ACLU Challenges Coercive Police Interrogation of Students at Davis High School –
It all began with an article in the Davis High HUB entitled “Art or Vandalism,” printed in the April 27, 2011 edition under the byline of Alana de Hinojosa, Editor-in-Chief.
Wrote Ms. De Hinojosa, “RSK, along with other local graffiti artists, contribute to the 30 to 50 weekly reported graffiti incidents in Davis, according to Davis graffiti overseer Lisa Buckman. This does not include tags on private property, something Buckman
said would increase the number of Davis tags substantially.”
“We have an ongoing problem in Davis [with graffiti]. It has more than doubled since last year,” she said.
Davis police officer Jesse Dacandy, however, called graffiti a “risky game to play.” He hinted that the Davis Police Department has undercover tactics for busting graffiti artists, but avoided making any concrete statements, chuckling to himself and saying, “I can’t give away that kind of information.” What Dacandy was candid about, however, was how easliy felony charges could be easily executed.
The article featured actual photos of what some considered gang taggings. As ACLU attorney Linda Lye now alleges, Deputy District Attorney Patricia Fong attempted to use accessory liability laws to go after an anonymous photographer, also a Davis High student, in an effort to uncover who the actual taggers and gang members were.
According to a letter from the ACLU to Superintendent Winfred Roberson, on the morning of May 12, 2011, “Ms. de Hinojosa was pulled out or her class at Davis High in front of her teacher and all her classmates, and escorted by a school staff member to the office of the head campus supervisor. There, Ms. de Hinojosa was questioned by a sworn officer of the Davis Police Department, Officer Ellsworth, the High School’s vice-principal, and another school staff member about her newspaper article.”
The ACLU claims that at no point was she informed of her right not to answer questions or advised that she was free to leave the room.
In a scene reminiscent of another juvenile incident, the interrogation lasted for an hour and she was not afforded the opportunity to call her parents or an attorney.
“In both these interrogations, Ms. de Hinojosa courageously asserted her rights, and refused to reveal the identity of her confidential journalistic sources,” the letter reads.
The Vanguard was unable to connect directly with Alana de Hinojosa yesterday, but the ACLU sent out a pointed press release, urging “the Davis Joint Unified School District to protect students from coercive police interrogations on campus.”
According to them, Ms. De Hinojosa, editor of the school paper and an A.P. Calculus student, was subjected to unlawful questioning by the school resource officer.
Ms. de Hinojosa, a student journalist and former editor-in-chief of the Davis High School newspaper, was pulled out of class on two separate occasions in May and questioned by police. School officials confiscated her cell phone and did not allow de Hinojosa to call her parents before or during the interrogation.
Ms. De Hinojosa had recently published an article in the school paper about local graffiti artists who deface public property.
“To de Hinojosa’s surprise, school officials were complicit with police attempts to get her to reveal the identities of her sources by using threats and intimidation,” the ACLU claims.
She was not was not under suspicion of any wrongdoing, but police vigorously questioned her against her will and in violation of her rights.
“I wasn’t a criminal suspect, and yet I wasn’t afforded the rights of someone who is suspected of a crime,” said Ms. De Hinojosa in the press release from the ACLU.
Another student, a former police cadet, was pulled out of his A.P. Calculus class while taking an exam to be interrogated about off-campus graffiti. His cell phone was also confiscated. He had recently worked on a documentary about graffiti, which won an award at a student film festival.
During the interrogations, neither student was informed of their right not to answer questions, or advised that they were free to leave the room.
“The school crossed the line and broke the law,” said Linda Lye, attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. “We have grave concerns that the school would allow police officers to remove students from class, subject them to coercive interrogations and intimidation, and seize their belongings.”
The ACLU-NC’s letter, to the District and Superintendent Winfred Roberson, explained that the manner in which the authorities detained and interrogated the students violated several of the students’ constitutional rights, including the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures.
The letter argued that there was no justification for interrupting the students’ classroom instruction because the subject of the police officers’ investigation related purely to off-campus graffiti and did not further the school’s educational mission.
The Vanguard spoke with Superintendent Roberson on Tuesday evening. Mr. Roberson explained that he disagreed with the ACLU’s letter and called their report, “one-sided.” At the same time, however, he declined to discuss the specific incident.
In the letter to Superintendent Roberson that the Vanguard obtained, the ACLU wrote, “We have grave concerns about recent incidents in which these students were removed from class and subjected to prolonged, coercive interrogations, without parental consent or prior notification.”
“Each student was taken to a private office where they were confronted by a uniformed police officer from the Davis Police Department and high level school officials, who used threat and intimidation to pressure the students to provide information about suspected off-campus conduct by other students,” the letter continued.
“Neither student was suspected of any wrongdoing,” they added.
Critically, they pointed out that the activities the students participated in are “protected by the First Amendment and California Constitution,” however, they were “made to feel like criminals for attempting to exercise their constitutional right to remain silent. Indeed, they were not even afforded the rights owed to actual criminal suspects.”
The ACLU in their letter asked for four changes to school policies: (1) Revise existing policies on police interrogations; (2) Train school personnel about students’ rights with respect to law enforcement officers; (3) Advise students of their rights with respect to law enforcement officers before any on-campus police interrogations; and (4) Prohibit law enforcement personnel from interrogating students on District property without first obtaining parental consent.
Superintendent Roberson responded, “The District has attempted and continues to shape its policies and practices regarding the questioning of students on campus by law enforcement to cooperate with police investigations, maintain and uphold student rights and ensure that the District itself is acting in accord with the law.”
He added, “Public school officials have a duty to cooperate with police investigations.”
Furthermore, he argued that the district already works to provide “ongoing training about students’ rights to personnel that interacts with law enforcement officers.”
In terms of the question about the questioning of students, he offered that it is currently “the District’s policy to stay with the student during the interview unless the student declines or our presence is prohibited on statutory grounds. This is required Protocol for Police Investigations.”
Mr. Roberson added, “District policy requires (BP 5145.11 and BP 5145.12) that parents and/or guardians are notified as soon as possible when a law enforcement officer interviews a student on school premises. However, school personnel are required by law to refrain from willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing law enforcement personnel in the discharge of their official duties.”
