Friday, October 27, 2006
Associated Press
A federal lawsuit filed against three police officers alleges they sexually assaulted a man while serving a search warrant that involved a former tenant at the man's apartment.
The lawsuit, filed Monday on behalf of 36-year-old Leo Michael Baca, claims officers locked Baca in a bedroom in August 2005, sexually assaulted him and threatened to cut off his testicles if he refused to give information about a previous tenant of the apartment.
The lawsuit names as defendants the city of Albuquerque, Officer Lucas Townsend and two officers Baca said he couldn't identify.
Police spokesman John Walsh declined to comment on the lawsuit.
City Attorney Bob White said his office is reviewing the lawsuit. He had no further comment.
An internal investigation into Baca's allegations cleared the officers, according to a police report.
The investigation included interviews with 13 police officers and an acquaintance of Baca's who were present during the search. All said they did not witness an assault against Baca and said Baca was in the apartment's living room throughout the search.
Investigators were unable to obtain information from audio recorders worn by six officers involved during the search because all six had turned them off after entering the apartment, according to the report.
Police had obtained a warrant to search the apartment in connection with a drug trafficking investigation.
Friday, October 27, 2006
Monday, October 2, 2006
Protestor arrested at weapons symposium
Media Credit: Photo by Luis Martin
Robert Anderson, a Central New Mexico Community College professor and local antiwar activist, is arrested by UNM Police officers in the Santa Ana room in the SUB on Friday.
by Maggie Ybarra, Daily Lobo
A protestor was arrested on charges of battery on a police officer at a symposium about nuclear warheads in the SUB on Friday.
Robert Anderson, 62, who is a Central New Mexico Community College professor, former UNM professor and local antiwar activist, pleaded not guilty on Sunday to the charge.
The symposium was held to discuss the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and the development of new warheads.
The event was sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories, UNM and Women in International Security.
Anderson told the audience he was protesting the event because it encouraged the creation of nuclear weapons, and the panel members did not represent diverse opinions.
The panel included at least three members of Sandia National Laboratories and a member of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Members of Stop the War Machine, including Anderson, set up a table with posters and bumper stickers outside the Santa Ana room where the symposium was held.
The group is dedicated to educating the public about the military-industrial complex, according to the group's Web site.
Vera Norwood, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said in an interview Sunday that she told the protestors they were allowed to have the table and participate in the symposium. However, they were not allowed to bring signs into the room, she said.
"I told him (Anderson) they were welcome to do whatever they wanted outside the room," she said. "But inside the room, there would be a series of presentations, which a lot of people had come to hear."
About 80 people attended the event.
When the presentation was about to start, Anderson and student Andrew Marcum began shouting questions to the speaker, Norwood said.
The student was holding a sign that read "Educate for peace,
not war."
Norwood told Anderson several times to stop interrupting the presentation, or he would have
to leave.
Protestor arrested at weapons symposium
Media Credit: Photo by Luis Martin
Robert Anderson, a Central New Mexico Community College professor and local antiwar activist, is arrested by UNM Police officers in the Santa Ana room in the SUB on Friday.
by Maggie Ybarra, Daily Lobo
A protestor was arrested on charges of battery on a police officer at a symposium about nuclear warheads in the SUB on Friday.
Robert Anderson, 62, who is a Central New Mexico Community College professor, former UNM professor and local antiwar activist, pleaded not guilty on Sunday to the charge.
The symposium was held to discuss the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and the development of new warheads.
The event was sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories, UNM and Women in International Security.
Anderson told the audience he was protesting the event because it encouraged the creation of nuclear weapons, and the panel members did not represent diverse opinions.
The panel included at least three members of Sandia National Laboratories and a member of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Members of Stop the War Machine, including Anderson, set up a table with posters and bumper stickers outside the Santa Ana room where the symposium was held.
The group is dedicated to educating the public about the military-industrial complex, according to the group's Web site.
Vera Norwood, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said in an interview Sunday that she told the protestors they were allowed to have the table and participate in the symposium. However, they were not allowed to bring signs into the room, she said.
"I told him (Anderson) they were welcome to do whatever they wanted outside the room," she said. "But inside the room, there would be a series of presentations, which a lot of people had come to hear."
About 80 people attended the event.
When the presentation was about to start, Anderson and student Andrew Marcum began shouting questions to the speaker, Norwood said.
