Student suspended for pocket knife in in his car

High school senior suspended for having a pocket knife in his car. Despicable school policies. His car was more dangerous than his knife. Just posted in case anyone wants to speak with the superintendent about this.

Superintendent George J. Goodwin
ggoodwin@lansingburgh.org

http://www.wten.com/global/story.asp?s=11283345

QUOTE:
He's an Eagle Scout, on the honor roll, taking Advanced Placement classes, and never been in trouble with the law. He's received commendations from the City of Troy and the Boy Scouts of America for saving a woman's life, and this past summer, he completed Army basic training. All of it was accomplished before the age of 17.

"I'm just trying to do what I can while I can," Matthew says.

His goal is to attend the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, a dream since he was in grade school.

"I have a first-grade yearbook that says I want to be driving tanks in the Army," Matthew says. "I mean, this is something that I know I've always wanted to do."

But the dream could be in jeopardy, thanks to a two-inch pocket knife that officials at Lansingburgh Senior High School found in Matthew's locked car last month.

Zero tolerance ... seemed like a good idea at the time.

It's interesting that schools are now places where thinking and logic are forbidden.

[insert rant]

I am dumbfounded...

Three things the kid did wrong. First, he violated a school policy. Second, he told someone else that he had the knife in his car. Third, he let them search his vehicle, and in fact disclosed that it contained the knife.

That said, the school's policy is inappropriate, and the Superintendent should intercede in this situation and fix this now. Given their public response, I doubt the superintendent has any intention of doing his job and helping this boy and fixing a ridiculous policy, and I should certainly hope the school district gets litigated for this.

It is unfortunate when those we put into places of public responsibility are either too lazy or incompetent to do their job properly, and resort to these sorts of "comprehensive absolutions" instead. Bad form.

This is why I tell my girls to keep their stuff with them and well hidden and keep their mouths shut. This gives others no cause to question them, yet preserves their ability to take care of their own interests.

Another nutty no tolerance story. Remember the old days when you hired good people (principals and superintendents in this case) and they were expected to make sound decisions based on a framework of rules and the particulars of individual cases.

American society is so litigious that policies have been set in place to protect the district and no one is allowed to deviate from those policies. If the school principal were do deviate from the "no tolerance" policy he or she would likely be subject to termination regardless of how intelligent and well reasoned their actions were.

IIRC there were a couple of young grade schoolers that were suspended a couple of years ago for chasing each other around the school yard pointing the fingers at each other and yelling "bang". Another zero tolerance "weapons" policy in action.

I couldn't agree with your post more Benjammin, but remember your criticism was used to put in place the zero tolerance policy we criticize now as being bad form.

I dislike zero tolerance policies because they take judgment out of every equation they touch - sentencing guidelines, three strikes rulings, drug laws, weapons policies. The public administrators in this situation are left with no decision to make except what was prescribed by the zero tolerance policy - they don't have to be dunderheads to do that, they would be dunderheads not to follow the policy. The folks who establish dunderheaded policy and can change it - the school board, not the superintendent or principals or teachers. But your community has to be comfortable with the alternative to a zero tolerance policy - people in places of public responsibility making judgment calls.

So which will it be - are they dunderheads, or are they public authorities capable of exercising common wisdom over something like a weapons policy? We can't have it both ways.

Sort of oh topic. there was a 9 year old who was suspended for a week, for having a necklace with a casting of a gun on it. About the size of a thumbnail. It was considered a "gun" by the school, even though it was a medallion. Common sense has been overruled, sadly.

Those are the rules and he got caught breaking them. That's the problem with implementing laws, bylaws or even school rules. No favour should be given to those no matter their background otherwise what is the point of having the school rules in the first place.



This is basically a non story simply because if this guy was the local bully drug dealing pot head on the verge of being a drop out this would not have reported and most definitely not on CNN either. This is almost as silly as the London Library story being reported on the BBC. Weird.

I just don't see how a 2 inch pocket knife could by any stretch
of the imagination be considered a weapon. A pair of scissors is
just as dangerous and I am sure there are plenty in the school. A
pocket knife is a tool not a weapon.

