Pam Mari in her presentation to the board of education, made the argument that the reason that the police got involved in this process is that the district had made a number of attempts to rectify the problem of truancy and those efforts failed. Numbers were cited with regard to lost revenue by the school district in the form of ADA (Average Daily Attendance). One number that floated around was $500,000 was lost at the high school in ADA dollars due to truancy.
However, information that was present in April 11, 2007’s Davis Community Advisory Board (CAB) through the police department, raises serious questions about these claims.
According to the minutes from that meeting, Lt. Darren Pytel, one of the innovators of this program, said:
“At the beginning of the school year Davis High was having problems with their telephone computer. Parents were not notified about attendance issues and the students figured it out. Around November, December the district informed parents of the problem and let when know what outstanding absences were not dealt with.”
As the result of this computer glitch, up to 200 kids had missed five or more full school days.
My reading of this situation is that a one-time computer problem made it difficult for parents to be notified about attendance problems. The students figured out there was a problem with the computer (the administration did not) and that they would not be caught and therefore took full advantage.
If that is what happened, there was a known cause from a known problem. That would differ from an ongoing problem of truancy. If this interpretation is correct, do we really need to change the way that we are enforcing truancies? Do we really need a radical approach? Shouldn’t this issue have been assessed by the policy making policy (i.e. the school board) prior to changes in procedure?
The basic question here is was this a one-time problem as the result of the computer glitch–which was not mentioned at the school board meeting–or is this an ongoing problem? And why did the administration not cite statistics for the board to put numbers on this?
What happened next was largely a result of the truancies caused by this computer glitch. The claim in the school board meeting on Thursday was that the truancy sweep would only involve getting the 15-20 worst offenders into school.
This is not what happened last spring.
“When officers saw school aged kids, they were to ask, “Where are you supposed to be right now?” Then they would verify with School Officer Mark Hicks, who has a police radio and can tell from the school computer if the student should be in school. If so, the officer would give them a ride back to the school” (CAB Meeting minutes April 11, 2007).
This does not sound like an action limited to a few students who are the worst offenders, it sounds like a blanket sweep of the community.
The other problem at this point is that the police have really conflated the issue of truancy with the issue of students driving accompanied by friends in the vehicle–which they are not supposed to do if they have had their license for less than a year. Previously, police did not stop students solely for the purpose of checking whether their friends should be in the car.
That policy has now changed and the police are cracking down on this. They are specifically pulling over cars with young drivers and looking to see if their should be able to drive with friends. That has been a focused effort on the part of the police. That of course leads me to the question and I understand the law, but is there a compelling reason that the police need to expend a large amount of manpower to enforce this law, other than it is the law?
Reading the notes from the CAB meeting which occurred back in April and was actually referenced in March, leads people to a further question–why is it that the school board was not made aware of the changes in policy? This meeting by the way, was one of the first attended by new police chief Landy Black.
However, these discussion appear now to go back six months. How is it that all of these changes in procedure could occur without school board input?
Of all of my concerns about this policy, that is the biggest. The school board is elected to represent the interests of the public on the school board. They are accountable to the public. If they fail to do their job, they can be voted out of office by the public or even recalled under extreme circumstances of dereliction of duty. Administrators are not accountable to the public directly however. They do not have to face the voters. The administration works for the Superintendent and the Superintendent is hired by the school board.
The argument made by Pam Mari is that this is authorized by the California Education Code and therefore they did not need board consent to change their procedure for dealing with truancy.
School Board Member Tim Taylor nailed it on the response:
“One of the things we are struggling with is that regardless of whether the law allows certain things to be done, if they haven’t been done, we have two choices, we can hit the ground at 100 miles per hour or we can have a discussion with ourselves and the community and the public and discuss what are we going to do and I think what you’re hearing and certainly what I’m feeling certainly is that the 100 mile an hour approach while perhaps legal may not be the best fit. Because people are gong to feel like they are getting run over. That will cause community pullback… instead of buy-in, which I think we need, that will have the opposite effect.”
However, the other question is whether or not this is even allowed by the law and authorized through ed code.
My reading of the education code does not suggest that it “authorizes” this kind of approach. It does not appear to prohibit this kind of approach necessarily. But it does not automatically authorize it.
What it does specify are definitions for truancy and recourse that the district can take for habitual truants. According to the education code, no pupil can be classified as habitually truant without an effort to have a conference with the parent.
“Any pupil is deemed an habitual truant who has been reported as a truant three or more times per school year, provided that no pupil shall be deemed an habitual truant unless an appropriate district officer or employee has made a conscientious effort to hold at least one conference with a parent or guardian of the pupil and the pupil himself” (EC Section 48262).
The prescribed penalty for habitual truancy:
“(c) The third time a truancy report is required within the same school year, the pupil shall be classified a habitual truant, as defined in Section 48262, and may be referred to and required to attend, an attendance review board or a truancy mediation program pursuant to Section 48263 or pursuant to Section 601.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code. If the district does not have a truancy mediation program, the pupil may be required to attend a comparable program deemed acceptable by the school district’s attendance supervisor. If the pupil does not successfully complete the truancy mediation program or other similar program, the pupil shall be subject to subdivision (d).” (EC Section 48264.5 Subdivision C).
The penalty phase according to the education code appears after the fourth truancy. Penalties at that point include community service, fine of no more than $100, attendance in a court-approved truancy prevention program, and only then suspension or revocation of driving privileges.
So to repeat, after reading through education code, one could probably argue that school policy is not prohibited by the code unless they are attempted to revoke driving privileges earlier than allowed. However, it is not clear that ed code authorizes this approach or that this approach could be undertaken without board approval. I am not familiar enough with the law here to be able to assess what control a school board has in implementing education code policies.
Regardless, it would have been helpful for the administrator in presenting this program to have a written citation of the relevant sections of education code for the school board to see in advance and help them in understanding the new policy and how it fits in with the requirements from the state.
