegal Central/South Americans coming SOUTH on 93 in New Hampshire. ????

They may not be "coming South" but there are no shortage of illegal South/Central Americans in the Greater Boston area. After DEC laid off the first round of employees they hired a company to clean the Mill. All were "bused in" from Boston and all were illegal Columbians. My boss was Hispanic (born in PR) and they confided in him where they were from. That same company had another large crew of illegals cleaning Boston University every evening.

So (not to defend the roadblocks) if these folks move around by roads, said ICE actions could pick them up.
 
When I go fishing, I can go where one or two fish MIGHT be or go to more productive areas where I'm sure to catch several. Same with these checkpoints. Seems you should go where the irregals are.

Could you imagine a checkpoint on 93 or 128 in the Boston area? [rofl]
 
For the reasons articulated by Rob Boudrie and qqac, you should not read much into this decision -- and certainly not much about firearms. The case rather was a more or less garden variety of 4th Amendment and Terry principles in what may have been a bit of an unusual situation. By all means, do not take this decision as standing for the proposition that you can safely carry on school grounds so long as your lips are sealed. The folks who deal with the next case will have learned their lesson.

Best answer yet. /thread
 
Back
Top Bottom