I apologize for doing continuing this. I feel strongly about it and knives and freedom are popular here and this is the Around the Campfire. Here is another one. A 6 year old is suspended:

<quote>
Zachary’s offense? Taking a camping utensil that can serve as a knife, fork and spoon to school.
</quote>

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/education/12discipline.html?_r=1

As much as it is a shame, this is like the case of the child that took the "hobo Tool" to school. It was against the rules.

There was a policy in place that I doubt the young man was ignorant of. He didn't carry the knife into the school.

It's a shame due of his lack of judgement. He seems like an exceptional young man, but I wonder if he just didn't think about it, thought he'd never be caught, or whether if he were caught why he thought he'd be above the rules.

I feel bad for both the Eagle Scout and Cub Scout in the other similar story.

May as well take away the pens and pencils, the forks in the cafeteria, paper clips and staplers, and don't forget the lethal paper cuts from the textbooks. Absolutely appaling! They should search the supers car and all the teachers cars, since they have a zero tolerance policy. Betcha they'd find all sots of contraband.

It probably isn't an infraction if the people responsible for running the school carry pocket knives or keep such tools in their car. Other contraband could be there though.

Does this mean you can't have a tool kit in your car at that school? I can't imagine even the most basic of kits without some sort of utility blade, and all those sharp pointy weapons with handles disguised as screwdrivers, not fooling me ... That claw hammer is looking like a nasty weapon too... oh the humanity...

Quite so. I forget sometimes the heirarchy of scholastic bureaucracy here. The dunderheads are the ones who make the ridiculous policy then, not those who are stuck with enforcing it. I forget that the buck doesn't stop with the Superintendent.

Then again, who is advising the school board?

Oooh, what a vicious cycle this becomes...

As usual it's the people who are at fault, if we could just figure out a way to get the people out of the equation...

The immediate response is to think what a bunch of idiots are running that school, upon reflection, why was the rule enacted in the first place? Should the school administrators be given the authority to ignore rules if the kid in question has a good record otherwise?

What if it was a 2.5" knife? A 3" knife? A Kabar? Where does it stop?

I'd bet dollars to donuts that is was parents who insisted on the no weapons policy in the first place. Should we take parents out of the equation when it comes to making district policy? If we're gonna give school administrators rules to follow, how do we then fault them for enforcing the rules?

I hope you are right. Either way, he seems like an outstanding young man, and if I had to bet on the outcome, I'd bet he'll do well for himself no matter what.

I've been following this in other forums.

Yes, he broke the letter of the rule. He origionally got a 5 day suspension. Now, no one else was asked if they had a knife in the car, there was no large scale sweep. Then the school board tacked on ANOTHER 15 days, which has been confirmed and admitted is a violation of the letter of the rules by members of the schoolboard!

Here is the kicker. His grandfather is the chief of police. I've spent a little time looking to see if the cheif and someone on the schoolboard have bad blood.

Makes me wonder if (a) he wasn't singled out for a good display of "public and brutal", or (b) someone is using him as a weapon to get to someone else. Either way, he can probably kiss the Point good bye.

Schools teach children. If they teach them that they will be treated like ciminals, is it any wonder we have such a failure to excel?

Certainly sounds like someone wanted to knock this guy down a few pegs. dyb dyb dyb dob dob dob

The Point may not be compromised. They are all about the honor code, and it sounds like this young man did the honorable thing when asked if he had a knife. By telling the truth, he may have saved his chance.

I do a lot of work in many local schools. I EDC both a pocket knife and a Gerber Suspension every day. I also bring in a razor knife in my tool bag on every jobsite.

I wonder when it's going to get so bad that I actually get in trouble for it even though having the tools to do my job with is part of my job...

As with other examples, the response really seems over the top. But some places are extra-sensitive because of previous bad events, so it takes a while for the pendulum to swing back toward common sense.

This is one more reason why the tool for your car is a Cold Steel shovel. Highly effective tool, totally innocuous to the bureaucratic eye.

I've heard (hearsay?) that the Scout shovel sold on the official U.S. website is in fact a Cold Steel shovel. Don't know if anyone can confirm this.