Many questions still need to be answered. Some of these questions include what is actually going on, what this policy will actually do. Other questions include who knew what and when and why was neither the board of education nor the city council aware of these activities by the school district and law enforcement. Answers to those will hopefully occur at the next City-School District two-by-two meeting and a subsequent school board meeting.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
“truancies caused by this computer glitch” ha-ha! The computer glitch didn’t cause the truancies, they were caused by the students who felt that if they could get away with not attending class they would skip school.
“truancies caused by this computer glitch” ha-ha! The computer glitch didn’t cause the truancies, they were caused by the students who felt that if they could get away with not attending class they would skip school.
“truancies caused by this computer glitch” ha-ha! The computer glitch didn’t cause the truancies, they were caused by the students who felt that if they could get away with not attending class they would skip school.
“truancies caused by this computer glitch” ha-ha! The computer glitch didn’t cause the truancies, they were caused by the students who felt that if they could get away with not attending class they would skip school.
The rate of frequent (but not quite truant) absenteeism at DHS is astronomical. Kids cut school because they know they can get away with it, but they get away with it even when the computer telephone system is working. Why? Because there is no follow-up by the school and there are no school-based consequences — no detention; no meetings with the kids & parents; no barring kids from extracurricular activities for unexcused absences; none of the things the schools should be doing about unexcused absences, rather than calling in the police.
The other excuse the PD is using for harassing teens — the vehicle stops — is ILLEGAL. Section 12814.6(c) of the California Vehicle Code states “A law enforcement officer may not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of the restrictions imposed under subdivision (b) [the subsection that says drivers under 18 cannot carry passengers under 20 during the first year they have their licenses].”
Why does the PD have an explicit policy of engaging in illegal vehicle stops?
In a city where so many teens attend DSIS, have free periods during the high school day, have work-study, or attend UCD, is it legal for the police to stop kids because they appear to be school age?
The rate of frequent (but not quite truant) absenteeism at DHS is astronomical. Kids cut school because they know they can get away with it, but they get away with it even when the computer telephone system is working. Why? Because there is no follow-up by the school and there are no school-based consequences — no detention; no meetings with the kids & parents; no barring kids from extracurricular activities for unexcused absences; none of the things the schools should be doing about unexcused absences, rather than calling in the police.
The other excuse the PD is using for harassing teens — the vehicle stops — is ILLEGAL. Section 12814.6(c) of the California Vehicle Code states “A law enforcement officer may not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of the restrictions imposed under subdivision (b) [the subsection that says drivers under 18 cannot carry passengers under 20 during the first year they have their licenses].”
Why does the PD have an explicit policy of engaging in illegal vehicle stops?
In a city where so many teens attend DSIS, have free periods during the high school day, have work-study, or attend UCD, is it legal for the police to stop kids because they appear to be school age?
The rate of frequent (but not quite truant) absenteeism at DHS is astronomical. Kids cut school because they know they can get away with it, but they get away with it even when the computer telephone system is working. Why? Because there is no follow-up by the school and there are no school-based consequences — no detention; no meetings with the kids & parents; no barring kids from extracurricular activities for unexcused absences; none of the things the schools should be doing about unexcused absences, rather than calling in the police.
The other excuse the PD is using for harassing teens — the vehicle stops — is ILLEGAL. Section 12814.6(c) of the California Vehicle Code states “A law enforcement officer may not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of the restrictions imposed under subdivision (b) [the subsection that says drivers under 18 cannot carry passengers under 20 during the first year they have their licenses].”
Why does the PD have an explicit policy of engaging in illegal vehicle stops?
In a city where so many teens attend DSIS, have free periods during the high school day, have work-study, or attend UCD, is it legal for the police to stop kids because they appear to be school age?
The rate of frequent (but not quite truant) absenteeism at DHS is astronomical. Kids cut school because they know they can get away with it, but they get away with it even when the computer telephone system is working. Why? Because there is no follow-up by the school and there are no school-based consequences — no detention; no meetings with the kids & parents; no barring kids from extracurricular activities for unexcused absences; none of the things the schools should be doing about unexcused absences, rather than calling in the police.
The other excuse the PD is using for harassing teens — the vehicle stops — is ILLEGAL. Section 12814.6(c) of the California Vehicle Code states “A law enforcement officer may not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of the restrictions imposed under subdivision (b) [the subsection that says drivers under 18 cannot carry passengers under 20 during the first year they have their licenses].”
Why does the PD have an explicit policy of engaging in illegal vehicle stops?
In a city where so many teens attend DSIS, have free periods during the high school day, have work-study, or attend UCD, is it legal for the police to stop kids because they appear to be school age?
That is true. The students skipped their classes.
However, the crisis was caused by the utter lack of response by the school district to absences by the students. No notification was given to parents for up to 3 months. This was due to the phone computer system being broken. Apparently, this involved up to 80% of the student body, if you read the CAB minutes correctly, which is an interesting statistic. 80% of our students will not go to school if given an opportunity to do so without penalty…hmmm.
Davis High School had lost control due to their reliance on technology rather than personal contact.
Apparently the parents were not even informed of the computer problem until November or December. I wonder if the School Board was informed. It would be easy to do so and get their blessing on using our Police Department to fix the problem.
CAB meeting minutes also says that the consequences for the skipping students includes suspension, but Ed. Code prohibits this. I want to know if, and how many, kids were suspended over this. If so, these suspensions need to be removed from their files.
Now that the crisis is passed, the District is back to dealing with a core group of students who are truant for other reasons. These students are skipping school, despite 6 months of intense police response. These students are the ones that need other more comprehensive intervention, not just ever increasing punitive sanctions.
That is true. The students skipped their classes.
However, the crisis was caused by the utter lack of response by the school district to absences by the students. No notification was given to parents for up to 3 months. This was due to the phone computer system being broken. Apparently, this involved up to 80% of the student body, if you read the CAB minutes correctly, which is an interesting statistic. 80% of our students will not go to school if given an opportunity to do so without penalty…hmmm.
Davis High School had lost control due to their reliance on technology rather than personal contact.
