Friday, May 23, 2008

If 'A' has a positive right against 'B', then 'B' must assist 'A' to do 'x' if 'A' is not able to do 'x' without that assistance.

Actuary "Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers, and you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.

Technorati Profile

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, May 16, 2008

The Agenda of CCISD Administrators is to spin, dockter, and indoctrinate it.

Actuary "Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers, and you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.

*
Search

*
Archives
o September 2007
o August 2007
o July 2007
o June 2007
o May 2007
o April 2007
o March 2007
o February 2006
o November 2005
o October 2005
o July 2005
o June 2005
o May 2005
o April 2005
o March 2005
o February 2005
o January 2005
o December 2004
o November 2004
o October 2004
o September 2004
o August 2004
o July 2004
o June 2004
o May 2004
o April 2004
o March 2004
o February 2004
o January 2004
*
Links
o
General Interest
+ Advancement Project
+ Education News
+ JoanneJacobs.com
+ My Short Pencil
+ Our Horrible Children
+ Parent Advisory Council
+ Parents Against ZT
+ Social Consequences of ZT
+ The Ethics Scoreboard
+ ZT Nightmares

*
Menu
o Home
o Submit a Tip
o Categories
*
Support This Site
o
*
Recommended Reading
o
o
o
o
o

ZeroIntelligence.net
Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence
Katy ISD beats Houston by better than 5 to 1 - in arresting students.
Jim | Texas | Monday, April 19th, 2004

Zero tolerance raises alarms

Previously on ZeroIntelligence.Net: It’s step up or step out at Katy Independent School District

Katy Independent School District has exploded across the news thanks to an AP article in general circulation. There are good reasons that Katy is being exposed.

Bubbly and bright, Jewel Caillet considered herself “Miss Teen Spirit” until she was accused of drinking at a high school football game and subjected to 3 1/2 months in the Katy Independent School District’s discipline school.

The 16-year-old says she was not drinking and was refused the opportunity to take a Breathalyzer test. A municipal court judge threw out the charge. But KISD still sent Jewel to the discipline school, where students cannot have a locker or pens because they could be used to hide drugs. Each day, Jewel was required to bare her midriff, ankles and feet for inspections to ensure she was not carrying contraband.

As previously noted on ZeroIntelligence.Net, Katy ISD has an epidemic of cases like Jewel’s. Students are censured, punished and convicted by the opinion of staff or the anonymous tips of a fellow student. Katy seems to specialize in criminalizing students as well. Violations such as throwing food, carrying a pager or having a skateboard are all subject to police involvement.

… So far this school year, KISD police have ticketed or arrested students in 4,298 cases. Twenty-one percent of the infractions were classified as disorderly conduct, disruption or assault, the last of which includes anything from a shove to physically injuring someone.

The Houston Independent School District, with five times as many students, has issued 1,200 fewer citations this school year than Katy. KISD has ticketed or arrested one student for every nine in the school district, while HISD has cited one of every 68 students.

Better than 11% of the students attending Katy ISD have been ticketed or arrested. How can Katy maintain that they are doing a decent job? Perhaps it’s because their administrators are on crack. I don’t see any other way to explain the following.

School administrators acknowledge that they do not hold a standard of innocent until proven guilty for school-administered discipline, but they say they “make every effort” to find out whether students did what they are accused of doing.

Parents in Katy cannot appeal decisions to send their children to the discipline school for periods of 60 days or fewer.

“They leave here better for it,” said Patty Bing, principal of the discipline school. “I’ve never seen a situation where a child did not benefit.”

“At A-School, you knew you were in prison,” [Jewel] said, adding that the experience made her hate school even at Taylor.

The entrance to the discipline school is monitored by a security guard and blocked by a metal detector, where the students line up every morning to be searched before they can enter. Bing and other faculty members greet the students as they lift up their shirts and pants, empty their pockets and take off their shoes.

“We make it a very positive experience to start the day,” the principal said.

Emphasis mine. The next best thing to a strip search is “a very positive experience”? Alternative school is such a wonderful place that no student failed to benefit from it. Why not pattern all of the schools after it then?

The school offers basics, such as math, science and English, and a few electives but no advanced classes or foreign languages. It is considering offering a Spanish class next year.

