(SC) High School Drug Sweep Yields Class Action Lawsuit

Status
Not open for further replies.
More than 100 students were in the hallway that morning, but the department's procedure on "illegal narcotics detection" states, "Only after the on-scene supervisor has cleared the area of all personnel will the canine enter and conduct an illegal narcotics detection."
You see how this always plays out when police violate an individual's rights. Where "procedures" followed? So, if it was SOP for the cops to do what they did, it would be fine? If the dog standard was 5 weeks of training instead of 12, that would be okay?

Your rights hang in the balance of an Administrator's ability to write rules.

Rick
 
ACLU files suit over Stratford raid

Anyone who still doesn't respect the ACLU needs to realize that cutting off your nose to spite your face is an exercise in futility.
-----
http://www.charleston.net/stories/121603/loc_16lawsuit.shtml

ACLU files suit over Stratford raid
10:19 a.m. Tuesday, December 16, 2003


ACLU files suit over Stratford raid

20 students ages 14 to 18 represented

BY SEANNA ADCOX
Of The Post and Courier Staff
GOOSE CREEK--The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit Monday on behalf of 20 students ages 14 to 18, claiming "gun-wielding officers" and a "large and aggressive police dog" terrorized them during an unconstitutional drug raid Nov. 5 at Stratford High School.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Charleston accuses school and police officials of violating search and seizure laws and using excessive force. It asks the court to declare the raids unconstitutional and block officials from conducting similar raids. It also seeks unspecified monetary damages.

At a noon news conference, the Rev. Jesse Jackson called the drug search a "dragnet driven by race." The lawsuit, however, does not include charges of racism.

"The ACLU shares that concern, and we also believe that no student, black or white, should ever have to go through the kind of nightmare that our clients experienced," said Denyse Williams, executive director of the state branch.

The group wants to complete its investigation and give school officials a chance to explain the lopsided percentage of black students detained, before asserting racism, said ACLU attorney Antonio Ponvert III of Bridgeport, Conn., one of a team of lawyers representing the students.

Fourteen Goose Creek officers rushed into the hallway of Berkeley County's largest school about 6:45 a.m. Nov. 5, several with guns drawn, and told students to get on the floor. Officers put plastic restraints on about a dozen of the more than 100 students detained, while a barking police dog sniffed their backpacks. Officers found no drugs and made no arrests.

The lawsuit also accuses police of assaulting and falsely arresting students, causing emotional distress.

"The defendants terrorized the students and betrayed the promise of a safe, secure learning environment," the lawsuit states. Their "actions left the plaintiffs feeling betrayed, humiliated and wrongfully accused."

Of the 20 students named, 19 are black. Defendants include the Goose Creek Police Department, city of Goose Creek, Chief Harvey Becker, Lt. David Aarons, Berkeley County School District, Principal George McCrackin and 20 unknown officers and high school faculty identified only as "John Doe."

"In the years and decades to come, the Goose Creek Police Department's paramilitary style raid ... will become synonymous in the nation's mind with what happens when our country's anti-drug policy is turned over to government officials who, in their zeal to counter perceived illegal activities, themselves act illegally, irreparably damaging the civil rights of the students they are sworn to protect," Ponvert said.

McCrackin has said that about 70 percent of students in the hallway were black. At that early hour, students from predominately black neighborhoods have dropped students off at school.

"I was confused, scared and angry at the way I was being treated," said ninth-grader Elijah Le'Quan Simpson, 14, who is part of the ACLU suit. "I knew I didn't have drugs. I saw kids thrown like rag dolls and yelled at like slaves."

McCrackin went to the police Nov. 3 with suspicions of drug sales, supported by video surveillance and an unidentified student who, according to a police report, told administrators he bought a "twenty-bag" of marijuana from a student. McCrackin suspected a particular student who arrived on one of the early buses, the report said.

The lawsuit accuses school and police officials of "acting in concert and conspiracy with each other" to plan the raid.

"The implication of any kind of conspiracy is a sensational perspective," said district spokeswoman Pam Bailey.

School officials have repeatedly said they did not know officers would come in with guns drawn.

"At no time was there any indication to me that the requested search would involve any police officers having guns drawn 'at ready.' Police have never drawn weapons in any search prior to Wednesday," McCrackin wrote in a Nov. 11 letter sent home to parents. "I was surprised and extremely concerned when I observed the guns drawn. However, once police are on campus, they are in charge."