Apparently the parents were not even informed of the computer problem until November or December. I wonder if the School Board was informed. It would be easy to do so and get their blessing on using our Police Department to fix the problem.
CAB meeting minutes also says that the consequences for the skipping students includes suspension, but Ed. Code prohibits this. I want to know if, and how many, kids were suspended over this. If so, these suspensions need to be removed from their files.
Now that the crisis is passed, the District is back to dealing with a core group of students who are truant for other reasons. These students are skipping school, despite 6 months of intense police response. These students are the ones that need other more comprehensive intervention, not just ever increasing punitive sanctions.
That is true. The students skipped their classes.
However, the crisis was caused by the utter lack of response by the school district to absences by the students. No notification was given to parents for up to 3 months. This was due to the phone computer system being broken. Apparently, this involved up to 80% of the student body, if you read the CAB minutes correctly, which is an interesting statistic. 80% of our students will not go to school if given an opportunity to do so without penalty…hmmm.
Davis High School had lost control due to their reliance on technology rather than personal contact.
Apparently the parents were not even informed of the computer problem until November or December. I wonder if the School Board was informed. It would be easy to do so and get their blessing on using our Police Department to fix the problem.
CAB meeting minutes also says that the consequences for the skipping students includes suspension, but Ed. Code prohibits this. I want to know if, and how many, kids were suspended over this. If so, these suspensions need to be removed from their files.
Now that the crisis is passed, the District is back to dealing with a core group of students who are truant for other reasons. These students are skipping school, despite 6 months of intense police response. These students are the ones that need other more comprehensive intervention, not just ever increasing punitive sanctions.
That is true. The students skipped their classes.
However, the crisis was caused by the utter lack of response by the school district to absences by the students. No notification was given to parents for up to 3 months. This was due to the phone computer system being broken. Apparently, this involved up to 80% of the student body, if you read the CAB minutes correctly, which is an interesting statistic. 80% of our students will not go to school if given an opportunity to do so without penalty…hmmm.
Davis High School had lost control due to their reliance on technology rather than personal contact.
Apparently the parents were not even informed of the computer problem until November or December. I wonder if the School Board was informed. It would be easy to do so and get their blessing on using our Police Department to fix the problem.
CAB meeting minutes also says that the consequences for the skipping students includes suspension, but Ed. Code prohibits this. I want to know if, and how many, kids were suspended over this. If so, these suspensions need to be removed from their files.
Now that the crisis is passed, the District is back to dealing with a core group of students who are truant for other reasons. These students are skipping school, despite 6 months of intense police response. These students are the ones that need other more comprehensive intervention, not just ever increasing punitive sanctions.
“”truancies caused by this computer glitch” ha-ha! The computer glitch didn’t cause the truancies, they were caused by the students who felt that if they could get away with not attending class they would skip school.”
You completely missed the point. He is not saying that truancies were caused by the computer glitch. What he is saying is that without the computer glitch the existing policies enabled the district to keep the number of absences down.
“”truancies caused by this computer glitch” ha-ha! The computer glitch didn’t cause the truancies, they were caused by the students who felt that if they could get away with not attending class they would skip school.”
You completely missed the point. He is not saying that truancies were caused by the computer glitch. What he is saying is that without the computer glitch the existing policies enabled the district to keep the number of absences down.
“”truancies caused by this computer glitch” ha-ha! The computer glitch didn’t cause the truancies, they were caused by the students who felt that if they could get away with not attending class they would skip school.”
You completely missed the point. He is not saying that truancies were caused by the computer glitch. What he is saying is that without the computer glitch the existing policies enabled the district to keep the number of absences down.
“”truancies caused by this computer glitch” ha-ha! The computer glitch didn’t cause the truancies, they were caused by the students who felt that if they could get away with not attending class they would skip school.”
You completely missed the point. He is not saying that truancies were caused by the computer glitch. What he is saying is that without the computer glitch the existing policies enabled the district to keep the number of absences down.
How on earth would the police identify ONLY those “15-20″ students to be stopped?..”stake-outs” at their home addresses? “mug-shots”? These exchanges reveal a disengenuousess that seriously erodes the credibility of the current DJUSD admininstration
decision-makers.
How on earth would the police identify ONLY those “15-20″ students to be stopped?..”stake-outs” at their home addresses? “mug-shots”? These exchanges reveal a disengenuousess that seriously erodes the credibility of the current DJUSD admininstration
decision-makers.
How on earth would the police identify ONLY those “15-20″ students to be stopped?..”stake-outs” at their home addresses? “mug-shots”? These exchanges reveal a disengenuousess that seriously erodes the credibility of the current DJUSD admininstration
decision-makers.
How on earth would the police identify ONLY those “15-20″ students to be stopped?..”stake-outs” at their home addresses? “mug-shots”? These exchanges reveal a disengenuousess that seriously erodes the credibility of the current DJUSD admininstration
decision-makers.
One thing I don’t understand–how could the CAB, Landy Black, Pytel, Mari, and others know about this since April but not the school board or the community. Someone please explain this to me, because I don’t get this town.
One thing I don’t understand–how could the CAB, Landy Black, Pytel, Mari, and others know about this since April but not the school board or the community. Someone please explain this to me, because I don’t get this town.
One thing I don’t understand–how could the CAB, Landy Black, Pytel, Mari, and others know about this since April but not the school board or the community. Someone please explain this to me, because I don’t get this town.
One thing I don’t understand–how could the CAB, Landy Black, Pytel, Mari, and others know about this since April but not the school board or the community. Someone please explain this to me, because I don’t get this town.
The only question is why are kids not going to school? Help the kids, do not use police tactics and threats. School is horrible socially and boring for many. Make it challenging for those who need the challenge and tolerable for most and the smart kids that were bored will stay the others will choose to drop out, threats and cops will not prevent a drop out from happening, fixing the reasons they can’t bear to be there might. To do this the adults need to have gained the trust of the kids not have scared them, made threats and have every kid worried about Davis cops with apparently nothing better to do other than have a power struggle with struggling teens.