“We are not required by law to provide any of the advanced-placement classes” in the discipline school, said Bonnie Holland, executive assistant to the KISD superintendent. “Our off-campus DAEP (discipline alternative education program) is as good as anybody’s.”

Jewel’s mother, Sandra Caillet, said her daughter learned nothing at the discipline school but how to get into trouble.

“They learn where the drugs are and who’s selling them,” Caillet said.

There are efforts at the state level to repeal laws mandating zero tolerance policies but these are being fought by teachers’ unions and other partisan groups. Even if they were all repealed tomorrow it wouldn’t matter in KISD though. That would only remove the mandate for the policies. Katy has gone well beyond those mandates. They have a serious problem that has to be dealt with internally. The people in charge of that school system need a massive wakeup call from the parents and electorate in the district. Nothing else will help the thousands of students who are getting arrested and forced out of Katy schools.

(Tip credit to Daryl C and Cedar Pundit)

Update: Comments on this post have been closed as it is being attacked by spammers. Please email me with comments and I will add them manually.
17 Comments

*

I’m certainly not one to call for running to the courts at the drop of a hat, but it seems to me that it’s past time for a parent to take a stand and take these idiots to court.

Let’s see here…she was ‘accused’….no specifics given. She was refused the right to take a Breathalyzer test that would have provided a clear means to refute the accusation. She was cleared of the charge by a court…but these clowns decided to administer punishment anyhow.

I think we make an error when we extend full rights to minors, but arrogant educators like this can only serve to drive us in that direction.

I do wonder about the local police…seems past time for them to cease aiding in this kind of stuff.
Comment by Bill Beeman — April 19, 2004 @ 4:22 pm
*

It’s close to the end of the year. It’s time for these parents of these students to find educational venues other than Katy schools for their children. It’s very easy to homeschool in Texas if one can’t afford a decent private school. Almost as easy as it is to get arrested or ticketed in Katy schools.

Going to a public school where you’re afraid to look crosseyed at someone for fear of arrest is NOT WORTH THE AGGRAVATION, NO MATTER HOW STELLAR THE ACADEMIC EDUCATION IS. Having your academic future ruined by idiots who can’t be bothered to thoroughly check out stories and barefaced lies is criminal. No matter what the law says under NCLB, students should be treated as individuals.

WAKE UP PARENTS AND STUDENTS. NOTHING WILL HAPPEN UNTIL YOU LET THE POWERS THAT BE KNOW THAT THEY’LL BE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR A LIVING NEXT FALL.
Comment by bettina — April 19, 2004 @ 4:23 pm
*

This thing annoys me so much, I can’t begin to say what I think about the whole thing.

How could a parent possibly let this type of thing happen to her daughter? Why did she permit her daughter to get railroaded to a thug school? How can she possibly look her daughter in the face every day? How did she let these bastards do this to her child?
Comment by bettina — April 19, 2004 @ 5:54 pm
*

ANOTHER STRANGE COINCIDENCE?

I just saw a Katie Couric interview with Rev. Michael Shoels, father of Isaiah who was killed at Columbine five years ago today. The families are still grieving their losses. In fact, Mr. Shoels moved out of Littleton, CO because…
Trackback by Homeschool & Other Education Stuff — April 20, 2004 @ 7:45 am
*

Whoa, whoa, hold up a minute here, Bettina. “How could a parent LET this type of thing happen”? How could it be avoided? This is the whole idea behind fighting ZT policies; parents have no say in the process. Once you do away with an appeals you remove any control of the situation from outside parties, such as the parents of the student. The fault lies with the administrators and the school board, not with the parents.

Every person at that alternative school, including the teachers, guards, and administrators (ESPECIALLY the administrators) should be required to go through exactly the same daily entry procedures (search, metal detector, etc.) as the students. Then a poll should be taken to see how many of these people thought the experience was “positive”.
Comment by Ray — April 20, 2004 @ 11:19 am
*

I think Bettina was referring to the fact that the parents are always the final arbiter. There are options besides public school and the parent can use them no matter what the school decides. Private schooling is always there and so is homeschooling. Private school isn’t always affordable. It can be a large sacrifice to homeschool but if the other side of the scale is a traumatized kid who now hates learning, doesn’t that make it a no brainer?