“California law has long recognized that law enforcement personnel have the right to question students at school without parental consent,” he added.
Superintendent Roberson further pointed out, “If a student is removed from school grounds by a peace officer, law enforcement is required to notify parents and/or custodians of the student’s removal. In addition, the District’s policy and practice is to also immediately notify parents of the student’s contact with and removal by law enforcement.”
As we mentioned before, Mr. Roberson declined to respond to specific questions about the incident. In the past there has been some question about the role that Student Resource Officers play on the high school campus.
“We’re fortunate,” Superintendent Roberson explained to the Vanguard, “Davis PD works with the school district and we do have a resource officer at our secondary schools.”
“I am comfortable with the role that the Davis Police Department [plays] and our partnership,” he said. “Our resource officer is exactly that, he is a resource for students as well as our staff there at the site.”
The Vanguard also received a statement from Lt. Paul Doroshov of the Davis Police Department, who stated that the department “cannot comment for DJUSD officials or about their staff’s actions. However, Davis Police Officers are trained to preserve and protect student rights…and always follow the law. Such was the case with regard to the situation the ALCU commented on.”
“The alleged facts as cited by the ACLU statement, which relies on only one side of the story, differ significantly from the facts as we understand them to be,” Lt. Doroshov told the Vanguard without getting into details as to how they understand the facts of this case to be.
He did add, “Nevertheless, the Police Department leadership continues to be guided by an understanding that perceptions are often as valid and important as reality. With that in mind, in our endeavors to deliver the highest quality police services, it is our practice to digest and analyze these differences of opinions to better inform us of how our actions might be perceived and, when necessary or appropriate, modify our training or response expectations.”
The ACLU remains concerned that actions by the police and school officers were prompted by the lawful exercise of the students’ constitutionally protected right to report on newsworthy issues.
“Relatedly, the use of threats and intimidation during the interrogations interfered with both students’ exercise of their rights – to write newspaper articles, to assist others in doing so, to make documentary films, and to decline to answer questions by law enforcement or other government officials,” Ms. Lye wrote in the letter to the district.
“In this regard, Officer Ellsworth and District personnel violated the Bane Act, which prohibits interference or attempts to interfere ‘with the exercise or enjoyment’ of federal or state rights ‘by threats, intimidation, or coercion,’ ” the letter continued.
“We expect our schools to educate our children, not criminalize them,” said Ms. Lye in the ACLU’s press release.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Kudos to the Davis Police Dept. for going after these graffiti criminals.
Rusty: They are not going after graffiti criminals they were going after teenage journalists, a journalist and a photographer.
Perhaps the students should rethink the stories they choose to write about. To use a school newspaper to essentially give positive press to taggers is hardly something the journalists should be promoting. Students do not have the same rights as ordinary citizens. The school administration can step in, and put a stop to activities that are deemed inappropriate.
From http://www.fair.org:
[quote]But in 1988, the Supreme Court handed down a different decision, one that specifically limits the free-press rights of high school students. The case, Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier, concerned students at a suburban St. Louis high school who were prevented by their principal from publishing articles about teenage pregnancy and the effects of divorce on high school students in the school-sponsored student newspaper. The Court ruled that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”
The Hazelwood decision attempts to justify review of articles in three categories: “potential topic sensitivity”; speech that might “associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy”; and speech that is “inconsistent with the school’s educational mission.” In practice, these extremely ambiguous and broad categories can result in the censorship of just about anything that challenges school officials[/quote]
I’m not sure that the story was inappropriate. In fact it was quite good imo, and fairly balanced.
Is it known whether Ms De Hinojosa was 18 at the time of the first interview? This would factor in to my opinion re: parental notification…
[quote]The ACLU claims that at no point was she informed of her right not to answer questions or advised that she was free to leave the room.
In a scene reminiscent of another juvenile incident, the interrogation lasted for an hour and she was not afforded the opportunity to call her parents or an attorney.[/quote]
In so far as I am aware, there is no requirement of a Miranda warning if the police are merely questioning someone. The police can stop anyone and start questioning him/her, w/o giving any Miranda warning, so long as the person is technically “free to leave”. The police have no requirement to tell that person they are free to leave, and may exploit the situation if the person doesn’t understand their right to leave. Only if the person is placed in formal “custodial interrogation” is a Miranda warning required. And even at that, failure to provide the Miranda warning just means the person’s statements cannot be used against them later at trial, nothing more.
See wikipedia:
[quote]The Miranda warning (also referred to as Miranda rights) is a warning that is required to be given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to inform them about their constitutional rights. In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an elicited incriminating statement by a suspect will not constitute admissible evidence unless the suspect was informed of the right to decline to make self-incriminatory statements and the right to legal counsel (hence the so-called “Miranda rights”), and makes a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of those rights.[Note 1] The Miranda warning is not a condition of detention, but rather a safeguard against self-incrimination; as a result, if law enforcement officials decline to offer a Miranda warning to an individual in their custody, they may still interrogate that person and act upon the knowledge gained, but may not use that person’s statements to incriminate him or her in a criminal trial.[/quote]
The laws about citizens’ rights when questioned by the police are rather murky, and often seem intrinsically unfair. The Monica Lewinsky case comes to mind. If I remember rightly, 17 FBI agents swooped down on Ms. Lewinsky and took her to a hotel room for questioning. Later, when U.S. Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was questioned about the fairness of such actions, he stated w a straight face Ms. Lewinsky was always “free to leave”. I very much doubt Ms. Lewinsky thought she had the RIGHT to leave.
In addition, students in school have even fewer rights than citizens on the street, and are subject to reasonable school policies that restrict students’ absolute freedoms in the interest of the orderly running of educational institutions. For instance, student lockers are subject to searches, and so are school backpacks, that sort of thing. You would have to know what the specific school rules were to make any assessments in this particular situation.
[quote]I’m not sure that the story was inappropriate. In fact it was quite good imo, and fairly balanced.[/quote]
If it gave the taggers notoriety, it could be deemed “inappropriate”. The school essentially gets to decide what is or is not “appropriate” or “serves the purpose of education”, not the students.