I shouldn't say this, but I will. Most public schools, especially the public schools of Troy, have a lousy reputation locally, and probably don't attract the best and brightest among administrators. School districts aren't even close to equal in this area, and my personal opinion is that this is caused by petty local politics, and each district wanting to be different than the ones next to it. Many people, perhaps most families, make their decisions on where to live largely based on school district. None of them would pick Troy based on the schools. They move there based on the cost, the otherwise nice areas outside Troy, and those that stay do so because of the investment they have in the area. I say these things based on living in the area for about 20 years, about half of those in Troy.

I'm sure this kid will be fine. He'll grow up to be someone that these folks will never have the courage to become, or perhaps even imagine. My question is, who'll be the next kid that the administrator picks on?

Cooperated with the authorities? My view of a typical vice-principle is of someone that lacks the intelligence to be a teacher, the courage to be a policeman, and the talent to operate the slurpy machine at the Dairy Queen.

Be polite and lawyer up needs to be basic survival training for kids these days.

Sorry for the rant. I have a low tolerance for small minded people and bullies, and this seems to fit both criteria...and it's in my back yard.

Edit - I'll buy the local political angle that ironraven brought up as being very possible. Local politics are nothing if not petty, and school boards are both small and political.

When I was in high school our cars had guns in them to use after school... and this was not 20 years ago either... and not in a small town. Things are going down hill VERY VERY VERY FAST and in another 10 years these kids will be worse and making things even WORSE.

Freedom... getting smaller.

Take a look at the vidoes on the Cold Steel site to see the horrific injuries that can be inflicted with a 2 inch blade.
Course you can draw another conclusion than 'they should be banned' from it. Pass the attitude test and the reality is normal cops won't arrest you because they think it is so harmless....

After the complete failure of the handgun ban in the UK (shootings doubled) the media and all the politicians pretended it had worked, then passed knife bans. What happened? you guessed it...

"The Lansingburgh Central School District has a zero-tolerance policy on weapons. According to the district's Codes of Conduct, students are not allowed to have "a weapon of any kind" on school grounds. Even though a pocket knife is not considered a weapon under New York State penal code, the district also prohibits students from possessing anything "that reasonably can be considered a weapon."


So I had better leave my hands, feet, head, arms, elbows , knees, pens, pencils, belt, torch, shoes, key's, 550 cord, karabiner et al at home then?

To me this is a catch-all policy that can be applied any which way they feel like.

Anything can be "reasonably considered to be a weapon" if you know what you are doing.

Yes, he should sue. If only on the grounds that he has been denied a fair & impartial hearing.

Mistake #1 - allowing them to seach the car without a search warrant - Just say NO

One problem.

When you purchase your parking decal for the privilege of parking on the school property, you consent to the search in advance. Read the paperwork and the school handbook closely.

There was an issue with this in the past over Concealed Handgun License holders driving onto school property. CHL holders are not allowed onto the school premise while armed. The question was whether the premise stopped at the threshold of the building entry, or at the property line. For purposes of the CHL, premise was deemed to be entering the facilities (building, spectator area, playing field, etc). Meaning the parking lot was not considered "on premise". This goes against EVERY OTHER definition of "on premise" that Texas has. Example: An intruder is "on premise" the instant they cross onto the property, not when they enter a structure or facility.

This now brings into question whether the knife was actually on school premises. If this were my child, and he was in his car with its school parking decal (temp. or perm.) he and I had already consented to the search by affixing the decal to his car. If he was in my truck and had no permit decal (temp. or perm.) then the school would have to obtain consent to search.

Might be - then again, my school had no student parking at all, so I wouldn't know.

I'd STILL say no - make them take me to jail to get my keys etc - I doubt it would go that far

You are right. They tow/impound the vehicle while waiting on a warrant. It used to be there had to be probable cause for a warrant, but once you refuse (if you have the parking decal) you give the probable cause.

Where I went to high school, it was not uncommon to see both a shotgun and a rifle in the back window of a truck (small town, and kids didn't understand things flying around in a crash). I doubt there was a car in the parking lot that didn't have some kind of a firearm in it.

Having said that, if one had any other contraband you darn well didn't park on campus.