In a larger sense, parents are the ones who elect and condone the school administration. That’s simplistic as it’s really all voters who do it but the basic fact is that it does not take a huge grassroots movement to get new administration in place. In fact, this very thing has started in Katy.
Comment by Jim — April 20, 2004 @ 11:26 am
*

Katy ISD - Zero Intelligence

As reported by ZeroIntelligence.net - Katy Independent School District Arrests 1 in ever 9 students regularly. This is absolutely…astonishing. Are the students the problem? Absolutely not. The school district’s Zero Tolerance Plan is fully to blame, …
Trackback by Gnomified - The Tales of a Wannabe — April 20, 2004 @ 4:34 pm
*

Ray, this mother should have had the sense to remove her child immediately from that school and let the school and the world know why. She should have called the media — radio talkshows, print media, and TV. She never should have permitted her child to be in such a horrible situation. If she can’t homeschool or send the child to private school, move the child out of the area to relatives for the rest of the year. Anything other than having her in that situation.

I know of a mother who removed her high school son from an overly controlling school over a minor dresscode violation. The kid was given in school suspension for the day. The mother pulled him out within a week and signed him up with a homeschooling co-op. She let the school know why she was pulling him out also. There are a lot of students in this particular school that have left, some within weeks of the end of the school year, and the administration wonders why they have such a large dropout rate and homeschooling population.

You’re right Jim. The parents are always the final arbiter and as soon as Katy administrators find out, the better off the students will be. The school superintendent should be fired.
Comment by bettina — April 20, 2004 @ 5:00 pm
*

The state of Texas, has been pulling, this off for a few years now.
The harassment caused my nephew to quit school!

On the same day, he withdrew in Hopkins county, so did 6 other junior and seniors. These kids had, 2 months of school left. Of course he had to pay his ticket. It seems to go, to the city court clerk fund.
This could be the reason, the tickets are so popular. A hell of a way to finance, the city budget.
Any district, that does not have a appeal process, should not be allowed, to discipline kids. That 60 day rule is a sham.
Some democracy system.
In Sulpher Springs, the students do not have lockers. All children are given a second set of books to take home. Maybe the ticket money helps finance this.
I too would like to see those Adults, in charge have to raise their shirts everyday. There is nothing right about that Alternative school.
Comment by Brenda — April 20, 2004 @ 9:18 pm
*

If parents let the schools know that they won’t send their children to a school that doesn’t treat them as individuals in disciplinary matters and does not have an appeal process, you would see them change that rule very, very quickly. That “our hands are tied” baloney would end immediately, because no students, no jobs.

A girl in a district in my county where students are leaving in droves for parochial high schools (blue collar town, but parents are willing to sacrifice) told the newspapers that she refuses to attend a school that doesn’t have an athletic program (the school was going to cut the budget for athletics). Within two days, that money was put back into the budget.

Another school district decided to limit bathroom passes and institute a “silent” lunch for its students. Students and parents told the press they would not be returning next year. That got the administration’s attention pronto. The policies were recinded.

All it takes is a minority of parents (6-8%) to let school administrators know that they’ll go elsewhere if they’re not happy. There are more options out there than ever and smart school districts know they have to compete. Children don’t need to be educated in public schools today, and if they are of no use or detrimental to children, they can be closed down.
Comment by bettina — April 21, 2004 @ 8:04 am
*

I agree with the points that you made, but there are a lot of people out there who don’t have either opportunity. How about the single mother with two kids? Homeschooling isn’t an option if they want to eat, ditto private school. Moving may also not be an option if the parent(s) aren’t earning enough to do so, and relatives might not be available, or willing to take in another child.

However, the abuses chronicled on this site make it clear that there needs to be a set of “baseline” rights for students and their parents. School administrators need to realize that ZT policies simply don’t work.

And what the heck is with this ridiculous “silent lunch” concept? Do we really want to turn our schools into prisons with books?
Comment by Ray — April 22, 2004 @ 7:36 am
*

Public schools today are like minimum security prisons already with inane zero tolerance policies, security guards with taser guns (popular in FL schools), cameras in the hallways and in some cases classrooms (that might be a good thing, heh heh), searches, pee tests, and metal detectors at the doors.