If parents and administration tried to fix the issues that made them cut class as kids that would be a good place to start. A few years ago there was a “club” at Davis high started as part of a computer class project. It was a Barbie fan club and had Barbie in all her fashion glory as a role model. The creator had RULES for what clothing item would be worn on what day and what was acceptable and not acceptable for dress, even toe nail polish was specified along with certain shoe types, oh yes and brand names…. Talk about a clique and social disease. This is what the school fostered. Too bad the web page is no longer there it was nauseating! And we wonder why kids are skipping school. Atmosphere, lack of interest?????
The only question is why are kids not going to school? Help the kids, do not use police tactics and threats. School is horrible socially and boring for many. Make it challenging for those who need the challenge and tolerable for most and the smart kids that were bored will stay the others will choose to drop out, threats and cops will not prevent a drop out from happening, fixing the reasons they can’t bear to be there might. To do this the adults need to have gained the trust of the kids not have scared them, made threats and have every kid worried about Davis cops with apparently nothing better to do other than have a power struggle with struggling teens.
If parents and administration tried to fix the issues that made them cut class as kids that would be a good place to start. A few years ago there was a “club” at Davis high started as part of a computer class project. It was a Barbie fan club and had Barbie in all her fashion glory as a role model. The creator had RULES for what clothing item would be worn on what day and what was acceptable and not acceptable for dress, even toe nail polish was specified along with certain shoe types, oh yes and brand names…. Talk about a clique and social disease. This is what the school fostered. Too bad the web page is no longer there it was nauseating! And we wonder why kids are skipping school. Atmosphere, lack of interest?????
The only question is why are kids not going to school? Help the kids, do not use police tactics and threats. School is horrible socially and boring for many. Make it challenging for those who need the challenge and tolerable for most and the smart kids that were bored will stay the others will choose to drop out, threats and cops will not prevent a drop out from happening, fixing the reasons they can’t bear to be there might. To do this the adults need to have gained the trust of the kids not have scared them, made threats and have every kid worried about Davis cops with apparently nothing better to do other than have a power struggle with struggling teens.
If parents and administration tried to fix the issues that made them cut class as kids that would be a good place to start. A few years ago there was a “club” at Davis high started as part of a computer class project. It was a Barbie fan club and had Barbie in all her fashion glory as a role model. The creator had RULES for what clothing item would be worn on what day and what was acceptable and not acceptable for dress, even toe nail polish was specified along with certain shoe types, oh yes and brand names…. Talk about a clique and social disease. This is what the school fostered. Too bad the web page is no longer there it was nauseating! And we wonder why kids are skipping school. Atmosphere, lack of interest?????
The only question is why are kids not going to school? Help the kids, do not use police tactics and threats. School is horrible socially and boring for many. Make it challenging for those who need the challenge and tolerable for most and the smart kids that were bored will stay the others will choose to drop out, threats and cops will not prevent a drop out from happening, fixing the reasons they can’t bear to be there might. To do this the adults need to have gained the trust of the kids not have scared them, made threats and have every kid worried about Davis cops with apparently nothing better to do other than have a power struggle with struggling teens.
If parents and administration tried to fix the issues that made them cut class as kids that would be a good place to start. A few years ago there was a “club” at Davis high started as part of a computer class project. It was a Barbie fan club and had Barbie in all her fashion glory as a role model. The creator had RULES for what clothing item would be worn on what day and what was acceptable and not acceptable for dress, even toe nail polish was specified along with certain shoe types, oh yes and brand names…. Talk about a clique and social disease. This is what the school fostered. Too bad the web page is no longer there it was nauseating! And we wonder why kids are skipping school. Atmosphere, lack of interest?????
I agree with Anonymous 9:31, but that’s not the only question for me. My question based on reading these articles is how many kids are not going to school who should be and whether the problem was simply the computer system or something more.
I agree with Anonymous 9:31, but that’s not the only question for me. My question based on reading these articles is how many kids are not going to school who should be and whether the problem was simply the computer system or something more.
I agree with Anonymous 9:31, but that’s not the only question for me. My question based on reading these articles is how many kids are not going to school who should be and whether the problem was simply the computer system or something more.
I agree with Anonymous 9:31, but that’s not the only question for me. My question based on reading these articles is how many kids are not going to school who should be and whether the problem was simply the computer system or something more.
The open “dissing” of the current school board that we witnessed looks like a bureaucratic passive-aggressive response, by Murphy’s supporters still in decision-making DJUSD positions, to his forced retirement. Murphy’s replacement may need strong Board backing to get a handle on this.
The open “dissing” of the current school board that we witnessed looks like a bureaucratic passive-aggressive response, by Murphy’s supporters still in decision-making DJUSD positions, to his forced retirement. Murphy’s replacement may need strong Board backing to get a handle on this.
The open “dissing” of the current school board that we witnessed looks like a bureaucratic passive-aggressive response, by Murphy’s supporters still in decision-making DJUSD positions, to his forced retirement. Murphy’s replacement may need strong Board backing to get a handle on this.
The open “dissing” of the current school board that we witnessed looks like a bureaucratic passive-aggressive response, by Murphy’s supporters still in decision-making DJUSD positions, to his forced retirement. Murphy’s replacement may need strong Board backing to get a handle on this.
Why should police enforce the law about young drivers riding with friends, other than it is the law? What an absurd question.
It’s the law. They are “law enforcement” officers. Not to mention the little public safety issue involved when new, teenage drivers are behind the wheel of a car with a bunch of their friends inside. They tend to get distracted. They tend to hit things, and sometimes those things are human beings. Hence, the law.
Why should police enforce the law about young drivers riding with friends, other than it is the law? What an absurd question.
It’s the law. They are “law enforcement” officers. Not to mention the little public safety issue involved when new, teenage drivers are behind the wheel of a car with a bunch of their friends inside. They tend to get distracted. They tend to hit things, and sometimes those things are human beings. Hence, the law.