So where do you draw the line? 3"? If 3" is long enough to be dangerous, what about 2-7/8"? Or 2-31/32"?

And how long does a blade have to be to be "dangerous"? How long a blade do you need to reach the jugular? To puncture an eyeball? To cut a finger?

You can't define a "dangerous" blade by its length. It has to be all or nothing.

Note: I do not agree with zero-tolerance, nor that "all knives are dangerous". I'm only trying to show that length cannot be used as a limiting factor.

Carp. Too early in the morning for me. I was responding to an old post in the thread. Carry on.

Even if the super, and principle are the ones having to enforce
rules that someone else makes up, when something is this silly, that stands to dramatically
hurt a students chances for the future, they should have some
balls and stand up for the student.

You're asking these questions too late Compugeek - the time to ask them is before a zero tolerance policy is adopted by a school board. You cannot argue or contest based on lethality or severity or any other factor, the policy is already made. Why demonize local administrators - at this point they are following a developed policy without any leeway for interpretation or compromise, and in fact the school district incurs significant liability if anyone exercises judgment in the face of such a policy. Who will defend the administrator who let Eagle Scout #4 keep his 1 1/2 inch pocket knife, which was found stuck in the eye of Dangerous Stoner #7 after a football game? Or switch the roles, doesn't matter - the administrator is hosed either way.

The folks who want a zero tolerance policy on weapons are getting exactly what they lobbied for. You probably have pretty much an identical policy in your school district. Go to your school board meeting, read your opinions on zero tolerance weapons policies during the public portion of the meeting, see if it does you any good. It takes alot of brain power to overturn or amend a zero tolerance policy once enacted.

Whether the principal or superintendent can "stand up" for the student depends on the circumstances at the moment the knife was found. For instance, if the principal found the knife and was alone at the time he/she could have not reported it (unlikely, but possible). As soon as somebody else knows about the knife - it's over. The policy is a School Board policy and the Board has to stand by the policy or get skewered by the media. Public entities are stuck when it comes to this. That's why, whenever possible, they don't have policies but rather something they might call guidelines or procedures - they have leeway on those. At least that's how the large Govt organization I work for handles things.

When my son was in 5th grade a classmate heard him say something like "Oh, yeah ... well if he did that I'd kill him." The classmate told the bus driver who told the principal who apologized to my wife and I for suspending our son. The principal said it was all about zero-tolerance and the Board of Education gave all administrators very clear instructions - personally he thought it was stupid and implied that it was insulting to him that he had no way to use his discretion on so may things.

Thats why it take some guts. They are either in it for the
kids or for themselves.

You hit the nail on the head. Even if you have a zero-tolerance rule, the kids still have to understand what the rule prohibits. The wiggle words "that reasonably can be considered a weapon" leave that pretty much impossible. If some administrator had it out for a kid, a car itself could "reasonably" be considered a weapon, or his shoelaces.

As for refusing to allow them to search your car, that is a losing argument. Google the Supreme Court decision "New Jersey v. TLO". Remember that the fourth amendment forbids UNREASONABLE search and seizure. And the Supremes have decided that in order to protect students, just about anything is reasonable. The cops may need a warrant and probable cause, but a school administrator only needs "reasonable suspicion" (there's that wiggle word again, "reasonable"). In New Jersey v. TLO, the Supreme Court upheld the search of a student's purse because she was suspected of having cigarettes.

What's scary about TLO and the line of cases it has spawned isn't so much the ruling, but the logic behind it. Basically, the court reasoned that since students are compelled by governmental authority to attend school, the government owes them a higher duty of safety. The only way to guarantee this higher duty of safety is to give the school authorities more lattitude under the Bill of Rights. The court has upheld school administrators who conduct strip searches, drug dog searches, urinalysis and many other invasions of what we once considered privacy, all under the relaxed standard of "reasonable" suspicion.

"Thats why it take some guts. They are either in it for the
kids or for themselves."

I agree about the guts part. I respectfully disagree with your second point. Well, at least for some principals/superintendents. The good ones are in it for the kids and themselves. After all, they have careers and families and kids in college and so on - they have very good paying jobs - they can't just throw that away to make a point. If they did ignore a policy approved by their boss (the Board of Education) they would most likely lose their job. That job would then be filled by someone who would follow the policies. The kid would still be suspended or expelled.