Silent lunch is used to shut the kids up to give the staff a break or as a disciplinary tactic. Some kids in this particular school were causing problems, so of course, everyone gets punished. I’ve even heard of students in some schools not being permitted to talk on the school bus.

Well, that sort of takes care of the “socialization” aspect of public education that the educrats are always trying to hold over the heads of homeschoolers.

I truly feel sorry for people who can’t afford to choose their children’s education and who are forced to send their children to these God-awful places.
Comment by bettina — April 22, 2004 @ 8:33 am
*

Idiot! She wasn’t refused a breathalyzer test, SHE refused to take one.

And most of the statistics had to be retracted by the Chronicle (where they were first published) because they were erroneous.

Ask the parents of Katy (the responsible parents, that is) how we feel about Katy ISD. There is a reason why it is one of the fastet growing school districts in the state. Look at their graduation rated, SAT scores, etc.

Get a clue.
Comment by parent — June 7, 2004 @ 7:58 am
*

Parent, thanks so much for the scathing anonymous commentary. I’m unable to find anything in the Chronicle about retractions for this story and the only surviving stories I see about Jewel corroborate that she requested and was denied a breathalyzer.

Perhaps you could do a little better in putting your opinion forward if you cited some sources.
Comment by Jim — June 7, 2004 @ 8:05 am
*

they are reversing the law guilty and we have to prove them innocent, and we have to do it with our hands tied behind our back.
Katy isd will not help you, find out the truth they just want to hang the student and appologize later if they are wrong. this will not do. so i ask what can we do to stop that communistic state form steamrolling over our children. it time to take away their power.
Comment by Teresa AKing — October 5, 2004 @ 6:18 pm
*

This sounds far better than the situation I observe up close in HISD every day where the misbehaving students ( many of whom should be incarcerated) have all the rights, and the adults are relegated to babysitting rather than teaching these wanna-be and future thugs.

I find myself wondering often, just what can be done to fix a system that is so far gone as the current HISD situation. Many of the students are coming from homes that are not able to provide the most basic needs, be that financial, or even worse, moral, ethical and work values and structure. What can be done for these children? Even more worrisome, as they are the future of our culture, what can be done for our culture?

A little bit of a disciplinary school for a child who allowed herself to appear guilty of illegal activity. A small price, for the lesson that she is responsible for her actions, and the way they appear. This lesson is an important one, that few parents seem to instill in thier children today. Now, if only the parents could learn the same lesson.
Comment by hisd worker — October 28, 2004 @ 1:05 am
*

I find this interesting…I am a Katy parent. I have 5th, 7th and 9th. Those of you who are interested, google and yahoo “the delphi technique” This is the method in which KISD is working. It has it’s roots in Marxism and communism. This technique is why KISD is virtually unreachable. They are master spin doctors. I have a child who is miserable at school because of the meaness and foul mouthed kids…the teacher is great, that is the only reason my child goes…I am considering taking her out.I wish that KISD would focus less on teenage boys getting into a “boy” scuffle and put more effort into life and people skills.
Comment by tracy — November 27, 2004 @ 9:47 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

RSS feed for comments on this post.
Powered by WordPress | Theme by Roy Tanck

Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, January 10, 2008

2. A juvenile has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation.

Actuary "Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy My brothers, and you will know My name is the Lord when I lay My vengeance upon thee.


general dwi law
general dwi law
driver's license suspension
driver's license suspension
minors using alcohol
minors using alcohol

state
state
federal
federal
juvenile
juvenile
dwi
dwi
on-line solicitation
on-line solicitation


2828 N. Harwood, Suite 1950
Dallas, TX. 75201
Dallas Ph: (214) 651-1121
Ft.Worth Ph: (817) 460-LAWS
Email: JudgeFinn@DavidFinn.com

dallas criminal lawyer
texas criminal defense attorney
dallas texas criminal attorney
dallas texas criminal attorney

Practice Areas

TEXAS JUVENILE LAW

In Texas, juveniles are defined as minors, older than 10 years of age and under the age of 17. Juveniles are treated differently than adult offenders and the general goal of the juvenile system is rehabilitation as opposed to punishment. However, the penalties in the juvenile system can still be severe. Some offenses, such as truancy and breaking curfew, are unique to juveniles, and would not be illegal if the accused were an adult. The juvenile justice system generally moves much more quickly than does the adult criminal justice system. Don't wait to hire a good juvenile defense lawyer to represent your child. Call Attorney David Finn at: 214-651-1121.