The student was holding a sign that read "Educate for peace,
not war."
Norwood told Anderson several times to stop interrupting the presentation, or he would have
to leave.
Robert Anderson, a Central New Mexico Community College professor and local antiwar activist, is arrested by UNM Police officers in the Santa Ana room in the SUB on Friday.
by Maggie Ybarra, Daily Lobo
A protestor was arrested on charges of battery on a police officer at a symposium about nuclear warheads in the SUB on Friday.
Robert Anderson, 62, who is a Central New Mexico Community College professor, former UNM professor and local antiwar activist, pleaded not guilty on Sunday to the charge.
The symposium was held to discuss the future of the U.S. nuclear weapons program and the development of new warheads.
The event was sponsored by Sandia National Laboratories, UNM and Women in International Security.
Anderson told the audience he was protesting the event because it encouraged the creation of nuclear weapons, and the panel members did not represent diverse opinions.
The panel included at least three members of Sandia National Laboratories and a member of the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Members of Stop the War Machine, including Anderson, set up a table with posters and bumper stickers outside the Santa Ana room where the symposium was held.
The group is dedicated to educating the public about the military-industrial complex, according to the group's Web site.
Vera Norwood, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said in an interview Sunday that she told the protestors they were allowed to have the table and participate in the symposium. However, they were not allowed to bring signs into the room, she said.
"I told him (Anderson) they were welcome to do whatever they wanted outside the room," she said. "But inside the room, there would be a series of presentations, which a lot of people had come to hear."
About 80 people attended the event.
When the presentation was about to start, Anderson and student Andrew Marcum began shouting questions to the speaker, Norwood said.
The student was holding a sign that read "Educate for peace,
not war."
Norwood told Anderson several times to stop interrupting the presentation, or he would have
to leave.
Friday, September 1, 2006
Family Seeks Money Damages From APD
By Carolyn Carlson, Journal Staff Writer
The family of a 17-year-old who was shot and killed by Albuquerque Police Department officers in 2003 is seeking monetary damages from the city and the officers.
On Nov. 29, 2003, Eric Harrison was shot in the back by Officer Matthew Thompson outside the police training academy near Montaño and Second Street during an altercation between Harrison and then-54-year-old Cipriano Salazar.
A police spokesman at the time said the officers were leaving a training session at the academy when they saw a beating in progress. They ordered Harrison to drop a baseball bat he was using to hit Salazar. Harrison refused and raised the bat to strike again, the spokesman said.
The wrongful death lawsuit was filed on Nov. 28, 2005, the day before the statute of limitations would have run out, according to attorney Miguel Campos.
Campos and attorney Phillip A. Martinez are representing Maria E. Chávez, who had raised Harrison since he was a toddler.
According to court documents, Campos and Martinez contend Thompson and Brad Ahrensfield confronted Harrison and Salazar, who were involved in the altercation over a T-ball bat.
"One of the officers without adequate warning opened fire upon (Harrison) shooting him twice in the back causing fatal injuries," the lawsuit says.
Campos and Martinez said officers used excessive force and were negligent and reckless.
"It is sad all the way around," Campos said Thursday. He declined to comment further.
Court documents say Ahrensfield did not fire his gun.
Campos and Martinez say in the lawsuit that even though he did not fire his gun, Ahrensfield did not take any action, verbal or physical, to dissuade Thompson from firing the fatal shots. Nor did Ahrensfield warn Harrison that shots were going to be fired.
City attorneys Robert M. White and Kathryn Levy said in court documents that Thompson saw Harrison beating Salazar in the head with a baseball bat. Thompson ordered Harrison to stop but Harrison struck Salazar a second time with the bat. Harrison was in a striking position when Thompson shot Harrison.
They say the actions taken by Thompson saved Salazar from further serious injury or even death and were in full compliance with standard and acceptable police procedures, the city's response to the lawsuit said.
Salazar was taken to an area hospital and was released four days later.
"The city will defend its actions in the lawsuit," White said Thursday.
At the time of the shooting, Harrison's family said the shooting was a tragedy beyond belief.
Frank Chávez, Harrison's uncle, has said his nephew was a good kid and had never been in trouble. Chávez has said he and his mother, Maria, raised Harrison since he was a toddler because both of his parents were in prison.
"This has devastated our family," Chávez said at the time. "The police could have handled this differently. He was just a little guy. Two big cops could have taken him down."