Elaine… with all due respect… you don’t understand where many pundits/bloggers/others ‘come from’… they challenge public employees’ actions based on what the authors feel the law “SHOULD” be, rather than what the law is. Frustrating to many public employees I know. Your insightful comments will fall on many deaf ears.
ERM: [i]In so far as I am aware, there is no requirement of a Miranda warning if the police are merely questioning someone.[/i]
I wonder if H.S. students learn stuff like this in their government class; seems like a discussion of basic rights would be relevant to any student. I rather doubt it is covered, but will ask my kid later today.
If I have a complaint here, it is that the school standardized testing system in this country is so overly-obsessed with reading and math scores, that almost everything else is given short shrift. There is no standardized test (STAR test) for government, for instance, unless a student takes the A.P. test.
ERM, isn’t it total hypocrisy when people cite the law when it fits their agenda then want to tell you what the law “SHOULD” be when it doesn’t. I hear your insightful comments, keep it up.
“If I have a complaint here, it is that the school standardized testing system in this country is so overly-obsessed with reading and math scores, that almost everything else is given short shrift. There is no standardized test (STAR test) for government, for instance, unless a student takes the A.P. test.”
Yes indeed, those pesky requirements that students learn reading and math.
Instead we should spend more time teaching them how to apply for unemployment benefits and how to file complaints and lawsuits against the unfairness of it all.
Elaine,
I think you’re missing the point and way off base citing case law about schools being able to limit the free press rights of high school students.
The Davis Police were not there to question the students about their free speech and free press rights, they were there to attempt to harass, intimidate and coerce young kids, possible minors, into “ratting out” whomever was doing the tagging.
And the school administration was an active and willing participant.
I hope the ACLU files a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 for a color of law violation…
[i]”I’m not sure that the story was inappropriate. In fact it was quite good imo, and fairly balanced.”[/i]
The headline is very problematic. The story is about tagging. It’s not about creating something or making Davis more beautiful or making people think. It’s vandalism. It’s immature boys who have bad parents who never taught them right from wrong. The question is not Art or Vandalism? The question is how to appropriately deal with this crime, how to catch the perpetrators and how to punish them.
It amazes me that the author’s and the ACLU representative’s fact patterns differ. It appears that the school staff removed the pupil(s) from the classroom NOT a police officer. Ergo, the school is excercising its administrative authority — that is the crux of this matter.
This was not a custodial interrogation and UNLESS LAW ENFORCEMENT personnel were interrogating a person suspected of committing a crime ABOUT that crime, “Miranda Warnings” (BTW, thanks ERM for using the phrase correctly) are [b]not[/b] mandated.
If readers would like to read up on pupils rights on campus – feel free.
“Mr. Roberson added, “District policy requires (BP 5145.11 and BP 5145.12) that parents and/or guardians are notified as soon as possible when a law enforcement officer interviews a student on school premises. However, school personnel are required by law to refrain from willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing law enforcement personnel in the discharge of their official duties.”
This is an alteration of the Board Policy. “Except in cases of child abuse or neglect, the principal or designee shall, with first consideration for the collective safety of all students on campus, notify the student’s parent/guardian as soon as possible when a law enforcement officer interviews a student on school premises.” BP 5145.11
School Administrators need to explain why both children’s parents were not notified immediately when police came to interview their children while at school. And why the children’s phones were taken away so they could not phone their parents.
“The ACLU claims that at no point was she informed of her right not to answer questions or advised that she was free to leave the room. In a scene reminiscent of another juvenile incident, the interrogation lasted for an hour and she was not afforded the opportunity to call her parents or an attorney.”
The police do not have to inform people that they are free to leave an interrogation, but they cannot lie if asked. All parents should teach their kids to ask if they are being detained and then get up and leave if the answer is no. If they are being detained they should state very clearly that they cannot and will not answer any questions until their lawyer is present and then become mute. The schools will not teach this, and the police are not required to inform the kids about this. It has been requested that the school administrators make sure that the kids know that any interview is consensual and they can leave the interview at any time, but as you can see they are not doing that. So it is up to the parents to make sure their kids know what to do and have access to a lawyer’s phone number to call if they are stopped by the police or pulled out of class and escorted to the office for an interrogation by the police.
I think discussion of graffiti is not the point of the article. But since that is what is transpiring, people might enjoy watching this new documentary about “buffers” or the people that religiously paint over the graffiti:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP_Ah7vnXZk&feature=player_embedded
J.R.: [i]Yes indeed, those pesky requirements that students learn reading and math.
Instead we should spend more time teaching them how to apply for unemployment benefits and how to file complaints and lawsuits against the unfairness of it all.[/i]
I guess you’re not big on seeing that students understand how government works?
I think the story here is not graffiti, not student journalism, nor is it the police action, but the school policy. I would be curious how school board members feel about this.
Here is the link to the entire letter from the ACLU describing what happened:
http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/asset_upload_file632_10385.pdf
This policy was re-written last year (I believe) and School Administrators assured the School Board that the students would be protected from this very thing. I’m also curious about how the School Board members feel about this, especially when they were cautioned that this very scenario was liable to happen and the wording “as soon as possible” would give the school administration a plausible excuse for not contacting parents. The fact that they confiscated the cell phones of both students, so they could not call their parents for help is disturbing.
Here’s the link: ACLU Letter to DJUSD Superintendent
It doesn’t link. You’ll have to go to the ACLU of Northern CA website.
Here is the link ([url]http://www.aclunc.org/news/press_releases/asset_upload_file632_10385.pdf[/url]) you want, Ryan.
[i[“ACLU-NC civil liberties issues include government surveillance, the death penalty, racial justice, gay and lesbian rights, police practices, religious freedom, criminal justice, free speech, reproductive rights, technology, and youth rights.”[/i]
It has always interested me that the ACLU, since its founding back in 1920, has said it is an organization which exists to protect the Bill of Rights ([url]http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/bill-rights-brief-history[/url]). In the Northern California ACLU’s list of concerns, many of those fall outside of the Bill of Rights and many other issues which fall under the Bill of Rights are notably absent.