There are separate courts and rules that govern the juvenile process. The juvenile court system will generally make every effort to rehabilitate the child rather than simply incarcerate him. Only in extreme cases, such as serious felonies, usually involving allegations of violence or the use of a deadly weapon, will a juvenile be tried as an adult. The juvenile courts may hold a hearing to determine whether to transfer the juvenile to the adult court system. This is called a "transfer hearing." The court will base its decision to transfer on the following factors:

1. The seriousness of the offense
2. The child's criminal sophistication
3. Previous criminal record
4. Previous attempts to rehabilitate the juvenile offender
5. The court's belief that future attempts at rehabilitation will be unsuccessful

While many of the laws governing juveniles may differ from the adult system, the rights that juveniles enjoy are virtually identical to those enjoyed by adults.

1. A juvenile must be read his Miranda rights if placed under arrest.
2. A juvenile has the right to have an attorney present during interrogation.
3. A juvenile has the right to know the specific charges being brought by the State.
4. A juvenile has rights against self-incrimination.
5. A juvenile has the right to confront his accuser and examine witnesses.
6. A juvenile has the right to appeal the court's decision.
7. A juvenile does have the right to a jury trial during the adjudication phase

If a juvenile finds herself in a situation involving the police or other law enforcement, please remember the following information:

1. You do not have to submit to a search unless you have been placed under arrest.

If you are asked to give permission to search you should politely but firmly decline. If the police say they have a search warrant, ask to see it.

2. Do not resist arrest.
3. Do not volunteer information or answer questions without your attorney present.
4. Provide only your name, address, and phone number.
5. Call your parents as soon as possible.
6. Insist that your parents and an attorney be present during questioning.
7. Do not discuss your case with anyone other than your attorney.

Do not discuss your case with your friends or classmates.

Finally, do not attempt to represent yourself in court. Hire an experienced criminal defense attorney, preferably one who is board-certified in criminal law.

Texas Juvenile Justice: Overview

Taking Into Custody; Issuance of Warning Notice: Texas Family Code Section 52.01

A child may be taken into custody: pursuant to an order of the juvenile court; pursuant to the Texas laws for arrest; by a law enforcement officer if there is probable cause to believe that the child has engaged in conduct that violates the penal laws of Texas or any political subdivision or delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision. It is the duty of the law enforcement officer who has taken a child into custody to transport the child to the appropriate detention facility if the child is not released to the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child. If the juvenile detention facility is located outside the county in which the child is taken into custody, it shall be the duty of the law enforcement officer who has taken the child into custody or, if authorized by the commissioners court of the county, the sheriff of that county, to transport the child to the appropriate juvenile detention facility unless the child is released to the parent, guardian, or custodian of the child.

Delinquent Conduct: Conduct Indicating a Need for Supervision:

Texas Family Code Section 51.03

(a) Delinquent conduct is defined as:

1. conduct, other than a traffic offense, that violates a penal law of Texas or of the United States punishable by imprisonment or by confinement in jail;
2. conduct that violates a lawful order of a municipal court or justice court under circumstances that would constitute contempt of that court;
3. conduct that constitutes: Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), Flying While Intoxicated, Boating While Intoxicated, Intoxication Assault, Intoxication Manslaughter, and Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol by a minor (DUI).

(b) Conduct indicating a need for supervision includes:

1. conduct, other than a traffic offense, that violates the penal laws of Texas of the grade of misdemeanor that are punishable by a fine only (class c-misdemeanors); the penal ordinances of any political subdivision of Texas; the absence of a child on 10 or more days or parts of days within a 6 month period in the same school year or on 3 or more days or parts of days within a 4 week period from school; the voluntary absence of a child from the child's home without the consent of the child's parents or guardian for a substantial length of time or without intent to return; conduct prohibited by city ordinance or by state law involving the inhalation of the fumes or vapors of paint; or an act that violates a school district's previously communicated written standards of student conduct for which the child has been expelled under Section 37.007(c), Texas Education Code.

