If they have a slam dunk against her, why wouldn't they call the parents? It makes me think that there could have been them putting some pressure on her and exploiting a vulnerable situation. How long do you think a police officer would last if he or she just openly ignored Miranda?

 

I have no doubt that some of this entered into the picture. No faith whatsoever that the school systems can effectively or judiciously apply logic to these situations.

 

I'm not saying the young lady wasn't wrong, she was. There is no way possible this young lady didn't know this was wrong. Check her media feeds, she knew what she was doing….

I have no doubt that some of this entered into the picture. No faith whatsoever that the school systems can effectively or judiciously apply logic to these situations.

 

I'm not saying the young lady wasn't wrong, she was. There is no way possible this young lady didn't know this was wrong. Check her media feeds, she knew what she was doing….

 

 

Haven't seen her media feeds or anything. Still, she could be posing with a dead body and peeing on Adolph Rupp's grave while holding her birth certificate up for the camera and the school has to have the sense to know what laws to follow and to be willing to follow them if they are going to try to get a confession or even initiate an interrogation. You just don't pull what they did with not calling the parents.

Have you checked for a district policy? That may be where you find the punishment for drug violations.

 

Yes, if it exist it did not jump out on system website.

_________________________________________________________

 

I retired in 2005, so maybe things have changed and this case probably caused that. No school board attorney ever told me that either. The one's I had represented several districts.

 

I never had a SRO present, in any case I investigated, because we never had them up to 2005 when I retired. If police were called to investigate I waited until their evidence came through after I had already given due process. Due process determined if I decided to involve the police or if statutes demanded it. Regardless, this became a police matter and a separate school matter. I called the parents and the officer(s) could not talk to the student until they arrived or if the parents wouldn't come, they would not have talked to the student on campus. Every parent came. The officers conducted the investigation either at school not in my presence or took them to the station.

 

The other issue in Woodford Co. is was the SRO a local police placement from the Versailles PD or the Woodford Co. Sheriff's Office. Not all of them are. Some are classified persons hired by the district.

 

Also to the bolded. I received 6-12 hours legal training every year, had a School Law Book as a reference, an attorney at my disposal, and a subscription to a school law weekly pamphlet that had several new information and rulings made throughout the nation. I took all of them seriously.

 

A lot to consider.

 

 

Gotcha. The KY Supreme Court ruling only came down in 2013. Some time after you left, there's been some developments in regards to this whole issue. I'd just assumed that you were still in administration.

 

Probably different that you didn't have an SRO present from day to day at the school. I'd imagine that if you called police, that the onus would kind of be on them and away from you if they wanted to interrogate, etc. Not really sure what the situation is with Woodford County, but I'd imagine that their SRO is probably an officer somewhere given how some of commentary on the lawsuit read.

SRO role is explained in Student handbook. Pretty mundane and bland description.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that only one side of the story has been presented.

The school cannot respond with public comments because of confidentiality laws.

I bet there is some kind of district code of conduct with a discipline matrix that will show that this punishment is appropriate.

 

 

One other point of clarification... School officials can ask lots of questions and would never mirandize a student. Administrators do not place people under arrest. It is when the school resource officer gets involved that being mirandized becomes important. I would assume the officers are at least as responsible as the administrators to know that info.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that only one side of the story has been presented.

The school cannot respond with public comments because of confidentiality laws.

I bet there is some kind of district code of conduct with a discipline matrix that will show that this punishment is appropriate.

 

 

One other point of clarification... School officials can ask lots of questions and would never mirandize a student. Administrators do not place people under arrest. It is when the school resource officer gets involved that being mirandized becomes important. I would assume the officers are at least as responsible as the administrators to know that info.

 

 

:thumb:

Let's not lose sight of the fact that only one side of the story has been presented.

The school cannot respond with public comments because of confidentiality laws.

I bet there is some kind of district code of conduct with a discipline matrix that will show that this punishment is appropriate.

 

 

One other point of clarification... School officials can ask lots of questions and would never mirandize a student. Administrators do not place people under arrest. It is when the school resource officer gets involved that being mirandized becomes important. I would assume the officers are at least as responsible as the administrators to know that info.

 

Spot on Plato.

 

Parents need to be pro-active also. I have told my children, middle and high school, not to answer questions of school officials or law enforcement, about a serious allegation without myself or their mother present. For the record, I don't ever anticipate having that situation but better they be prepared than not with what I see come through court.

Yes, if it exist it did not jump out on system website.

I'm sure that it exists. Every district has one. Students in my school get two handbooks to start out every year. One is the school policy book, one for the district. The district handbook has a matrix of offenses and possible punishments.

I just perused these posts so apologies if this has been mentioned.

 

What about the parents of the student who distributed the Vyvanse? I see some accountability there. These are minor kids. Parents pick up a 30 day supply of Vyvanse. Are the parents not somewhat monitoring how it is consumed?

 

In other words if it's 15 days after you picked up the 30 day supply, and there are only 5 pills left...do the math.

 

In a way, it's the same concept as if your child got into your liquor cabinet and brought your vodka to school and shared it with friends, except this is more serious.

Not saying they should.

 

Policy should be flexible to address serious illicit drug dealing or sharing of aspirin (which is probably also against policy) and things in between.

 

Given the openness of the transaction it could not be ignored, that is for sure.

The fact that she is an AP student and class president was mentioned several times. I'm just unsure what that matters, unless to call for a different punishment.

As long as Woodford does this with all drug issues the same way I see no issues with it, if its not been consistent then I would not agree.

As long as Woodford does this with all drug issues the same way I see no issues with it, if its not been consistent then I would not agree.

 

Is dealing illegal drugs to the entire student body the same as this?

I just perused these posts so apologies if this has been mentioned.

 

What about the parents of the student who distributed the Vyvanse? I see some accountability there. These are minor kids. Parents pick up a 30 day supply of Vyvanse. Are the parents not somewhat monitoring how it is consumed?

 

In other words if it's 15 days after you picked up the 30 day supply, and there are only 5 pills left...do the math.

 

In a way, it's the same concept as if your child got into your liquor cabinet and brought your vodka to school and shared it with friends, except this is more serious.

 

90 day supply is available via mail order pharmacies.

Just for the record the girl was given multiple punishments for something that goes on everyday in every high school. Its not good that these things happen at all but they are reality and things need to fit the circumstances. Schools do need to focus on 'stimulants' in general and improper (and illegal) selling of prescription meds is something that must be addressed when found. But policies must also address over use of drinks like Red Bull, Nicotine e-cigs, etc.

 

But here is a list of the punishments and views on them.

 

- 5 day suspension converted to 2 1/2 - I have no problem with this. Not sure why it was shorted but its quick, makes a statement and allows all to move on.

- Removal from Cross Country - I have no problem with this. Given the 'performance enhancing' potential of the drug in question it would seem some action dealing with the athetic side of this was needed. Also - use of non-prescribed stimulants I believe is a serious no-no with the NCAA. So if she (or another athlete) is looking to play in college recreactional use of ADHD meds is definite problem.

- 30 Day Alternative School - This is a head scratcher - the policy in the student handbook is clear that this 'alternative school' is to be used to address disruptive behavioral issues. That is not the case of concern here. Not sure it was the other case referred to by the school administration. But it is not meant to be a punishment. It seems a mis-use of the school.

- The ban from campus except for teacher conferences - This seems extraordinarily harsh. They basically banished her.

 

She (and the other student) were wrong. But it just seems like a lot of piling on here.