I don’t recall, for example, the ACLU ever fighting for Second Amendment ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution[/url]) or Tenth Amendment ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_amendment[/url]) rights in its legal cases.
I should admit that I would not favor the ACLU even if they lived up to their mission statement. I find them ideological to the extreme, always favoring what they view as principal even when that has practical harm to society and individuals. A perfect example of this is the Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital and Medical Center case ([url]http://www.stanford.edu/group/psylawseminar/Riese.htm[/url]). The ACLU here prevailed in allowing seriously mentally ill patients, who in practice are helped by antipsychotic medications, to refuse treatment, as if the patients with severe mental illness know what is best for them.
I have a couple of questions, and a couple of thoughts about this.
1) Is there a lower age limit at which students can be questioned without previous notification or presence of
a parent ?
2)To those of you who are supportive of this form of questioning, what would you see as the harm in prior notification of the student and parents and making an appointment for the questioning rather than pulling the students out of classes ?
My thoughts are not about the legality of the actions of the police and school officials. They were probably well within the law. For me one of the most important issues is what the actions of the police are teaching our students and whether those actions promote cooperation and a positive view of authority or whether they undermine those attitudes. I think most of us, if called abruptly from our job, and questioned under circumstances that I think many of us would find distressing, would feel less than positive about our experience even if we acknowledged the legality of it. If the intent were not solely to intimidate, then why not
provide a scheduled time, with the presence of the students parent or lawyer ? Is there anyone here with the possible exception of the lawyers who are probably comfortable with the questioning of police, who would not feel better if they had known what to expect. I just cannot see the utility of unnecessarily antagonizing anyone to obtain information about taggers. In an imminently dangerous situation, certainly, but taggers ? This for me is a matter of basic civility vs a needless demonstration of power.
[quote]I wonder if H.S. students learn stuff like this in their government class; seems like a discussion of basic rights would be relevant to any student. I rather doubt it is covered, but will ask my kid later today. [/quote]
Students SHOULD be learning these sorts of things as basic survival skills in life.
To medwoman: Your response is very thoughtful. Do not assume that because what was done was legal that I necessarily approve of it. From a personal nonlegal perspective, I actually have mixed feelings. On the one hand I think the school should have had a better handle on what articles were published, and an article on tagging was probably not wise bc it gave notoriety to criminals, albeit for a minor crime. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea that 1) the school has a loosey-goosey policy to contact parents “as soon as possible” if students are questioned by the police; 2) students are led to believe they are not free to leave and led to believe they cannot keep their mouths shut. I find the crux of the problem to be the schools stated policy, and its inaction in policing its publications. Had the schools better supervised their publications, this entire scenario would have never happened.
[quote]Elaine,
I think you’re missing the point and way off base citing case law about schools being able to limit the free press rights of high school students.
The Davis Police were not there to question the students about their free speech and free press rights, they were there to attempt to harass, intimidate and coerce young kids, possible minors, into “ratting out” whomever was doing the tagging.
And the school administration was an active and willing participant.
I hope the ACLU files a federal civil rights lawsuit under 42 USC 1983 for a color of law violation… [/quote]
But that was my entire point – neither the police nor the school administration likely did anything illegal. You may not like their actions, you may find it uncomfortable, but from what I know of the law it was probably perfectly legal. If you don’t like the law/school policy, then you need to push for changes. In this case, I would argue for better school standards, and a course be created that teaches students their legal rights. But I would also demand better supervision of student publications.
[quote]This policy was re-written last year (I believe) and School Administrators assured the School Board that the students would be protected from this very thing. I’m also curious about how the School Board members feel about this, especially when they were cautioned that this very scenario was liable to happen and the wording “as soon as possible” would give the school administration a plausible excuse for not contacting parents. The fact that they confiscated the cell phones of both students, so they could not call their parents for help is disturbing. [/quote]
Excellent analysis, and right on point.
[quote]I just cannot see the utility of unnecessarily antagonizing anyone to obtain information about taggers. [/quote]
From gwinnettcb.org:
[quote]Facts and Figures
What is Graffiti?
The term graffiti comes from the Greek word graphein, which means, “to write”. Graffiti is the name for lettering or images painted or scratched on fences, buildings, overpasses, train cars, and other surfaces. There are four types of graffiti: hip-hop, gang, hate, and generic. Graffiti is unsightly damage or vandalism done without permission and it is against the law.
There are five primary motivating factors for graffiti vandalism: fame, rebellion, self-expression, power, and marking territory. Most national studies show that street level graffiti is created by suburban adolescents, predominately male, between the ages of 12 and 19.
Spray paint and markers are used most commonly to mark a surface on or near the boundaries of a gang’s territory to indicate their presence to other gangs. These markings are also commonly used to communicate with other gangs. Graffiti can range from simple, one-color monikers (like a nickname), called “tags”, repeated on many surfaces to complex compositions of several colors.
Graffiti sends the signal that nobody cares, attracting other forms of crime and street
delinquency to the neighborhood and decreasing a resident’s feeling of safety. Communities with graffiti see a decrease in property values and a loss of business growth and tourism. Cleaning up graffiti drains tax dollars and funds that could be used for other community improvements, such as parks, roads, and schools.
The most effective way to prevent graffiti is to report it and remove it promptly. Studies show that removal within 24 to 48 hours results in a nearly zero rate of reoccurrence. Graffiti affects everyone and all areas of our County. You can do something about graffiti in Gwinnett: Report it, remove it, prevent it.
FACT: Graffiti is costly. It’s estimated that $1 – $3 per taxpayer per year is spent each year by communities, public transit departments, residents, and businesses to remove graffiti or repair the damage it causes.
FACT: Graffiti prevention efforts work. The most effective way to prevent graffiti is to remove it promptly. Studies show that removal within 24-48 hours results in a nearly zero rate of occurrence.
FACT: Graffiti is not a “victimless” crime. Everyone – children, parents, business owners, and taxpayers – is hurt by it. When left untouched, graffiti sends the wrong message – that we cannot keep order in our community. This negatively affects property values by as much as 15% and often leads to more serious crimes.