Release from Detention: Texas Family Code Section 53.02

(a) If a child is brought before the court or delivered to a detention facility, the intake or other authorized officer of the court shall immediately make an investigation and shall release the child unless it appears that his detention is warranted under subsection (b), below.

The release may be conditioned upon requirements reasonably necessary to insure the child's appearance at later proceedings, but the conditions of the release must be in writing and filed with the office or official designated by the court and a copy furnished to the child.

(b) A child taken into custody may be detained prior to hearing on the petition only if:

1. the child is likely to abscond or be removed from the court's jurisdiction;
2. suitable supervision, care, or protection for the child is not being provided by a parent, guardian, custodian, or other person;
3. the child has no parent, guardian, custodian, or other person able to return the child to the court when required;
4. the child may be dangerous to himself or herself or the child may threaten the safety of the public if released;
5. the child has previously been found to be a delinquent child or has previously been convicted of a penal offense punishable by a term in jail or prison and is likely to commit an offense if released; or
6. the child's detention is required under subsection (f), below.

(c) If the child is not released, a request for detention hearing shall be made and promptly presented to the court, and an informal detention hearing shall be held promptly, but not later than the second working day after the child is taken into custody. If the child is taken into custody on a Friday or Saturday, then the detention hearing shall be held on the first working day after the child is taken into custody.

(d) A release of a child to an adult must be conditioned on the agreement of the adult to be subject to the jurisdiction of the juvenile court and to an order of contempt by the court if the adult, after notification, is unable to produce the child at later proceedings.

(e) If a child being released under this section is expelled from school in a county with a population greater than 125,000, the release shall be conditioned on the child's attending a juvenile justice alternative education program pending a deferred prosecution or formal court disposition of the child's case.

(f) A child who is alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct and to have used, possessed, or exhibited a firearm in the commission of the offense shall be detained until the child is released at the direction of the judge of the juvenile court, a substitute judge, or a referee appointed, including an oral direction by telephone, or until a detention hearing is held.

Detention Hearing: Texas Family Code Section 54.01

(a) Generally speaking, a detention hearing without a jury shall be held promptly, but not later than the second working day after the child is taken into custody; provided, however, that when a child is detained on a Friday or Saturday, then such detention hearing shall be held on the first working day after the child is taken into custody.

(b) Reasonable notice of the detention hearing, either oral or written, shall be given, stating the time, place, and purpose of the hearing. Notice shall be given to the child and, if they can be found, to his parents, guardian, or custodian. Prior to the beginning of the hearing, the court shall inform the parties of the child's right to counsel and to appointed counsel if they are indigent and of the child's right to remain silent with respect to any allegations of delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision.

(c) At the detention hearing, the court may consider written reports from probation officers, professional court employees, or by professional consultants in addition to the testimony of witnesses. Prior to the detention hearing, the court shall provide the attorney for the child with access to all written matter to be considered by the court in making the detention decision. The court may order counsel not to reveal items to the child or his parents if such disclosure would materially harm the treatment and rehabilitation of the child or would substantially decrease the likelihood of receiving information from the same or similar sources in the future.

(d) A detention hearing may be held without the presence of the child's parents if the court has been unable to locate them. If no parent or guardian is present, the court shall appoint counsel or a guardian ad litem for the child.

(e) At the conclusion of the hearing the court shall order the child released from detention unless it appears that he is likely to abscond, suitable supervision is not being provided to the child, he has no parent or guardian able to return the child to court when required, he may be dangerous to himself or others, or he has previously been found to be a delinquent child or has been previously convicted of a penal offense higher than a Class C misdemeanor and is likely to commit an offense if released. If the judge concludes that the child should be detained, the detention order extends for no more than 10 working days. Further detention orders may be made following subsequent detention hearings. The initial detention hearing may not be waived, but subsequent detention hearing may be waived.

Note: No statement made by the child at the detention hearing shall be admissible against the child at any other hearing.