Why should police enforce the law about young drivers riding with friends, other than it is the law? What an absurd question.
It’s the law. They are “law enforcement” officers. Not to mention the little public safety issue involved when new, teenage drivers are behind the wheel of a car with a bunch of their friends inside. They tend to get distracted. They tend to hit things, and sometimes those things are human beings. Hence, the law.
Why should police enforce the law about young drivers riding with friends, other than it is the law? What an absurd question.
It’s the law. They are “law enforcement” officers. Not to mention the little public safety issue involved when new, teenage drivers are behind the wheel of a car with a bunch of their friends inside. They tend to get distracted. They tend to hit things, and sometimes those things are human beings. Hence, the law.
It’s the law is not a sufficent answer.
First of all, it is unclear whether it is actually legal for them to do so.
Hence:
Section 12814.6(c) of the California Vehicle Code states “A law enforcement officer may not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of the restrictions imposed under subdivision (b) [the subsection that says drivers under 18 cannot carry passengers under 20 during the first year they have their licenses].”
Second and most importantly, there freaking priorities. Police are constantly complaining that they don’t have enough manpower to stop property theft along I-80. When you have scant resources you have a choice–kids driving with kids or stopping property theft. So no, it’s the law is not sufficient.
It’s the law is not a sufficent answer.
First of all, it is unclear whether it is actually legal for them to do so.
Hence:
Section 12814.6(c) of the California Vehicle Code states “A law enforcement officer may not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of the restrictions imposed under subdivision (b) [the subsection that says drivers under 18 cannot carry passengers under 20 during the first year they have their licenses].”
Second and most importantly, there freaking priorities. Police are constantly complaining that they don’t have enough manpower to stop property theft along I-80. When you have scant resources you have a choice–kids driving with kids or stopping property theft. So no, it’s the law is not sufficient.
It’s the law is not a sufficent answer.
First of all, it is unclear whether it is actually legal for them to do so.
Hence:
Section 12814.6(c) of the California Vehicle Code states “A law enforcement officer may not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of the restrictions imposed under subdivision (b) [the subsection that says drivers under 18 cannot carry passengers under 20 during the first year they have their licenses].”
Second and most importantly, there freaking priorities. Police are constantly complaining that they don’t have enough manpower to stop property theft along I-80. When you have scant resources you have a choice–kids driving with kids or stopping property theft. So no, it’s the law is not sufficient.
It’s the law is not a sufficent answer.
First of all, it is unclear whether it is actually legal for them to do so.
Hence:
Section 12814.6(c) of the California Vehicle Code states “A law enforcement officer may not stop a vehicle for the sole purpose of determining whether the driver is in violation of the restrictions imposed under subdivision (b) [the subsection that says drivers under 18 cannot carry passengers under 20 during the first year they have their licenses].”
Second and most importantly, there freaking priorities. Police are constantly complaining that they don’t have enough manpower to stop property theft along I-80. When you have scant resources you have a choice–kids driving with kids or stopping property theft. So no, it’s the law is not sufficient.
“…kids driving with kids or stopping property theft.”
Several thousand teenagers a year die in auto accidents, and distraction is a major cause. The laws restricting teen driving have reduced teen fatalities. If I were choosing priorities, I’d choose that over property theft. And as we all know, it doesn’t take much in the way of ‘probable cause’ to make the initial stop, especially when teen drivers are involved.
“…kids driving with kids or stopping property theft.”
Several thousand teenagers a year die in auto accidents, and distraction is a major cause. The laws restricting teen driving have reduced teen fatalities. If I were choosing priorities, I’d choose that over property theft. And as we all know, it doesn’t take much in the way of ‘probable cause’ to make the initial stop, especially when teen drivers are involved.
“…kids driving with kids or stopping property theft.”
Several thousand teenagers a year die in auto accidents, and distraction is a major cause. The laws restricting teen driving have reduced teen fatalities. If I were choosing priorities, I’d choose that over property theft. And as we all know, it doesn’t take much in the way of ‘probable cause’ to make the initial stop, especially when teen drivers are involved.
“…kids driving with kids or stopping property theft.”
Several thousand teenagers a year die in auto accidents, and distraction is a major cause. The laws restricting teen driving have reduced teen fatalities. If I were choosing priorities, I’d choose that over property theft. And as we all know, it doesn’t take much in the way of ‘probable cause’ to make the initial stop, especially when teen drivers are involved.
Last Thursday there were 4 police cars parked and covering all parking lot exits at the High School devoted to pulling over young drivers and checking to see if they are able to have passengers.
We only have 4 police cars to patrol the entire city.
Last Thursday there were 4 police cars parked and covering all parking lot exits at the High School devoted to pulling over young drivers and checking to see if they are able to have passengers.
We only have 4 police cars to patrol the entire city.
Last Thursday there were 4 police cars parked and covering all parking lot exits at the High School devoted to pulling over young drivers and checking to see if they are able to have passengers.
We only have 4 police cars to patrol the entire city.
Last Thursday there were 4 police cars parked and covering all parking lot exits at the High School devoted to pulling over young drivers and checking to see if they are able to have passengers.
We only have 4 police cars to patrol the entire city.
Actually there were five at the HS according to some witnesses
Actually there were five at the HS according to some witnesses
Actually there were five at the HS according to some witnesses
Actually there were five at the HS according to some witnesses
The timing on this was unfortunate. The police pick the day that the District finally announced to the community that they were having the police do these truancy sweeps, discovering that the complaints by our youth that they were being repeatedly stopped by police were indeed valid, to do youth driver checkpoints. So much for the great relationship with the School District. Anyone with an ounce of sense could have forseen that this would cause problems and let Chief Black know.
The timing on this was unfortunate. The police pick the day that the District finally announced to the community that they were having the police do these truancy sweeps, discovering that the complaints by our youth that they were being repeatedly stopped by police were indeed valid, to do youth driver checkpoints. So much for the great relationship with the School District. Anyone with an ounce of sense could have forseen that this would cause problems and let Chief Black know.