FACT: Graffiti hurts business. Many people associate graffiti with the general decline of an area, even if it is not true. Merchants often lose business because customers feel the neighborhood or shopping area is no longer safe.
FACT: Graffiti is not just a harmless teenage phase. While most graffiti is done by youths whose ages range from pre-teens to early 20s, graffiti vandals are at an increased risk of becoming involved in shoplifting or other criminal activity, drugs, and being injured while “tagging” dangerous locations. They can also be assaulted if they mark over someone else’s “tag.”
FACT: Graffiti is frequently gang-related. While all graffiti may not be caused by gang members, gangs often use graffiti as a form of communication or to threaten other gangs by “marking their territory.” After assessing the graffiti in Gwinnett, gang graffiti is the most prevalent type of graffiti and is on the rise in our county.[/quote]
To medwoman: Still think taggers are harmless? A group of about 15 taggers regularly got drunk and smoked marijuana on our street. They were loud, obnoxious, destroyed property, and it did not feel safe to allow children out with this group around. Think about it…
Elaine,
If you read my comment, you will know that I said nothing to defend taggers. My point was about the lack of urgency and the lack of respect and civility demonstrated by people in authority to these students.
I do not have a dispute with the description of graffiti except that it excludes that which is clearly artistic and downplays one of the stated purposes, self expression. But that was not my point. My point was about the needlessly antagonistic way that this was handled. Again, why not make an appointment ? Why not have a parent present ? What is the purpose and message being conveyed ?
I also take exception to your opinion that allowing publication of an article on tagging is using poor judgement.
I feel that this is a subject that is very relevant to students and worthy of discussion and publication. I do not feel that journalism at the high school level should be limited to noncontroversial issues. This is precisely the age group that should be exploring complex issues of what it means to be a responsible citizen. Given that this activity is criminal and costly, I do not believe that it should be glorified, but having not read the original article. If it glorified tagging, I think it should not have been published. If it presented a discussion of the activity, the point of view of the people who engage in it, and the possible adverse consequences that you presented, I would say it is worthy of publication as a topic of interest to the intended audience.
Why is Ms. Fong still working as a DDA? Individuals who allow race considerations to dictate their actions (racism) have no place in the Justice System. If the student reporters/photographers involved had been SE Asian, Ms Fong would have not pressed the accessory liability issue. Davis will be a better place when Ms. Fong is gone!
If your next-door neighbor is blasting Beethoven as loud as his speakers can reach then you ask yourself, “Is it music or is it disturbance?” Clearly it is music because it is the beloved Beethoven but it is also a disturbance because it is too damn loud (unless you love it loud, then it might be just right for you). The headline of this article seems perfect to me. “Art or Vandalism?” asks whether or not tagging has an aesthetic appeal or if it is simply destruction of property. What if a fence was tagged on both sides. If one neighbor enjoyed the graffiti then it would be art and if the other neighbor despised it then it would be vandalism. I am not not condoning the destruction of other people’s property but I’m just saying, if Jackson Pollack’s paint droppings are art, then someone certainly has the right to call graffiti an art-form. And someone also has the right to say, “keep your graffiti off my lawn.” I will also say that it may also be a generational disagreement. Do you think every teenager in town loves all the public art? Ask a teen what his or her opinion is of the mural at 3rd and G or the sculpture in front of Sav-mart. Maybe it is because most of my political career in Davis was supported by staples and spray-paint but I think it would only be fair to give graffiti artists their own zones where it is okay from them to do what they do. Of course the problem with public art is that it must be approved by a committee and any art that must be approved of by a committee is most likely not going to appreciated a free-spirited teenager.
And the way I see it is that it is the press’ obligation to report to the public not to the police. I’d rather a vandal get away with spray-painting an electric box then have the bill of rights done away with. Yes the police were well within their right to ask the reporter to divulge her source but she was also within her right to deny the request. Do reporters have to go to the police as soon as they know of a crime? What would Woodward and Bernstein done then? What about every citizen. Should we call 911 every time we see someone jaywalk? I’d rather error on the side of liberty than Big Brother.
Whoever made this point this isn’t about graffiti or taggers, it is how police and school officials treated two students, minors, who committed no crime whatsoever. Elaine if your children had been treated as Ms. de Hinojosa or the other student, you would be outraged.
[i]Whoever made this point this isn’t about graffiti or taggers, it is how police and school officials treated two students, minors, who committed no crime whatsoever. Elaine if your children had been treated as Ms. de Hinojosa or the other student, you would be outraged. [/i]
I haven’t read the article written by Ms. de Hinojosa. As a parent, I might have been outraged by what happened with the police (I don’t think we know what really happened yet – we have only one side of the story), but I would also be outraged if my child was writing articles which glorified the law breaking activity (and assuming the law breaking activity is not providing some important or critical civil service), and not providing information to the police to help the catch the lawbreaker,
“not providing information to the police to help the catch the lawbreaker”
I question you on that. That’s certainly not the job of a journalist. She has no obligation as a journalist to provide the police with any information, in fact, under shield laws she is protected from having to do that. You would be outraged as a parent about her asserting her rights, really?
BTW, you guys can click on the image on the right and it will blow up and you can read the article. It’s a very balanced article, it doesn’t glorify anything, imo.
David,
Thanks for pointing out the ability to enlarge the article . I am in agreement with you that this is a balanced piece of journalism which took a very responsible approach to pointing out the cost, both financially and in terms of individual risk with the potential for felony charges. This is the kind of piece of which I would have been proud had one of my children written it.
I say well done to Ms. de Hinojosa. i can see a bright future for you in journalism.
And to those who feel that she should turn these individuals in to the police, did your children ever sneak a beer, or drive faster than the speed limit, ride their bike without a helmet, all technically illegal activities ? Did you turn them in to the police ?
If not, did you not consider that obstructing justice ?
medwoman: do you think it’s OK for someone NOT reporting than a friend is drunk and about to drive off on the freeway? … and killing themselves, or worse, others?
Do you understand the costs, both in staff time (meaning other duties are not being performed) and dollars, both for human resources and cleaning materials? If so, convince the police and/or City Council that graffiti (particularly gang-related tagging) is acceptable (or, “art”) so we can stop wasting money on visual vandals.