Chávez said his nephew was about 5-foot-5 and weighed only about 130 pounds.
The lawsuit asks for damages to be determined at trial. The case is currently set for a March 2007 trial date.
The family of a 17-year-old who was shot and killed by Albuquerque Police Department officers in 2003 is seeking monetary damages from the city and the officers.
On Nov. 29, 2003, Eric Harrison was shot in the back by Officer Matthew Thompson outside the police training academy near Montaño and Second Street during an altercation between Harrison and then-54-year-old Cipriano Salazar.
A police spokesman at the time said the officers were leaving a training session at the academy when they saw a beating in progress. They ordered Harrison to drop a baseball bat he was using to hit Salazar. Harrison refused and raised the bat to strike again, the spokesman said.
The wrongful death lawsuit was filed on Nov. 28, 2005, the day before the statute of limitations would have run out, according to attorney Miguel Campos.
Campos and attorney Phillip A. Martinez are representing Maria E. Chávez, who had raised Harrison since he was a toddler.
According to court documents, Campos and Martinez contend Thompson and Brad Ahrensfield confronted Harrison and Salazar, who were involved in the altercation over a T-ball bat.
"One of the officers without adequate warning opened fire upon (Harrison) shooting him twice in the back causing fatal injuries," the lawsuit says.
Campos and Martinez said officers used excessive force and were negligent and reckless.
"It is sad all the way around," Campos said Thursday. He declined to comment further.
Court documents say Ahrensfield did not fire his gun.
Campos and Martinez say in the lawsuit that even though he did not fire his gun, Ahrensfield did not take any action, verbal or physical, to dissuade Thompson from firing the fatal shots. Nor did Ahrensfield warn Harrison that shots were going to be fired.
City attorneys Robert M. White and Kathryn Levy said in court documents that Thompson saw Harrison beating Salazar in the head with a baseball bat. Thompson ordered Harrison to stop but Harrison struck Salazar a second time with the bat. Harrison was in a striking position when Thompson shot Harrison.
They say the actions taken by Thompson saved Salazar from further serious injury or even death and were in full compliance with standard and acceptable police procedures, the city's response to the lawsuit said.
Salazar was taken to an area hospital and was released four days later.
"The city will defend its actions in the lawsuit," White said Thursday.
At the time of the shooting, Harrison's family said the shooting was a tragedy beyond belief.
Frank Chávez, Harrison's uncle, has said his nephew was a good kid and had never been in trouble. Chávez has said he and his mother, Maria, raised Harrison since he was a toddler because both of his parents were in prison.
"This has devastated our family," Chávez said at the time. "The police could have handled this differently. He was just a little guy. Two big cops could have taken him down."
Chávez said his nephew was about 5-foot-5 and weighed only about 130 pounds.
The lawsuit asks for damages to be determined at trial. The case is currently set for a March 2007 trial date.
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
State Police Officer Charged With Battery
By Rene Romo, Journal Southern Bureau
LAS CRUCES— City police filed a criminal complaint Monday charging an off-duty State Police officer with aggravated battery for his alleged part in a fight last week.
Nicholas Zepeda, 23, was charged with two felony counts— aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery with intent to commit great bodily harm.
State Police spokesman Lt. Rick Anglada said Zepeda will be placed on administrative duties, pending the outcome of an internal investigation and the criminal case.
Zepeda, stationed in Española, was attending a training class in Las Cruces at the time of the incident, Anglada said.
According to a statement of facts filed in Magistrate Court, a dispute that began at a bar carried over to an apartment complex shortly after 2 a.m. Wednesday. Three men, including Zepeda, were involved in an altercation with Daniel Reyes, 23, of Las Cruces.
Amy Orlando, chief deputy district attorney, said prosecutors are considering filing charges against the two men who were with Zepeda. She said she did not expect charges would be filed against Reyes.
Reyes told an investigator that, as he was leaving the bar, he punched Zepeda because Zepeda allegedly insulted him.
Zepeda and two friends then drove to Reyes' apartment. Zepeda told police that as he approached Reyes, Reyes reached into the bed of his truck, grabbed a beer bottle and smashed it against Zepeda's head. A fight ensued.
Reyes told police he struck Zepeda with a bottle in self-defense after Zepeda and two other men arrived at his apartment complex and rushed him.