The timing on this was unfortunate. The police pick the day that the District finally announced to the community that they were having the police do these truancy sweeps, discovering that the complaints by our youth that they were being repeatedly stopped by police were indeed valid, to do youth driver checkpoints. So much for the great relationship with the School District. Anyone with an ounce of sense could have forseen that this would cause problems and let Chief Black know.
The timing on this was unfortunate. The police pick the day that the District finally announced to the community that they were having the police do these truancy sweeps, discovering that the complaints by our youth that they were being repeatedly stopped by police were indeed valid, to do youth driver checkpoints. So much for the great relationship with the School District. Anyone with an ounce of sense could have forseen that this would cause problems and let Chief Black know.
Well the police priorities explain why it can take over an hour to respond to an alarm and leave me and my daughter sitting outside not wanting to go venture into our own home own since something set off the alarm and it might have still been inside!!! Priorities? What priorities. The Code was written so as not to allow for abuse of power. We are talking the CA legislature after much debate they came down on the side of balancing individual rights WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. They did not need to put in the additional civil rights safeguards in the text of the law, but they chose to do so and now it seems the DPD has decided it knows better. For all the law enforcement fanatics posting why not advocate following the law as written in this case? Kids have lesser rights to be safe and secure and free of harassment, even when the legislature has decreed they not be harassed??? HYPOCRISY! NO one says don’t stop a car of kids driving crazy or occupants acting wildly inside the car distracting the driver, but coming out of a parking lot???? DPD does have its priorities, be them questionably legal. Seems public safety has taken a big back seat to teen harassment and at the expense of express prohibitions in the law. Davis scares me.
Well the police priorities explain why it can take over an hour to respond to an alarm and leave me and my daughter sitting outside not wanting to go venture into our own home own since something set off the alarm and it might have still been inside!!! Priorities? What priorities. The Code was written so as not to allow for abuse of power. We are talking the CA legislature after much debate they came down on the side of balancing individual rights WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. They did not need to put in the additional civil rights safeguards in the text of the law, but they chose to do so and now it seems the DPD has decided it knows better. For all the law enforcement fanatics posting why not advocate following the law as written in this case? Kids have lesser rights to be safe and secure and free of harassment, even when the legislature has decreed they not be harassed??? HYPOCRISY! NO one says don’t stop a car of kids driving crazy or occupants acting wildly inside the car distracting the driver, but coming out of a parking lot???? DPD does have its priorities, be them questionably legal. Seems public safety has taken a big back seat to teen harassment and at the expense of express prohibitions in the law. Davis scares me.
Well the police priorities explain why it can take over an hour to respond to an alarm and leave me and my daughter sitting outside not wanting to go venture into our own home own since something set off the alarm and it might have still been inside!!! Priorities? What priorities. The Code was written so as not to allow for abuse of power. We are talking the CA legislature after much debate they came down on the side of balancing individual rights WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. They did not need to put in the additional civil rights safeguards in the text of the law, but they chose to do so and now it seems the DPD has decided it knows better. For all the law enforcement fanatics posting why not advocate following the law as written in this case? Kids have lesser rights to be safe and secure and free of harassment, even when the legislature has decreed they not be harassed??? HYPOCRISY! NO one says don’t stop a car of kids driving crazy or occupants acting wildly inside the car distracting the driver, but coming out of a parking lot???? DPD does have its priorities, be them questionably legal. Seems public safety has taken a big back seat to teen harassment and at the expense of express prohibitions in the law. Davis scares me.
Well the police priorities explain why it can take over an hour to respond to an alarm and leave me and my daughter sitting outside not wanting to go venture into our own home own since something set off the alarm and it might have still been inside!!! Priorities? What priorities. The Code was written so as not to allow for abuse of power. We are talking the CA legislature after much debate they came down on the side of balancing individual rights WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. They did not need to put in the additional civil rights safeguards in the text of the law, but they chose to do so and now it seems the DPD has decided it knows better. For all the law enforcement fanatics posting why not advocate following the law as written in this case? Kids have lesser rights to be safe and secure and free of harassment, even when the legislature has decreed they not be harassed??? HYPOCRISY! NO one says don’t stop a car of kids driving crazy or occupants acting wildly inside the car distracting the driver, but coming out of a parking lot???? DPD does have its priorities, be them questionably legal. Seems public safety has taken a big back seat to teen harassment and at the expense of express prohibitions in the law. Davis scares me.
Don Shor stop making excuses for unneeded stops. Yes there are many accidents caused by teensl; however adults cause them too. Does this mean all administrators should be checked and put through a sobriety test?
Bottom line…they don’t belong on campus. Get them off. Make them do some work instead of playing “Bad Boys” with the kids.
Don Shor stop making excuses for unneeded stops. Yes there are many accidents caused by teensl; however adults cause them too. Does this mean all administrators should be checked and put through a sobriety test?
Bottom line…they don’t belong on campus. Get them off. Make them do some work instead of playing “Bad Boys” with the kids.
Don Shor stop making excuses for unneeded stops. Yes there are many accidents caused by teensl; however adults cause them too. Does this mean all administrators should be checked and put through a sobriety test?
Bottom line…they don’t belong on campus. Get them off. Make them do some work instead of playing “Bad Boys” with the kids.
Don Shor stop making excuses for unneeded stops. Yes there are many accidents caused by teensl; however adults cause them too. Does this mean all administrators should be checked and put through a sobriety test?
Bottom line…they don’t belong on campus. Get them off. Make them do some work instead of playing “Bad Boys” with the kids.
“Yes there are many accidents caused by teens; however adults cause them too.”
You can call it harassment. I call it common sense. Driving is a privilege, and we are all safer when the laws about teen driving are enforced.