[quote] If it glorified tagging, I think it should not have been published. If it presented a discussion of the activity, the point of view of the people who engage in it, and the possible adverse consequences that you presented, I would say it is worthy of publication as a topic of interest to the intended audience.[/quote]
I take your point about parents needing to be notified, and agree, even tho what was done was probably legal from a technical point of view (should be a school policy change to tighten up the language so there is no ambiguity). However the title of the article was “Art or Vandalism”, which in my opinion right there puts a positive slant on tagging – that it can be a “form of self-expression” as you termed it. That is not a message that we want to be sending our kids when engaging in tagging is criminal activity; it is therefore not appropriate for a school publication in my opinion; and the article itself precipitated the entire scenario you are complaining about.
[quote]The headline of this article seems perfect to me. “Art or Vandalism?” asks whether or not tagging has an aesthetic appeal or if it is simply destruction of property. What if a fence was tagged on both sides. If one neighbor enjoyed the graffiti then it would be art and if the other neighbor despised it then it would be vandalism. I am not not condoning the destruction of other people’s property but I’m just saying, if Jackson Pollack’s paint droppings are art, then someone certainly has the right to call graffiti an art-form. And someone also has the right to say, “keep your graffiti off my lawn.” [/quote]
Tagging is about spray painting public property or someone else’s property. If kids want to spray paint their own property, have at it. I doubt their parents would allow it, and the neighbors might be perturbed if it’s on the front of the house. And that is the entire point about tagging being a crime. You do not have the right to deface public property or someone else’s property with what you believe to be art. Just as you would not have the right to paint someone else’s house a different color. Property ownership is a basic right, and allows you to make decisions about your property (w/n zoning laws and HOA restrictions), but a complete stranger does not have the right to come in and deface your property.
[quote]Elaine if your children had been treated as Ms. de Hinojosa or the other student, you would be outraged.[/quote]
Clearly you failed to read my comment on this subject, so here it is again:
[quote]To medwoman: Your response is very thoughtful. Do not assume that because what was done was legal that I necessarily approve of it. From a personal nonlegal perspective, I actually have mixed feelings. On the one hand I think the school should have had a better handle on what articles were published, and an article on tagging was probably not wise bc it gave notoriety to criminals, albeit for a minor crime. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea that 1) the school has a loosey-goosey policy to contact parents “as soon as possible” if students are questioned by the police; 2) students are led to believe they are not free to leave and led to believe they cannot keep their mouths shut. I find the crux of the problem to be the schools stated policy, and its inaction in policing its publications. Had the schools better supervised their publications, this entire scenario would have never happened.[/quote]
[quote] I am in agreement with you that this is a balanced piece of journalism which took a very responsible approach to pointing out the cost, both financially and in terms of individual risk with the potential for felony charges. This is the kind of piece of which I would have been proud had one of my children written it. [/quote]
I disagree. If this article were in an adult newspaper, that would be one thing. But one sentence in the article sums up why it should never have been printed in a school publication, to wit: “The debate over whether graffiti is art or vandalism has never fully come to a conclusion.” This is very misleading, bc the fact of the matter is society has come to a very definite conclusion that graffiti is vandalism and a prosecutable crime. To say otherwise glorifies taggers as “underground artists engaging in free expression”. If you read the article closely, and pay attention to the tenor, tagging sounds like a fairly “harmless” cat and mouse game played by both taggers and police – giving the taggers a certain mystique of “free-spiritedness”. Tell me that when the taggers do your house! They certainly did a number on our neighborhood…
The Enterprise posted an article on this issue this morning:
[i]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/aclu-condemns-police-questioning-of-davis-students/#comment-28480[/i]
ERM: [i] “The debate over whether graffiti is art or vandalism has never fully come to a conclusion.” This is very misleading, bc the fact of the matter is society has come to a very definite conclusion that graffiti is vandalism and a prosecutable crime.[/i]
There is a mix of meanings in the original sentence. It’s not exactly an “either/or situation”, and editorially, that statement is sloppy. When tagging/graffiti of any sort is done on someone else’s property without authorization, it is vandalism. But some of it is considered art (by some) for the style of drawing.
Here is an example in which some consider graffiti as art:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basquiat[/url]
Try this again, with appropriate link.
The Enterprise posted an article on this issue this morning:
[url]http://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/crime-fire-courts/aclu-condemns-police-questioning-of-davis-students/#comment-28480[/url]
Robroy,
“I think it would only be fair to give graffiti artists their own zones where it is okay from them to do what they do.”
I don’t think it’s just a matter of whether it is art or vandalism, rather it’s the intent behind the graffiti in some cases. If it’s gang related, the purpose of the graffiti may be to intimidate, incite violence, claim a territory, etc. FWIW, I agree that certain graffiti is art or at least demonstrates some artistic skill.
Medwoman “your children ever sneak a beer, or drive faster than the speed limit, ride their bike without a helmet, all technically illegal activities ? Did you turn them in to the police ?”
Hpierce “medwoman: do you think it’s OK for someone NOT reporting than a friend is drunk and about to drive off on the freeway? … and killing themselves, or worse, others?”
It’s clear medwoman was listing what she sees are common acts of juvenile misbehavior (although, I think underage drinking and driving is too), which are also illegal. Driving while intoxicated is a very serious offense, killing thousands if not tens of thousands each year. I don’t think it’s comparable to sneaking a beer, driving over the speed limit (depending on how far over and where) and riding a bike without a helmet. You stretched her point a little, in my opinion
ERM
I did not term tagging a “form of self expression”. That was one of the definitions in the article you posted.
We will just have to disagree about whether the article is appropriate for a school publication. Some of these students are old enough to be signing up for the military and engaging in other adult activities such as holding responsible jobs ( swim instructor and lifeguard to name a couple) but they are not mature enough to read an article on tagging.
hpierce
Of course not. But that is as Superfluous Man said more gently, is a total misrepresentation of my position.
