Private University seizure of firearms

[herrwalther]

^ I wouldn't call this mostly resolved. Unless they win their appeal in the university (kangaroo) court, they both have permanent black marks on their record, and any further infraction will get them expelled. So, they're left living on pins and needles until they get their sheepskins.

What black marks? University disciplinary action rarely shows up in a permanent master file of all the naughty things you have done with your life. The police report will show up but not the results from the university disciplinary hearing. I broke a few rules at university when I was there, and received punishment according to the rules and regulations of the university. None of that has ever shown up on thorough background check for any LEO position I have applied for employment. Now on the other hand if they were seeking LEO or government employment, the agency could request any and all disciplinary records from the school which may or may not be released.

 

[316SS]

Turns out, this has already been mostly resolved.

Both students are on probation, meaning they are in classes etc. but if they have another violation of the student code of conduct, they are likely to be expelled.

They had a lawyer, no reports of ANY attempts to take legal action.

Can't tell if naive or disingenuous.

So, they don't have you on speed dial to update you on their private discussions? OK. You can take advantage of that opportunity to brush up on the legal definitions of the terms "void" and "unenforceable."

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

^ I wouldn't call this mostly resolved. Unless they win their appeal in the university (kangaroo) court, they both have permanent black marks on their record, and any further infraction will get them expelled. So, they're left living on pins and needles until they get their sheepskins.

Also, the university still retains possession of their confiscated firearms.

They're seniors...whoop-de-doo with respect to the "pins and needles" until graduation. They've got finals for this semester and then one more semester. Unless they're going for something more than a 4 year degree at this college.

The "black marks" don't mean anything. There were no arrests and the kids aren't being formally charged in the legal system. Nothing will follow them.

As for getting the firearms back, I don't think that'll be a problem. (Of course, I'm no attorney either.) The kids likely have some pretty good leverage to get them back, so long as the guns aren't going to end up back on school property. Exactly how that will take place remains to be seen. But this is what their attorney is for.

 

[docsleepy]

CNN is reporting that university does not own the residence in question. Rather have a 99 year lease.

 

[MEHavey]

FOX reports a few minutes ago that the students have their weapons back
with instructions to have them stored "off campus" (whatever that is).

But I also agree this is not over... the University's authority/standing to
engage in the actions (and their agent's actions) in the circumstances/-
location they did is still murky.

To the University's credit they've exhibited a trail of thoughtful response
rather than the mindless knee-jerk I've seen in so many public schools
of late.

We'll see....

 

[Pizzapinochle]

Can't tell if naive or disingenuous.

So, they don't have you on speed dial to update you on their private discussions? OK. You can take advantage of that opportunity to brush up on the legal definitions of the terms "void" and "unenforceable."

No... but googling is pretty easy.

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2013/nov/10/gonzaga-seniors-probation-gun-rule-violation/

The disciplinary hearing and determination of punishment was all completed last friday, before we even started talking about it. No mention of suing or lawsuits, definitely no criminal charges against the university.

The students plan to appeal the probation through the process laid out in the student code of conduct. Based on a few other stories I read, they do plan on discussing the ownership of the building as part of that.

 

[wojownik]

You identified part of the issue yourself. If they decide to stick around Gonzaga for post-graduate work, they may well still be under probation.

And if they apply to another school for an advanced degree ... law school comes to mind ... they will be asked about any offenses or disciplinary issues that may have arisen. And not disclosing is cause to be expelled from law school (I have a friend who went through that sorry process several years ago). And disclosing this type of offense could take them out of the running for many top schools, law, medicine, etc ...

And, when I went through my own security clearance review many years ago, you bet the investigators were asking about any disciplinary issues / offenses in college .. as if they didn't already know.

They're seniors...whoop-de-doo with respect to the "pins and needles" until graduation. They've got finals for this semester and then one more semester. Unless they're going for something more than a 4 year degree at this college.

The "black marks" don't mean anything. There were no arrests and the kids aren't being formally charged in the legal system. Nothing will follow them.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

I have three predictions:
1. It will end very well for the Students as far as their appeal.
2. University policy will be relaxed (but the degree remains to be seen).
3. (Unfortunately) the "David Gregory" rule will be applied to whatever crimes campus security committed.