Obviously the only way to fix this problem is to change the policy. Will that happen? Only when the parents/voters make enough noise about not passing levies unless certain policies are changed. Sadly, it's all about the money.

The bottom line seems to be that if you want to provide quality education for your kids, don't want to put up with the school board BS, and don't want your kids treated like cattle, don't put them in the American public school system.

And for those of you who think that system is about education and socialization, you'd better take a closer look.

Sue

I apologise for quoting. Unfortunately it is necessary for readers to follow the discussion

There is a point worth noting about the above. First and most prominent is that these students are all Minor's. That means that they cannot sue in their own person. They can only sue through a parent or guardian. Something of which the School Boards are perfectly well aware.

As an adult, anyone who strip searches, drug tests or urine analysis me is courting an action for slander, libel, defamation of character, repudiation of the basis of trust, unreasonable behaviour etc. That is irrespective of any imposed terms and conditions of employment, entry or anything else of that ilk.

What is often not appreciated is that self granted rights to search do not impede action against them, even if it is a condition of entry, employment etc. Unless they have what is commonly referred to as qualified or absolute privilege. That is to say that they enjoy partial or absolute immunity in law. Ditto any imposed conditions stating that it does not constitute suspicion etc.

The position in law (in the U.K.) is that your agreement has been obtained under coercion. Specifically: Expulsion, refusal of services, dismissal without pay or references etc.

It's about conformity. You can do anything you like, just so long as it's just what everyone else is doing.

I believe it's part of the reason there's so much trouble with gangs. It's difficult to say "blindly follow us simply because we're in charge" and at the same time say "don't follow those that claim to be in charge because they have power."

IMHO kids need to be taught that teachers aren't any smarter than they are, they're just usually more knowledgeable, and that administrators often aren't right, but you have to play the game anyway.

TLO or not - let them call the police, and get the court order - I would not unlock the car. We can argue in court if TLO holds RE a car in the parking lot vs a student in the building vs a locker

Sorry folks - I'd just say NO - let them do it the hard way

"Sorry folks - I'd just say NO - let them do it the hard way"

You would do it, and I would do it, and many here would do it, but it is exceedingly unlikely that a 16-yr-old kid (esp a good one) is going to have the fortitude to do that. He's been trained all his life to do as he's told.

Sue

Leaving aside all of the legalities, I find it very curious that there is no reason given for them searching him or his car.

Well, we just had a similar case here in MA. Apparently, a 6 year old cub scout took his mess set (spoon, knife, fork combo) to school earlier this week. When the teacher saw it, the kid was immediately suspended for 45 days, and had to go to reform school-no questions asked. When interviewed, the superintendant said that was part of the "zero tolerance" that the school preaches. After being on the news all week, including several interviews with the parents & the poor kid, cooler heads prevailed. The superintendant was convinced that knee jerk reactions dont work-that the boy took it to school to eat with, because he thought it was a cool thing. So, he was only suspended for 5 days-which is still a tough call, as the kid STILL doesnt understand why he cannot go to school.
Zero tolerance is a lazy man's policy. I think these two cases, the one of the Eagle Scout, and the one with the Cub Scout, are clear examples of why blanket policies fail. The first one, there wasnt any REASON for it; the second one, the kid is too young to understand the sentence imposed on him. And, seriously...a 45 day suspension & 6 months in reform school-are were TRYING to create delinquency here?

Apparently the boy is very well prepared and the perfect candidate for West Point.
The scout with the SAK with the mess set was also in the news today and is back in school. Thankfully everyone has come to their senses. Just when I was about to throw my hands up and move to a 10x10 shack in the middle of Montana....nothing wrong with Montana, by the way.
It's just pitiful that we need to justify our being prepared nowadays.

The school district would have it better if they just labotimized students. That way their post powerful weapon would not be on school grounds. Then again, looking at public schools, perhaps that's the case for most of them.

Shades of Pink and the wall...

Effectively, they already do so chemically. Look at the increasing percentage of students on psychotropic medication.