A witness told police a man matching Zepeda's description made "two quick stabbing movements" to Reyes' back with what appeared to be a piece of glass. Reyes suffered two puncture wounds to his back.
LAS CRUCES— City police filed a criminal complaint Monday charging an off-duty State Police officer with aggravated battery for his alleged part in a fight last week.
Nicholas Zepeda, 23, was charged with two felony counts— aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and aggravated battery with intent to commit great bodily harm.
State Police spokesman Lt. Rick Anglada said Zepeda will be placed on administrative duties, pending the outcome of an internal investigation and the criminal case.
Zepeda, stationed in Española, was attending a training class in Las Cruces at the time of the incident, Anglada said.
According to a statement of facts filed in Magistrate Court, a dispute that began at a bar carried over to an apartment complex shortly after 2 a.m. Wednesday. Three men, including Zepeda, were involved in an altercation with Daniel Reyes, 23, of Las Cruces.
Amy Orlando, chief deputy district attorney, said prosecutors are considering filing charges against the two men who were with Zepeda. She said she did not expect charges would be filed against Reyes.
Reyes told an investigator that, as he was leaving the bar, he punched Zepeda because Zepeda allegedly insulted him.
Zepeda and two friends then drove to Reyes' apartment. Zepeda told police that as he approached Reyes, Reyes reached into the bed of his truck, grabbed a beer bottle and smashed it against Zepeda's head. A fight ensued.
Reyes told police he struck Zepeda with a bottle in self-defense after Zepeda and two other men arrived at his apartment complex and rushed him.
A witness told police a man matching Zepeda's description made "two quick stabbing movements" to Reyes' back with what appeared to be a piece of glass. Reyes suffered two puncture wounds to his back.
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
Police Settle Death Lawsuit
Wednesday, August 2, 2006
By Martin Salazar
Journal Staff Writer
A lawsuit filed over the September 2004 State Police shooting that left a Chimayó man dead has been settled, parties on both sides of the case confirmed Tuesday.
The amount of the settlement— executed in late April— wasn't disclosed.
Leo Lopez, 44, was fatally shot by an undercover State Police narcotics agent during a drug investigation on Sept. 22, 2004. His family filed a wrongful death suit in October 2005 alleging that police failed to identify themselves, that the officer shot Lopez without provocation and that authorities then withheld medical treatment, causing his death.
State Police have said agents identified themselves as police officers when Lopez, who was inside his truck, "aggressively backed up in an apparent attempt to use his vehicle as a weapon against the officers." A State Police officer shot at the driver "while trying to protect himself and others from being severely injured or killed," the agency said.
An investigative grand jury determined in October that the shooting was justified, though the attorney representing the Lopez family has previously said that the grand jury may not have been given all the information in the case.
Plaintiffs attorney Robert Rothstein said he was bound by a confidentiality clause in the settlement and couldn't disclose how much the Lopez family was paid to drop its suit, which had been filed in state district court in Tierra Amarilla.
"My clients were very pleased with the overall settlement and glad to put it behind them," Rothstein said.
A stipulated order of dismissal dropping officer Sean Wallace, who the suit identified as the shooter, and Wallace's former supervisor Roman Jimenez as defendants was filed on April 26. On May 3, a stipulated dismissal order was filed dropping the suit against the remaining defendants— the State Police and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety.
DPS spokesman Peter Olson said he was prohibited by statute from disclosing the settlement amount, but he said the settlement wasn't an admission of wrongdoing by DPS or State Police.
"There are many, many reasons why lawsuits are settled," Olson said. "Among them are expediency and saving taxpayer money for prolonged lawsuits or trials."
Under state law, settlements handled by the state Risk Management Division remain confidential for six months.
Olson said Wallace is still a State Police officer. Jimenez, who had been overseeing the Region III narcotics task force, is now assistant district commander for the State Police district in Deming.
Wallace was named in another 2003 lawsuit alleging excessive force when he worked for State Police in Las Vegas. Wallace had been accused in the suit of battering a man after pulling him over without probable cause. The suit was settled for $19,999 in September 2005.
State Police have refused to confirm that Wallace was indeed the officer who fatally shot Lopez. The agency also has denied multiple requests from the Journal and other media outlets in New Mexico to inspect incident reports from the Sept. 22 shooting that resulted in Lopez's death.