Preliminary Investigation & Determinations; Notice to Parents:

Texas Family Code Section 53.01

On referral of a child, the intake officer, probation officer, or other person authorized by the court shall conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether the person referred is a child and whether there is probable cause to believe that the child engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision. If it is determined that the person is not a child or there is no probable cause, the person shall immediately be released. The child's parents are to promptly receive notice of the whereabouts of the child and also a statement explaining why the child was taken into custody. If the child is alleged to have engaged in delinquent conduct of the grade of felony, or conduct constituting a misdemeanor offense involving violence to a person or the use or possession of a firearm, illegal knife, or club, then the case is immediately forwarded to the office of the prosecuting attorney.

Summons: Texas Family Code Section 53.06

The juvenile court shall direct issuance of a summons to the child named in the petition, the child's parents, guardian, or custodian, the child's guardian ad litem, and any other person who appears to the court to be a proper or necessary party to the proceeding. A party, other than the child, may waive service of summons by written stipulation or by voluntary appearance at the hearing.

Service of Summons: Texas Family Code Section 53.07

If a person to be served with a summons is in Texas and can be found, the summons shall be served upon him personally at least 2 days before the adjudication hearing. If he is in Texas but cannot be found, but his address is known or can be ascertained, the summons may be served on him by mailing a copy by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, at least 5 days before the day of the hearing. If he is outside Texas but can be found or his address is known, service of the summons may be made either by delivering a copy to him personally or mailing a copy to him by registered mail, return receipt requested, at least 5 days before the day of the adjudication hearing.

Attendance at Hearing: Parent or Other Guardian: Texas Family Code Section 51.115

Parents or guardians of a child are required by law to attend each court hearing affecting a child held under: possible transfer to criminal district/adult court; adjudication hearing; disposition hearing; hearing to modify disposition; release or transfer hearing. If a parent or guardian receives notice of any of these proceedings and is a resident of Texas, failure to appear could result in a fine for contempt of court.

Photographs & Fingerprints of Children: Texas Family Code Sections 58.002-0021

With limited exceptions, a child may not be photographed or fingerprinted without the consent of the juvenile court unless the child is taken into custody or referred to the juvenile court for conduct that constitutes a felony or a misdemeanor punishable by confinement in jail (which means a Class A or Class B misdemeanor). However, this prohibition does not prohibit law enforcement from photographing or fingerprinting a child who is not in custody if the child's parent or guardian voluntarily consents in writing. Furthermore, this prohibition does not apply to fingerprints that are required or authorized to be submitted or obtained for an application for a driver's license or personal identification card.

Note/Exception to General Rule stated above: Law enforcement may take temporary custody of a child to take the child's fingerprints if the officer: has probable cause to believe that the child has engaged in delinquent conduct; the officer has investigated that conduct and found other fingerprints during the investigation; and the officer has probable cause to believe that the child's fingerprints will match the other fingerprints. Law enforcement may take temporary custody of a child to take the child's photograph if the officer: has probable cause to believe that the child has engaged in delinquent conduct; and the officer has probable cause to believe that the child's photograph will be of material assistance in the investigation of the conduct. However, in either instance, unless the child then placed under arrest, the child must be released from temporary custody as soon as the fingerprints or photographs are obtained.

Waiver of Rights: Texas Family Code Section 51.09

Unless a contrary intent clearly appears elsewhere in the Family Code, any right granted to a child by this Section or by the constitution or laws of Texas or the United States may be waived in proceedings under this section if:

1. the waiver is made by the child and the attorney for the child;
2. the child and the attorney waiving the right are informed of and understand the right and the possible consequences of waiving it;
3. the waiver is voluntary; and
4. the waiver is made in writing or in court proceedings that are recorded.

Polygraph Examination: Texas Family Code Section 51.151

If a child is taken into custody pursuant to an order of the juvenile court or pursuant to the laws of arrest by a law enforcement officer, a person may not administer a polygraph examination to the child without the consent of the child's attorney or the juvenile court unless the child is transferred to a criminal district court for prosecution in the adult system. Bottom line: Do not consent to a polygraph examination without consulting with your lawyer.