“Teenage drivers have very high rates of both fatal and nonfatal crashes compared with adult drivers. Teenagers drive less than all but the oldest people, but their numbers of crashes and crash deaths are disproportionately high. Based on crashes of all severities, the crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year-olds is 4 times the risk for drivers 20 and older. Risk is highest at age 16. The crash rate per mile driven is nearly twice as high for 16 year-olds as it is for 18-19 year-olds.2 The rate of deaths per 100,000 people in 2005 peaked at ages 18-19 for male drivers (25 per 100,000) and male passengers (11 per 100,000) and at age 18 for female drivers (11 per 100,000) and female passengers (9 per 100,000).
Many teenagers die as passengers in motor vehicle crashes. Sixty-one percent of teenage passenger deaths in 2005 occurred in vehicles driven by another teenager. Among deaths of passengers of all ages, 19 percent occurred when a teenager was driving.
A 2005 Highway Loss Data Institute study reported that insurance injury claim frequencies and overall collision (vehicle damage) losses for cars insured for teenagers to drive are more than double those for cars insured for use by adults only.”
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
“Yes there are many accidents caused by teens; however adults cause them too.”
You can call it harassment. I call it common sense. Driving is a privilege, and we are all safer when the laws about teen driving are enforced.
“Teenage drivers have very high rates of both fatal and nonfatal crashes compared with adult drivers. Teenagers drive less than all but the oldest people, but their numbers of crashes and crash deaths are disproportionately high. Based on crashes of all severities, the crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year-olds is 4 times the risk for drivers 20 and older. Risk is highest at age 16. The crash rate per mile driven is nearly twice as high for 16 year-olds as it is for 18-19 year-olds.2 The rate of deaths per 100,000 people in 2005 peaked at ages 18-19 for male drivers (25 per 100,000) and male passengers (11 per 100,000) and at age 18 for female drivers (11 per 100,000) and female passengers (9 per 100,000).
Many teenagers die as passengers in motor vehicle crashes. Sixty-one percent of teenage passenger deaths in 2005 occurred in vehicles driven by another teenager. Among deaths of passengers of all ages, 19 percent occurred when a teenager was driving.
A 2005 Highway Loss Data Institute study reported that insurance injury claim frequencies and overall collision (vehicle damage) losses for cars insured for teenagers to drive are more than double those for cars insured for use by adults only.”
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
“Yes there are many accidents caused by teens; however adults cause them too.”
You can call it harassment. I call it common sense. Driving is a privilege, and we are all safer when the laws about teen driving are enforced.
“Teenage drivers have very high rates of both fatal and nonfatal crashes compared with adult drivers. Teenagers drive less than all but the oldest people, but their numbers of crashes and crash deaths are disproportionately high. Based on crashes of all severities, the crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year-olds is 4 times the risk for drivers 20 and older. Risk is highest at age 16. The crash rate per mile driven is nearly twice as high for 16 year-olds as it is for 18-19 year-olds.2 The rate of deaths per 100,000 people in 2005 peaked at ages 18-19 for male drivers (25 per 100,000) and male passengers (11 per 100,000) and at age 18 for female drivers (11 per 100,000) and female passengers (9 per 100,000).
Many teenagers die as passengers in motor vehicle crashes. Sixty-one percent of teenage passenger deaths in 2005 occurred in vehicles driven by another teenager. Among deaths of passengers of all ages, 19 percent occurred when a teenager was driving.
A 2005 Highway Loss Data Institute study reported that insurance injury claim frequencies and overall collision (vehicle damage) losses for cars insured for teenagers to drive are more than double those for cars insured for use by adults only.”
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
“Yes there are many accidents caused by teens; however adults cause them too.”
You can call it harassment. I call it common sense. Driving is a privilege, and we are all safer when the laws about teen driving are enforced.
“Teenage drivers have very high rates of both fatal and nonfatal crashes compared with adult drivers. Teenagers drive less than all but the oldest people, but their numbers of crashes and crash deaths are disproportionately high. Based on crashes of all severities, the crash rate per mile driven for 16-19 year-olds is 4 times the risk for drivers 20 and older. Risk is highest at age 16. The crash rate per mile driven is nearly twice as high for 16 year-olds as it is for 18-19 year-olds.2 The rate of deaths per 100,000 people in 2005 peaked at ages 18-19 for male drivers (25 per 100,000) and male passengers (11 per 100,000) and at age 18 for female drivers (11 per 100,000) and female passengers (9 per 100,000).
Many teenagers die as passengers in motor vehicle crashes. Sixty-one percent of teenage passenger deaths in 2005 occurred in vehicles driven by another teenager. Among deaths of passengers of all ages, 19 percent occurred when a teenager was driving.
A 2005 Highway Loss Data Institute study reported that insurance injury claim frequencies and overall collision (vehicle damage) losses for cars insured for teenagers to drive are more than double those for cars insured for use by adults only.”
Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Does anyone have the statistics concerning the serious auto accident rate of Davis young drivers who are violating this passenger prohibition? Is there a documented problem that cries out to be addressed?
Does anyone have the statistics concerning the serious auto accident rate of Davis young drivers who are violating this passenger prohibition? Is there a documented problem that cries out to be addressed?
Does anyone have the statistics concerning the serious auto accident rate of Davis young drivers who are violating this passenger prohibition? Is there a documented problem that cries out to be addressed?
Does anyone have the statistics concerning the serious auto accident rate of Davis young drivers who are violating this passenger prohibition? Is there a documented problem that cries out to be addressed?
Don Shor: civil liberties, such as the requirement that vehicle stops be supported by reasonable suspicion (yes, the standard is less than probable cause), are also common sense
if I had to venture a guess (I don’t practice in the criminal area any more), I would imagine that the case law is all over the map
some courts would consider stops of cars driven by teens during school hours to be supported by reasonable suspicion, others would not, as teens can legitimately be out of school (and some, I believe, at 16, can even be emancipated)
of course, to the extent that the police (and adults in the community) create the impression that teens are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and a separate standard for stops, that’s not very good community relations long term
by the way, if Landy Black is such a great improvement over Jim Hyde, why he is adopting a typical meat cleaver sort of approach to teen driving, one that doesn’t appear to be markedly different than what Hyde would have done?