The Journal, Santa Fe New Mexican, Rio Grande Sun and the Albuquerque-based New Mexico Foundation for Open Government filed suit against DPS in August 2005 to get access to the reports. That case is still pending.
By Martin Salazar
Journal Staff Writer
A lawsuit filed over the September 2004 State Police shooting that left a Chimayó man dead has been settled, parties on both sides of the case confirmed Tuesday.
The amount of the settlement— executed in late April— wasn't disclosed.
Leo Lopez, 44, was fatally shot by an undercover State Police narcotics agent during a drug investigation on Sept. 22, 2004. His family filed a wrongful death suit in October 2005 alleging that police failed to identify themselves, that the officer shot Lopez without provocation and that authorities then withheld medical treatment, causing his death.
State Police have said agents identified themselves as police officers when Lopez, who was inside his truck, "aggressively backed up in an apparent attempt to use his vehicle as a weapon against the officers." A State Police officer shot at the driver "while trying to protect himself and others from being severely injured or killed," the agency said.
An investigative grand jury determined in October that the shooting was justified, though the attorney representing the Lopez family has previously said that the grand jury may not have been given all the information in the case.
Plaintiffs attorney Robert Rothstein said he was bound by a confidentiality clause in the settlement and couldn't disclose how much the Lopez family was paid to drop its suit, which had been filed in state district court in Tierra Amarilla.
"My clients were very pleased with the overall settlement and glad to put it behind them," Rothstein said.
A stipulated order of dismissal dropping officer Sean Wallace, who the suit identified as the shooter, and Wallace's former supervisor Roman Jimenez as defendants was filed on April 26. On May 3, a stipulated dismissal order was filed dropping the suit against the remaining defendants— the State Police and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety.
DPS spokesman Peter Olson said he was prohibited by statute from disclosing the settlement amount, but he said the settlement wasn't an admission of wrongdoing by DPS or State Police.
"There are many, many reasons why lawsuits are settled," Olson said. "Among them are expediency and saving taxpayer money for prolonged lawsuits or trials."
Under state law, settlements handled by the state Risk Management Division remain confidential for six months.
Olson said Wallace is still a State Police officer. Jimenez, who had been overseeing the Region III narcotics task force, is now assistant district commander for the State Police district in Deming.
Wallace was named in another 2003 lawsuit alleging excessive force when he worked for State Police in Las Vegas. Wallace had been accused in the suit of battering a man after pulling him over without probable cause. The suit was settled for $19,999 in September 2005.
State Police have refused to confirm that Wallace was indeed the officer who fatally shot Lopez. The agency also has denied multiple requests from the Journal and other media outlets in New Mexico to inspect incident reports from the Sept. 22 shooting that resulted in Lopez's death.
The Journal, Santa Fe New Mexican, Rio Grande Sun and the Albuquerque-based New Mexico Foundation for Open Government filed suit against DPS in August 2005 to get access to the reports. That case is still pending.
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
Court Limits Schools' Search of Students
By Amy Miller, Journal Staff Writer
Students can't be searched just because a school official has a hunch they have done something illegal, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.
The ruling upheld a district court decision that two Rio Grande High School campus security aides didn't have reasonable suspicion to search a student who was "acting a little nervous" when approached.
The student, identified only as Pablo R., was found in possession of a weapon and drug paraphernalia. The ruling grants the student's request to suppress evidence in his juvenile case.
Assistant Attorney General Arthur Pepin said his office was disappointed.
"We feel the safety concerns the school expressed are legitimate, and it (the ruling) makes it more difficult for the school to provide a safe learning environment," Pepin said.
The decision was filed in April, and the state Supreme Court declined to review it in June.
Assistant Appellate Defender Nancy Hewitt said the court case should not change how schools operate.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established that school officials must have a good reason to suspect that students have violated the law or a school rule before searching them.
That has been Albuquerque Public Schools' policy for several years, APS spokesman Rigo Chavez said.
However, he said APS police officers and campus security aides will be briefed on the decision and others that define reasonable suspicion during annual training sessions.
Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, said the decision does "clarify the rights that students have against unwarranted, unjustifiable searches of their person by school administrators."
"We have such a problem in our public schools with misunderstandings about where students' constitutional rights begin and end," he said.
Reasonable suspicion
The court said school officials don't need a search warrant or even probable cause to search a student's belongings.