Ponvert said he believes McCrackin, but called his defense an "astounding admission" at how poorly the search was planned.

Jackson said McCrackin should have asked officers to put their guns away. If officials had specific information about students, they should have approached those students and their parents and not involved a hallway of innocent children, he said.

"Race was one factor, complicated by an overreaction on nonviolent drug use in the first place," Jackson said.

The ACLU lawsuit does not seek any terminations. Ponvert said that's a community issue.

Superintendent Chester Floyd has already said a similar raid will not occur in Berkeley County schools. He said video footage of the raid has shocked and concerned him, as well.

"While I want to make sure we do anything we can to keep people from encouraging other students to take up habits, there has to be a better way to do it than what was demonstrated at Stratford," he said last week. "I'm sorry this method was used. It's created havoc within our community and divisiveness we don't need and unparalleled disruptions."

He declined to accuse anyone of wrongdoing, calling that "inappropriate" considering the litigation.

"I'm assuming now the courts will decide," Floyd said. "But I don't anticipate that at any time in the future will we ever have any such drug search with the same type of methodology used."

It is the second federal lawsuit filed this month against the controversial search. Local trial lawyers filed on behalf of 18 students Dec. 5. The two cases name different students.

The ACLU clients are Carl Alexander Jr., 15; Marcus Blakeney, 15; Jeremy Bolger, 14; Chernitua Bryant, 15; Micah Bryant, 17; Danyielle Ashley Cills, 14; Tristan Cills, 14; De'Nea Dykes, 16; Rodney Goodwin, 15; Jalania McCullough, 17; Joshua Ody, 16; Samuel Ody III, 17; Arielle Pena, 14; Cedric Penn Jr., 15; Rodricus Perry, 18; Timothy Rice, 15; Cedric Simmons, 17; Shnikqua Simmons, 15; Elijah Le'Quan Simpson, 14; and Nathaniel Smalls, 14.
 
UPDATE: Principal Mccrackin resigns position.

Goose Creek high school principal asks to be reassigned


Link: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1587258&nav=0RaPJzbm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Goose Creek) Jan. 5, 2004 - Stratford High School principal George McCrackin is stepping down from his job. The principal, who came under fire after a November drug raid at the Goose Creek school, said pressure following the raid prompted his decision.

McCrackin said at a Monday press conference he realizes it's in the best interest of the Goose Creek school and its students. He has been principal at Stratford since it opened in 1983.

Berkeley County School District Superintendent J. Chester Floyd says a search for a new full-time principal will begin this spring. Floyd has not decided to what position McCrackin will be reassigned. He says McCrackin probably will spend a lot of time in the coming weeks preparing for two lawsuits filed by students after the raid.

Floyd then introduced Mildred Brevard as the interim principal. Brevard was asked if she would ever call for another drug raid at the school, "We all know that was something no one has ever seen in all those years and it's very unfortunate that it happened and I don't think anyone in their right mind would do something like that again."

Brevard served as the assistant principal of Stratford High School in the 80's. She's been working part time in several positions with the district since .

Stratford High has been in the national spotlight the raid. School officials asked Goose Creek police to come into the school November 5th after receiving reports of marijuana sales on campus. Officers swarmed the school.

Police say dogs detected drug residue on 12 book bags, but no drugs were found and no students were arrested.

Despite departmental procedures only allowing canines to enter and conduct illegal narcotics detection after the on-scene supervisor has cleared the area of all personnel, video shows officers using dogs in the presence of students.

The fall out from the raid has included a protest march through led by the Reverend Jesse Jackson through the streets of North Charleston, an NAACP-led town hall meeting, and a review of the case by the South Carolina attorney general's office, the US Attorney's office and the FBI.

So far, two lawsuits, one by the ACLU, on behalf of a total of 38 students have been filed in the wake of the sweep against the city of Goose Creek, Goose Creek police Chief Harvey Becker, Police Lt. Dave Aarons and 15 unidentified officers. They also name the Berkeley County School Board, Superintendent Floyd and Principal McCrackin.

Students from the school will serve as honorary marshals at this year's NAACP King Day at the Dome rally on January 19th.