I have never defended tagging in any of my comments. Having said that I do not view it as a dangerous activity such as driving under the influence( which by the way, was not listed by me as being trivial). My point was that in my opinion, tagging is less dangerous than any of the activities I listed, and I doubt that commentators here had turned their children in, after the fact, for any of those activities.
Am I wrong in making that assumption ?
Those who’ve characterized Ms. De Hinojosa’s story as a “glorification” of graffiti or graffiti artists are way off. I read her piece and thought it was quite good. She presented a balanced story and I applaud her work. If anything, the vandals/taggers came across, through their own words, as uninspiring.
I actually think that some of the graffiti I have seen, Sac area and elsewhere, is pretty amazing and get the artists’/vandals’ desire to partake in such a “risky game.” Just to be clear, though, I don’t find the majority of it to be all that great.
I can understand that such art/vandalism can have a powerful message, which can express the strife of a single person or the struggles of an entire city. I’ve read stories and watched documentaries in which the artists explained the message or the purpose behind their graffiti and on some level…I get it. It can be a very powerful form of social, political, etc…activism, legal or illegal.
However, these guys/girls come across as lame and boring. Nothing in their tagging exhibited artistic talents (from what I could see) and their attempt to philosophically expand on the deep significance of their tagging made it clear…none exists. It’s funny. Either they’re pretending to believe their tags have some profound effect (beyond the hassle and cost of cleaning it up) on this suburban landscape/culture or they actually believe it, which is hilarious.
Perhaps they do understand that what they do it neither artistic nor meaningful, but it does have an effect. They scribble something somewhere, then someone has to come along and clean it up. Kind of like having to pick up after your dog, after it takes a s**t. Pretty powerful stuff.
Really…“it’s [tagging] like you’re creating a map of all the places you’ve been.”
Anyway, I frequently seek out journalistic pieces, online, in print, television, etc that do exactly what Ms. De Hinojosa did here, for I find such work to be interesting and often illuminating. I am disheartened by those who’ve criticized her for writing such a story and her unwillingness to divulge the names of the article’s subjects.
One more thing: I don’t know Ms. De Hinojosa’s aspirations, but if she wishes to pursue journalism in college or as a career, divulging sources at the pressure of authorities isn’t exactly looked upon highly in that field.
If anything, it was wise on her part not to divulge the taggers’ names for the sake of her future in that profession.
[quote]There is a mix of meanings in the original sentence. It’s not exactly an “either/or situation”, and editorially, that statement is sloppy. When tagging/graffiti of any sort is done on someone else’s property without authorization, it is vandalism. But some of it is considered art (by some) for the style of drawing. [/quote]
And that is exactly why this article is very misleading to kids. An adult may better understand the “nuances”, but kids are usually more straightforward. I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem w this piece as an adult publication, as a thought provoking article, altho the language should be more precise (but I don’t blame the author here, she is a student still learning – it is the school I blame for allowing this article to be published “as is”).
[quote]Those who’ve characterized Ms. De Hinojosa’s story as a “glorification” of graffiti or graffiti artists are way off. I read her piece and thought it was quite good. She presented a balanced story and I applaud her work. If anything, the vandals/taggers came across, through their own words, as uninspiring. [/quote]
I would agree w you for an adult publication, altho she needs to use more accurate language so as not to mislead the reader. But it was not appropriate for a school publication, for the very reason it precipitated the incident it did. It interfered with the orderly running of the school… in more ways than one!
I say crack down hard on graffiti. It is both art and vandalism but its value as art is rather limited while its cost as vandalism is quite expensive. Maybe if we had the Teen Center there would be less graffiti. Its closing and the rise in graffiti seem to coincide.
I have two problems with the authorities on this. i don’t like the kids getting pulled from class although I’m sure they learned a great deal that day about bullying.
Secondly, and this is the big one, I’m calling BS on the district for not calling the parents while the kids were getting leaned on by the cops. Let me explain how this works; the cops go to the administration at the school. The Vice-Principal sends someone to get the kid. The adults talk about whatever while they wait for the kid to arrive. This would be a perfect time to call mom or dad. In a different scenario the administrator says to their assistant “Call the parents.” The notion that the parents were called in a timely manner is a lie and whoever failed to do so should be called to account whether or not the public position of the Superintendent is that policy was not violated. Clearly in an effort to help law enforcement the administrators violated board policy. I wonder if these kids had opt out forms on record or if having one would make any difference?
Some comments have stated that the school should have stopped the article from being printed, and incorrectly cited the Hazelwood standard, which gives schools quite a bit of leeway in this area.
California’s student free expression law gives student journalists many more rights, including the right to determine the content of student publications (newspapers, websites, broadcast, yearbook, etc.). The school can only stop an article from being printed if it violates law (libel, obscenity) or would cause a disruption of school. Essentially, student journalists have the same rights and responsibilities as adult journalists.
Elaine
I do not believe it was the publication of the article that “precipitated the incident” that was disruptive of the school. I believe it was the imprudent choice of the police to go onto school grounds and remove the students from class to question them that was disruptive. Again, no one has addressed my question of why the police did not choose to give advance notice to the students and parents and arrange a non disruptive meeting time. Seriously, unless the goal was purely to intimidate, what was the purpose of this timing and means of questioning?
ERM, “altho she needs to use more accurate language so as not to mislead the reader”
What parts of her story did you find misleading?
“But it was not appropriate for a school publication, for the very reason it precipitated the incident it did.”
I disagree that a story of this nature is not fit for school publication. I find the censorship it seems you favor to be a tad over the top, but that’s just me. A story about graffiti is not, IMO, one that will cause anyone harm or disrupt school order drastically. Have school officials stated that it shouldn’t have been published, did I miss that?
“It interfered with the orderly running of the school… in more ways than one!”
What proof is there that the story caused disorder at the school, other than school officials pulling her out of class and officers pressing her for information? You are blaming her or her writing for this “disorder?” Other than school admins pulling her out of class and the officer questioning her, in what other direct way(s) has her story disrupted the school or had a negative impact on the school?
medwoman, “Again, no one has addressed my question of why the police did not choose to give advance notice to the students and parents and arrange a non disruptive meeting time. Seriously, unless the goal was purely to intimidate, what was the purpose of this timing and means of questioning?”
