By Ariana Camarena
WOODLAND – A homeless man’s refusal to leave an elementary school resulted in a campus lockdown. The defendant, Leonid Mikhaylevskiy, arrived onsite at the elementary school on November 28, 2018, with the expressed intent to attain his children’s school records. School officials testified against the defendant, stating that the defendant did not have legal custody over his children and so no records were released to Mikaylevskiy.
The vice-principal on duty on November 28 testified about the incident. The witness testified that her first encounter with the defendant had been several weeks before. At that time, the defendant arrived on campus and paced back and forth with what appeared to be an “old-fashioned” suitcase. The prosecution displayed the campus map to the jury to give an accurate representation of the defendant’s location on the day of that incident.
The defendant walked into the office and approached the attendance clerk with the request to attain his children’s report cards and other school records. The vice-principal reminded the defendant of school being in session but made him aware that the documents requested could be released. The defendant left without any records.
On November 28, 2018, the witness arrived on campus at approximately 6:45 a.m. when the witness noticed an unknown figure by the school. The vice principal recognized the figure as Leonid Mikhaylevskiy who was wearing dark clothing and had a black eye. The defendant asked the witness if he could use the school phone due to an emergency. After using the school phone, the defendant exited the school office
without explanation and approached a vehicle that sped off soon after.
The vehicle happened to be the defendant’s ex-partner who had physical custody of the children.
The defendant returned to the office with agitation, repeatedly stating, “Are you trying to keep my kids away from me?” The vice principal felt threatened as the defendant exited the school office.
The second witness to testify was the elementary school principal present on the day of the incident. The witness felt it was his duty to approach the defendant in an effort to seek resolution. The principal testified that the defendant appeared to be unsettled and frustrated.
When the witness approached the defendant to see how he could help, Mr. Mikhaylevskiy stated, “You don’t work here.”
The principal clarified that he did and asked the defendant to leave the school premises.
The defendant refused to leave and headed toward the center of campus. The witness decided it would be in the best interest of the student population and administrators to issue a campus lockdown and call the police. Upon police arrival, the defendant refused to leave the school grounds, after repeatedly being asked to do so. The defendant was taken into custody by authorities and is being charged with remaining on the property after being asked to leave the premises.
The trial will resume Friday, October 18, 2019.
edited
Main story
couldshould well be, ‘why is this case even being tried?’…Sounds like a PRA (Parental Responsibility Act) inquiry, poorly executed, and more poorly responded to…
Wonder how much this could have been avoided is school staff had not “seen” a ‘homeless person’, but just “saw” a a ‘parent person’… perhaps the wrong folk are on trial? At least in the court of public opinion…
In fairness, the article doesn’t say school personnel identified the man as homeless. That’s how the author identifies him—which is curious, because it’s not really a relevant fact.
Eric – as I understand it from the original article, the homeless issue was part of the man’s treatment by the school.