Mike

 

[316SS]

No... but googling is pretty easy.

The students' lawyers are in an ongoing negotiation with the university's lawyers. An internet search isn't likely to answer the question of whether legal action is being considered or threatened.

No mention of suing or lawsuits, definitely no criminal charges against the university.

There's nothing definite about it. Whether charges will be filed against the university remains to be seen. The students reported the guns stolen, and they may yet pursue charges. That all depends on what the lawyers hash out.

 

[316SS]

I have three predictions:
1. It will end very well for the Students as far as their appeal.
2. University policy will be relaxed (but the degree remains to be seen).
3. (Unfortunately) the "David Gregory" rule will be applied to whatever crimes campus security committed.

Mike

I agree, mostly. There will be little political will to pursue violations of firearms laws by the university. Theft has already been alleged, but I'm guessing the students will decline to press charges in exchange for 1. and 2.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

The students reported the guns stolen, and they may yet pursue charges. That all depends on what the lawyers hash out.

The students don't get to decide whether to pursue charges. That isn't how it works. They can pester the hell out of the prosecutor and hope he pursues charges but individuals can't press charges against another individual. There wouldn't be enough jails in the world to hold everyone if that were the case.

Also, what the lawyers hash out has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal charges. The students got a lawyer and the school got a lawyer. That's a civil matter. A criminal case will not be the students against the school or vice versa. It will be State v. the school. You don't go to a lawyer to press charges against someone, nor can a lawyer make the decision to do so, unless that lawyer is a prosecuting attorney or deputy prosecuting attorney.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

There's nothing definite about it. Whether charges will be filed against the university remains to be seen. The students reported the guns stolen, and they may yet pursue charges. That all depends on what the lawyers hash out.

Well, if there ARE any criminal charges at some point, you bring this thread back up and I will post a video of me eating my own hat. It isn't going to happen.

I think you are giving the student's a much stronger position than they really have. It is pretty clear they violated the policy of "no guns in university managed housing." They may have a LITTLE bit of wiggle room on the on/off campus discussion, but not enough to make a really strong case.

We have probably heard the end of this. The students already got a fairly low-grade punishment for a clear violation of a serious school policy, the appeal might make a slight change, but nothing earth shattering. The students got their guns back and can finish school.

Moral of the story: When you sign something saying you will abide by a Student Code of Conduct (or any other contract), make sure you read and understand it, especially as it relates to firearms. If you don't like the policies, don't enter the agreement.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

You nailed it Arkansas Paul... I DOUBT that any of the prosecuting attorneys are lining up for the chance to go against Gonzaga University in this case.

 

[316SS]

The students don't get to decide whether to pursue charges. That isn't how it works.

Thanks, I understand how it works. If I tell the police someone stole my gun, and I know who it is, and that person or persons admits to taking it without my permission, the prosecutor could choose not to charge, but I find that unlikely.

Also, what the lawyers hash out has nothing whatsoever to do with criminal charges.

Hogwash. If the negotiations turn out favorably for the students, they will agree not to press theft charges. A prosecutor with an uncooperative victim would be a fool to charge at that point.

The university has realized that mistakes were made, and it is in their best interest to work it out amiably.

 

[316SS]

Well, if there ARE any criminal charges at some point, you bring this thread back up and I will post a video of me eating my own hat. It isn't going to happen.

Your hat is safe, since I've already stated I don't anticipate criminal charges.

Theft has already been alleged, but I'm guessing the students will decline to press charges in exchange for 1. and 2.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Hogwash. If the negotiations turn our favorably for the students, they will agree not to press theft charges.

You say you understand how it works, yet you mention again two sentences down the students agreeing not to do something they have no authority to do in the first place. I on the other hand, do know how this stuff works. It's what I do every single day.

A prosecutor with an uncooperative victim would be a fool to charge at that point.

In a lot of cases this would be true. If you're talking about a simple battery in the 3rd or a domestic violence charge that would be spot on. When you're talking about the theft of firearms, it wouldn't make a bit of difference if the victim wanted to cooperate or not. I've seen too many cases where the victims of a battery in the 1st or a forcible rape were not cooperative at all, and the case went on and the perp went to prison. With felonies, victim cooperation is not as big a deal. It's about whether or not the state can prove its case.