But students have a constitutional right to privacy, so "the search of a student must still be reasonable under the circumstances in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny," wrote state Appeals Court Judge Michael Vigil. Judges Cynthia Fry and Ira Robinson concurred.
The court said school officials must have reasonable suspicion based on specific facts, and there must be a connection between what they searched for and what they found.
What reasonable suspicion actually means on school grounds to school officials has been a gray area, legal experts agreed.
"Reasonable suspicion is a standard that inevitably will vary from case to case, depending on the circumstances school officials find themselves in at the time," said Chief Public Defender John Bigelow.
In this case, the student was walking down a Rio Grande High hallway on Dec. 15, 2003, without a pass. He said he had been late to class and been instructed by his teacher to go to the office for a late pass.
A campus security aide stopped him and thought "something was wrong" because he seemed nervous and fidgety.
The student was directed to the security office, where two aides frisked him and searched his jacket. They found a pipe containing what appeared to be marijuana residue and a pair of brass knuckles.
The campus security aide admitted that when he stopped the student, he did not suspect any criminal activity or smell marijuana. He became concerned the student "might have a weapon or anything else like marijuana," because the student appeared nervous.
The Appeals Court said that didn't meet the test to allow a search.
"This was nothing more than a hunch and insufficient as a matter of law to provide reasonable suspicion to conduct the search," Vigil wrote. "Reasonable suspicion must exist at the inception of the search; the State cannot rely on facts which arise as a result of the search, such as the discovery of the weapon and drug paraphernalia on Child."
Students can't be searched just because a school official has a hunch they have done something illegal, the state Court of Appeals has ruled.
The ruling upheld a district court decision that two Rio Grande High School campus security aides didn't have reasonable suspicion to search a student who was "acting a little nervous" when approached.
The student, identified only as Pablo R., was found in possession of a weapon and drug paraphernalia. The ruling grants the student's request to suppress evidence in his juvenile case.
Assistant Attorney General Arthur Pepin said his office was disappointed.
"We feel the safety concerns the school expressed are legitimate, and it (the ruling) makes it more difficult for the school to provide a safe learning environment," Pepin said.
The decision was filed in April, and the state Supreme Court declined to review it in June.
Assistant Appellate Defender Nancy Hewitt said the court case should not change how schools operate.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established that school officials must have a good reason to suspect that students have violated the law or a school rule before searching them.
That has been Albuquerque Public Schools' policy for several years, APS spokesman Rigo Chavez said.
However, he said APS police officers and campus security aides will be briefed on the decision and others that define reasonable suspicion during annual training sessions.
Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, said the decision does "clarify the rights that students have against unwarranted, unjustifiable searches of their person by school administrators."
"We have such a problem in our public schools with misunderstandings about where students' constitutional rights begin and end," he said.
Reasonable suspicion
The court said school officials don't need a search warrant or even probable cause to search a student's belongings.
But students have a constitutional right to privacy, so "the search of a student must still be reasonable under the circumstances in order to withstand constitutional scrutiny," wrote state Appeals Court Judge Michael Vigil. Judges Cynthia Fry and Ira Robinson concurred.
The court said school officials must have reasonable suspicion based on specific facts, and there must be a connection between what they searched for and what they found.
What reasonable suspicion actually means on school grounds to school officials has been a gray area, legal experts agreed.
"Reasonable suspicion is a standard that inevitably will vary from case to case, depending on the circumstances school officials find themselves in at the time," said Chief Public Defender John Bigelow.
In this case, the student was walking down a Rio Grande High hallway on Dec. 15, 2003, without a pass. He said he had been late to class and been instructed by his teacher to go to the office for a late pass.
A campus security aide stopped him and thought "something was wrong" because he seemed nervous and fidgety.
The student was directed to the security office, where two aides frisked him and searched his jacket. They found a pipe containing what appeared to be marijuana residue and a pair of brass knuckles.
The campus security aide admitted that when he stopped the student, he did not suspect any criminal activity or smell marijuana. He became concerned the student "might have a weapon or anything else like marijuana," because the student appeared nervous.
The Appeals Court said that didn't meet the test to allow a search.
"This was nothing more than a hunch and insufficient as a matter of law to provide reasonable suspicion to conduct the search," Vigil wrote. "Reasonable suspicion must exist at the inception of the search; the State cannot rely on facts which arise as a result of the search, such as the discovery of the weapon and drug paraphernalia on Child."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