–Richard Estes
Don Shor: civil liberties, such as the requirement that vehicle stops be supported by reasonable suspicion (yes, the standard is less than probable cause), are also common sense
if I had to venture a guess (I don’t practice in the criminal area any more), I would imagine that the case law is all over the map
some courts would consider stops of cars driven by teens during school hours to be supported by reasonable suspicion, others would not, as teens can legitimately be out of school (and some, I believe, at 16, can even be emancipated)
of course, to the extent that the police (and adults in the community) create the impression that teens are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and a separate standard for stops, that’s not very good community relations long term
by the way, if Landy Black is such a great improvement over Jim Hyde, why he is adopting a typical meat cleaver sort of approach to teen driving, one that doesn’t appear to be markedly different than what Hyde would have done?
–Richard Estes
Don Shor: civil liberties, such as the requirement that vehicle stops be supported by reasonable suspicion (yes, the standard is less than probable cause), are also common sense
if I had to venture a guess (I don’t practice in the criminal area any more), I would imagine that the case law is all over the map
some courts would consider stops of cars driven by teens during school hours to be supported by reasonable suspicion, others would not, as teens can legitimately be out of school (and some, I believe, at 16, can even be emancipated)
of course, to the extent that the police (and adults in the community) create the impression that teens are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and a separate standard for stops, that’s not very good community relations long term
by the way, if Landy Black is such a great improvement over Jim Hyde, why he is adopting a typical meat cleaver sort of approach to teen driving, one that doesn’t appear to be markedly different than what Hyde would have done?
–Richard Estes
Don Shor: civil liberties, such as the requirement that vehicle stops be supported by reasonable suspicion (yes, the standard is less than probable cause), are also common sense
if I had to venture a guess (I don’t practice in the criminal area any more), I would imagine that the case law is all over the map
some courts would consider stops of cars driven by teens during school hours to be supported by reasonable suspicion, others would not, as teens can legitimately be out of school (and some, I believe, at 16, can even be emancipated)
of course, to the extent that the police (and adults in the community) create the impression that teens are subjected to a higher level of scrutiny and a separate standard for stops, that’s not very good community relations long term
by the way, if Landy Black is such a great improvement over Jim Hyde, why he is adopting a typical meat cleaver sort of approach to teen driving, one that doesn’t appear to be markedly different than what Hyde would have done?
–Richard Estes
Reasonable suspicion is not a whole lot, but it is still required by the law. Interestingly if the cops were not taking a meat cleaver approach and harrasing kids and instead building trust and getting to know them they would have all the reasonalble suspicion they needed. They would know many of the kids, the ages, the friends, and probably even when a lot of them started driving. A new license is generally not top secret on campus. Amazing how doing the right thing ususally works and makes commonsense to boot. Get to know the kids through trust and you will have more succss with the truancy issues, and also have your reasonalble suspicion as required by the law, and be following the law, and helping keep kids from driving in cars they should not. Don, teen drivers stats you quote are not really relelvant. Teen drivers will still drive alone and crash. The only stats that matter are injuries and deaths of unauthorized passengers. I don’t think anyone is arguing this point only that if the kids have to follow the law so do the cops. DPD appears to be violating the law and going against legislative intent.. What is the old saying you attract more flies with sugar than vinegar?
Reasonable suspicion is not a whole lot, but it is still required by the law. Interestingly if the cops were not taking a meat cleaver approach and harrasing kids and instead building trust and getting to know them they would have all the reasonalble suspicion they needed. They would know many of the kids, the ages, the friends, and probably even when a lot of them started driving. A new license is generally not top secret on campus. Amazing how doing the right thing ususally works and makes commonsense to boot. Get to know the kids through trust and you will have more succss with the truancy issues, and also have your reasonalble suspicion as required by the law, and be following the law, and helping keep kids from driving in cars they should not. Don, teen drivers stats you quote are not really relelvant. Teen drivers will still drive alone and crash. The only stats that matter are injuries and deaths of unauthorized passengers. I don’t think anyone is arguing this point only that if the kids have to follow the law so do the cops. DPD appears to be violating the law and going against legislative intent.. What is the old saying you attract more flies with sugar than vinegar?
Reasonable suspicion is not a whole lot, but it is still required by the law. Interestingly if the cops were not taking a meat cleaver approach and harrasing kids and instead building trust and getting to know them they would have all the reasonalble suspicion they needed. They would know many of the kids, the ages, the friends, and probably even when a lot of them started driving. A new license is generally not top secret on campus. Amazing how doing the right thing ususally works and makes commonsense to boot. Get to know the kids through trust and you will have more succss with the truancy issues, and also have your reasonalble suspicion as required by the law, and be following the law, and helping keep kids from driving in cars they should not. Don, teen drivers stats you quote are not really relelvant. Teen drivers will still drive alone and crash. The only stats that matter are injuries and deaths of unauthorized passengers. I don’t think anyone is arguing this point only that if the kids have to follow the law so do the cops. DPD appears to be violating the law and going against legislative intent.. What is the old saying you attract more flies with sugar than vinegar?
Reasonable suspicion is not a whole lot, but it is still required by the law. Interestingly if the cops were not taking a meat cleaver approach and harrasing kids and instead building trust and getting to know them they would have all the reasonalble suspicion they needed. They would know many of the kids, the ages, the friends, and probably even when a lot of them started driving. A new license is generally not top secret on campus. Amazing how doing the right thing ususally works and makes commonsense to boot. Get to know the kids through trust and you will have more succss with the truancy issues, and also have your reasonalble suspicion as required by the law, and be following the law, and helping keep kids from driving in cars they should not. Don, teen drivers stats you quote are not really relelvant. Teen drivers will still drive alone and crash. The only stats that matter are injuries and deaths of unauthorized passengers. I don’t think anyone is arguing this point only that if the kids have to follow the law so do the cops. DPD appears to be violating the law and going against legislative intent.. What is the old saying you attract more flies with sugar than vinegar?