Now granted, a victim cooperating can very well make that chore easier, I'm not denying that. But on a felony charge, there's no simply telling the police or the prosecutor that you don't want to pursue.

 

[316SS]

You say you understand how it works, yet you mention again two sentences down the students agreeing not to do something they have no authority to do in the first place.

Let's define terms:

press charges

(intransitive, law) To formally accuse a person of a crime, especially by an ordinary person.

My emphasis.

Edit: I've re-read your post. If I understand you, you're saying that a prosecutor could reasonably be expected to to file charges in the event, say, that the guns were returned and the victim declined to cooperate? Well, OK. At that point I think I'd agree with this:

I DOUBT that any of the prosecuting attorneys are lining up for the chance to go against Gonzaga University in this case.

But if I'm wrong I won't eat my hat. Been wrong too many times.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

You can construe that generic definition to mean whatever you want it to mean. It doesn't change the fact that a person cannot bring criminal charges against anyone.
Maybe the terminology used is a little different in Arkansas, but only the state can bring charges, and that's anywhere. If the police investigate it and the PA deems that charges should be filed, they will be. If not, there won't be any.

 

[316SS]

You can construe that generic definition to mean whatever you want it to mean. It doesn't change the fact that a person cannot bring criminal charges against anyone.
Maybe the terminology used is a little different in Arkansas, but only the state can bring charges, and that's anywhere. If the police investigate it and the PA deems that charges should be filed, they will be. If not, there won't be any.

I assure you I understand that an individual cannot initiate charges. But they certainly can formally accuse and demand and support prosecution. While the state could decline to charge, why would it if 1) the facts of the case aren't even disputed and 2) the victims are willing to cooperate?

Conversely, it seems far less likely that the state would bring charges if the guns were returned and the victims said no harm, no foul.

I get that the students can offer no guarantees either way, but they can certainly influence the outcome.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

The university has realized that mistakes were made, and it is in their best interest to work it out amiably.

What makes you think that the university "realized that mistakes were made"?

 

[Pizzapinochle]

While the state could decline to charge, why would it if 1) the facts of the case aren't even disputed and 2) the victims are willing to cooperate?

Well... they would decline to charge if the facts of the case, which are not in dispute, indicate that no crime was committed.

In this case, the students signed an agreement that said that campus security could enter their room and confiscate prohibited items, including firearms.

 

[316SS]

In this case, the students signed an agreement that said that campus security could enter their room and confiscate prohibited items, including firearms.

As has been covered, just because it is in a contract does not mean it is valid.

You and I could execute a contract that says you'll lend me $100, and if I don't pay you by Friday you can break my kneecaps. Try using that contract as defense.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

The common law right to bring or hire an attorney to bring a case for an indictment before a grand jury was quashed in Federal Courts by Leeke v. Timmerman, 454 U.S. 83 (1981). However it is a specific part of Virginia Common Law and the statutory law of a handful of states.

Mike

 

[docsleepy]

What may be interesting is the impact on DONORS and especially ALUMNI DONORS.

Here is an avenue that pro-2nd-amendment folks in that area should beat the drum on.....

In my experience, Universities are ALL about the $$. Create a campaign to subtly reduce their donations because of their lack of support for "civil rights" and you will get more done quickly on our behalf.

 

[Pizzapinochle]

As has been covered, just because it is in a contract does not mean it is valid.

You and I could execute a contract that says you'll lend me $100, and if I don't pay you by Friday you can break my kneecaps. Try using that contract as defense.

Even if the contract is NOT valid (which, it has been in place for years and there is no evidence that it is not), that does not mean there would be criminal charges.

There was no criminal intent and no prosecutor is going to try and drag a university security guard in front of a jury and try to convince them that he is a criminal. There is no way that would happen, even if the policy was not legal.

The students MAYBE could try for some sort of civil suit against the university. That case would determine the legitimacy of the student code of conduct. No way they could get a criminal case against anyone for theft when what happened was CLEARLY not a criminal act of theft.