Great point.
[quote]The school can only stop an article from being printed if it violates law (libel, obscenity) or would cause a disruption of school. [/quote]
I’d say the article cause a pretty big disruption at school!
[quote]What parts of her story did you find misleading? [/quote]
I will repeat what I have already said: “But one sentence in the article sums up why it should never have been printed in a school publication, to wit: “The debate over whether graffiti is art or vandalism has never fully come to a conclusion.” This is very misleading, bc the fact of the matter is society has come to a very definite conclusion that graffiti is vandalism and a prosecutable crime.”
[quote]What proof is there that the story caused disorder at the school, [/quote]
1) Students were pulled out of class by the administration, at the behest of the police, to try and identify the vandals.
2) This article implied tagging is an art form, when society has deemed it a crime.
3) The students, in protecting their sources, have protected criminals from prosecution, and assisted the criminals in continuing to go undetected, while implying that some believe what the artists are doing is expressing themselves rather than committing any crime – in other words society has got it wrong.
So at a number of levels, this story never should have been published in a school publication.
ERM,
“I will repeat what I have already said: ‘But one sentence in the article sums up why it should never have been printed in a school publication, to wit: ‘The debate over whether graffiti is art or vandalism has never fully come to a conclusion.’ This is very misleading, bc the fact of the matter is society has come to a very definite conclusion that graffiti is vandalism and a prosecutable crime.”
Cannot the debate be whether graffiti should be considered art, vandalism or both? Society has limited freedom of expression/the arts before and changed its mind, here and elsewhere. I don’t find this quote misleading. It’s laid out pretty clearly in her piece that it is considered vandalism and charges can be ratcheted up to felony status quite easily. One tagger in her piece admitted that what he does is criminal, but also found art in it.
“1) Students were pulled out of class by the administration, at the behest of the police, to try and identify the vandals.”
At the discretion of the school officials and request of police, I presume. Did they HAVE to pull her out of class, thus creating a disruption? Who decided to disrupt class/school? Did the school officials/police have no other option, possibly one that was the less disruptive…maybe?
“2) This article implied tagging is an art form, when society has deemed it a crime.”
Which disrupted the order of school business how? The article offered up the question: is it art, is it vandalism or is it both, but there was much more to her piece. That’s my interpretation, anyway. I think that is a far cry from embracing it as an art form only or “glorifying” graffiti. FWIW, there are various cities, societies, etc that permit graffiti at certain locations and, I believe, have embraced it as an art form as part of projects, design, etc. So, defacing the property of another, by way of graffiti, most certainly is a crime, but not all graffiti (as an art form/style) is criminal.
“3) The students, in protecting their sources, have protected criminals from prosecution, and assisted the criminals in continuing to go undetected, while implying that some believe what the artists are doing is expressing themselves rather than committing any crime – in other words society has got it wrong”
Their constitutionally protected right, no? You asserted in another post here “I would argue for…and a course be created that teaches students their legal rights.” You seem to favor students learning these basic rights, yet appear to be critical of students for exercising them. Maybe status quo would be preferable, in your opinion?
Again, there could be another reason for her unwillingness to divulge the taggers’ names. If she aspires to be a journalist, divulging sources to the authorities isn’t well received in that profession.
In point #2, you stated “This article implied tagging is an art form, when society has deemed it a crime.” In point #3, you suggest Ms. De Hinohosa’s piece that “some” believe what the taggers do is art. Which is it? The later would be accurate, “some” people believe that what they do is art.
Maybe I need to reread the article, but I thought it was pretty clear that what the taggers were doing was criminal, but she also discussed the taggers’ belief that what they do is some form of expression. As I noted above, I think the taggers fell short of inspiring and their “philosophy” came across as pretty dumb in her piece. The taggers never really explained how their tags could be considered art beyond them finding the streets boring, so they put color into them. They basically said they enjoy the “adrenaline rush” of doing something they know is illegal. It’s obvious in her piece that these taggers are not in it for the art or to convey some profound message.
“I’d say the article cause a pretty big disruption at school! “
What caused the big disruptions seems to be the adults and authorities overreaction to it rather than the article itself.
This article about the Bristol council in England might be worth a read http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/09/14/us-britain-graffiti-idUSTRE58D1NC20090914
“Under the new policy, unsightly graffiti will still be removed swiftly, but the council will consult on murals or artwork ‘deemed to make a positive contribution to the local environment’ and where the property owner has no objections.”
“Some street paintings will be put on a council website so the public can vote on their merits, said Hopkins.”
Sounds like the council will let its citizens decide whether the work is vandalism or art in some cases…
There is another article about Charlotte’s historic art district, the neighborhood is known as NoDa. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2008/08/03/105371/nodas-fat-city-lofts-embraces.html
Loft developers presented the community with the work of five graffiti artists, of which the community could not decide on a single one, so several were selected.
According to the article, “The decorated wall will replace the graffiti-splashed façade of Fat City Deli, which was destroyed on the same site by high winds a year ago.”
Replacing graffiti…with more graffiti…err art, what?
Re:Musser
The law does not allow censorship for the kind of ‘disruption’ you are talking about. the newspaper would have to be calling for some kind of activity that would REALLY disrupt school–like calling for all students to trash the campus, or calling for all students to refuse to go to class after lunch to protest a policy.
To show you how much protection the law gives student journalists, here’s an example: a student journalist at Napa High wrote an editorial that was derogatory toward Latinos and called for all illegal aliens at the school to be kicked out. Since the school was about half Latino,the principal confiscated the paper, maintaining that fights were sure to break out, increasing racial conflict at the school. The ca supreme court ordered that the issue be distributed, saying the threat of disruption wasn’t enough… The article had to call for disruption to occur
And, you know, life went on at Napa High. The school community discussed the issues, the principal had a chance to rebut the student’s points, and these 14-18 year olds got a chance to learn about the first amendment, as well as multiple viewpoints on one of the biggest issues of our time. That’s a real education.
Ms. De Hinojosa got one thing wrong for sure, the subjects of her story are taggers, not graffiti artists.