Lt. Aarons said after the raid that having guns drawn is a matter of officer safety, because weapons often accompany drug dealing. School officials and police said the raid was an example of zero tolerance. They point to at least four cases of students bringing drugs to school
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comment: While this is good news, being reassigned to another administrative job, and allowed full retirement sounds a little weak, as punishment. Hopefully, some leo resignations (not reassignments) and hefty civil judgments against personal assets of those responsible, will send the proper message that this type of enforcement action is NOT allowable??
 
Comment: While this is good news, being reassigned to another administrative job, and allowed full retirement sounds a little weak, as punishment. Hopefully, some leo resignations (not reassignments) and hefty civil judgments against personal assets of those responsible, will send the proper message that this type of enforcement action is NOT allowable??

You would have him stripped of retirement benefits because he called the police and said he thought he had a drug problem in his school?

BTW, civil judgments against the personal assets of governmental employees most always get paid by the employing government agency. The reason? If an employee is required to pay punitive damages, he invariably sues the employing government agency for failure to train or failure to provide adequate policy guidance to deal with the problem that caused the lawsuit in the first place.

Pilgrim
 
I would punish him to the point that he would never see a desk with his name on it within the school system. I would also do the same for the officer in charge of that raid and incharge of the tactics employed in that raid.

As noted in the other thread about the raid, this sort of behavior by school officials (not only condoning what happened but being unapologetic to the point of nearly applauding it) and cops like "Lt. High-and-Tight" is absolutely unconscionable and deplorable. Bringing drug-dogs into a school is one thing, drawing down upon students going about their business and harrassing them is entirely another.:fire: Anyone who approves of their behavior and apologizes for them needs a checkup from the neck-up.:scrutiny:
 
You would have him stripped of retirement benefits because he called the police and said he thought he had a drug problem in his school?
We hear so much about "personal responsibility" from the law and order folks, when a mere citizen is suspect. I wish I had a nickel for every cavalier post that stated..."he rolled the dice and lost" (or a variation thereof) to justify punishment of a peon, for some administrative infraction.

I won't be quite so cavalier; except to say that my preference would be criminal prosecution for brandishing/assault with a deadly weapon; for the police in this case. And criminal violation of civil rights under color of law would be a fitting charge for the school administators. But, we've come to expect that all government employees operate under the cloak of immunity when "doing their jobs"...even when their actions violate all training guidelines that govern their jobs. Personal responsibility?

To answer your question, the purpose of punishment would be to show others, clear negative consequences when officials act out in this way. Merely reassigning Mr. McCrackin to bus maintenance administrator for the remainder of his career doesn't get it done, IMO. Realistically, criminal charges will never be brought for the reasons stated above. Failing that, SOME real civil monetary penalty might get noticed by other police state aspirants. What exactly do you think would be an appropriate punishment in this case?
 
I would punish him to the point that he would never see a desk with his name on it within the school system. I would also do the same for the officer in charge of that raid and incharge of the tactics employed in that raid.

To adequately punish the principal and Lt. "High-and-tight", you will have to pry up the floor boards and spray for all the rats and vermin underneath. Both actors are merely representatives of the policies of the school board and the chief of police.

Pilgrim
 
Problem is when you sue the Police force or the state or local government you are essentially suing yourself.

All other options will, in one way or another, punish the taxpayers. That's what is so ironic about police abuse...the victims pay their assailants to abuse them. In this case, the taxpayers funded this abuse of their children. The only legal recourse they have is to basically sue themselves. That's why, in my opinion, this type of incident should be dealt with the old fashioned way. The officers and officials involved should be set upon by the fathers of these children, promptly beaten within an inch of their lives, and banished from the community forever.
 
What is more effective is the modern equivalent of "shunning."

Shunning
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The shunning of an individual is the act of deliberately avoiding association with him or her. The historical punishments of ostracism and exile, no longer practiced, were officially sanctioned forms of shunning. Today, shunning in an official, formalized manner is practiced by only a few religions, although it continues to be practiced informally in every sort of human grouping or gathering. Religious shunning is often referred to as excommunication.

A distinct practice sometimes confused with shunning involves the severing of ties between new members and those of their friends and family who disapprove of the faith. Scientologists coined the word disconnection to refer to that practice.

Shunning aims to protect a group from members who have committed acts seen as harmful to the shunning organization, or who violate the group's norms. As the practice may end marriages, break up families, and separate children from their parents (or vice versa), it is particularly controversial.

********

Will the community of Goose Creek get mad enough to make shunning effective?

Pilgrim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top