Physical or Mental Examination: Texas Family Code Section 51.20

(a) At any stage of the proceedings the juvenile court may order a child who is referred to the juvenile court or who is alleged by a petition or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision to be examined by the local mental health or mental retardation authority or another appropriate expert, including a physician, psychiatrist, or psychologist.

(b) If, after conducting an examination of a child and reviewing any other relevant information, there is reason to believe that the child has a mental illness or mental retardation, the probation department shall refer the child to the local mental health or mental retardation authority for evaluation and services, unless the prosecutor has filed a court petition against the child alleging delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision.

Election Between Juvenile Court & Alternate Juvenile Court:

Texas Family Code Section 51.18

(a) This section applies only to a child who has a right to a trial before a juvenile court the judge of which is not an attorney licensed to practice in Texas.

(b) On any matter that may lead to an order appealable under Section 56.01 of the Family Code, a child may be tried before either the juvenile court or the alternate juvenile court.

(c) The child may elect to be tried before the alternate juvenile court only if the child files a written notice with that court not later than 10 days before the date of the trial. After the notice is filed, the child may be tried only in the alternate juvenile court. If the child does not file a notice as provided by this section, the child may be tried only in the juvenile court.

(d) If the child is tried before the juvenile court, the child is not entitled to a trial de novo before the alternate juvenile court.

Transfer/Waiver: Texas Family Code Section 54.02

The juvenile court may waive its exclusive original jurisdiction and transfer a child to the appropriate criminal district court to be tried as an adult if the child is alleged to have violated a penal law of the grade of felony if the child was 14 years of age or older at the time he is alleged to have committed the offense, if the offense is a capital felony, an aggravated controlled substance felony, or a felony of the first degree; or 15 years of age or older at the time the child is alleged to have committed the offense, if the offense is a felony of the second or third degree or a state jail felony.

The juvenile court judge is not required to certify a child to stand trial as an adult. It's a judgment call. The juvenile court judge will investigate the matter and hold a hearing on the transfer request. The judge orders a complete diagnostic study, social evaluation, and a full investigation of the child, his circumstances, and the circumstances of the alleged offense. At the transfer hearing the court may consider written reports from probation officers, professional court employees, or professional consultants in addition to the testimony of witnesses. In making her decision whether to transfer the case to the adult court, the judge considers: (1) whether the alleged offense was against person or property, with greater weight in favor of transfer given to offenses against a person; (2) the sophistication and maturity of the child; (3) the record and previous history of the child; and (4) the prospects of adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of the rehabilitation of the child by use or procedures, services, and facilities currently available to the juvenile court.

Determinate Sentencing: Texas Family Code Section 53.045

If a child is accused of a very serious criminal violation, or habitual felony conduct (see section below), the prosecutor can pursue what is called determinate sentencing. In order to pursue determinate sentencing the prosecutor files a petition with the grand jury, basically asking the grand jury to grant the prosecutor's request to pursue determinate sentencing if the child is convicted. If 9 members of the grand jury approve the petition, then determinate sentencing becomes a viable sentencing option for the judge/jury if the child is convicted of the offense. Determinate sentencing doesn't mean that the child will be tried as an adult in a criminal district court. The case remains in the juvenile court even if the grand jury grants the request for determinate sentencing. but the stakes for the child are raised dramatically if the grand jury grants the prosecutor's petition for determinate sentencing.

Eligibility: The prosecutor can pursue determinate sentencing if the child is charged with habitual felony conduct, or if the child is charged with any of the following offenses:

capital murder, murder, manslaughter, aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, aggravated robbery, injury to a child, elderly, or disabled individual if punishable as a felony other than a state jail felony, felony deadly conduct involving the discharge of a firearm, aggravated controlled substance felony, criminal solicitation of a minor, indecency with a child, arson, if bodily injury or death is suffered by any person by reason of the commission of the arson, intoxication manslaughter, or attempted murder or attempted capital murder. If your child is charged with one of the offenses listed above, she is eligible for determinate sentencing even if this is her first offense.

Impact: If the grand jury grants the prosecutor's request to impose determinate sentencing, and the child is convicted of habitual felony conduct or any of the offenses listed above, then the court or jury may sentence the child to commitment in the Texas Youth Commission with a possible transfer to the institutional division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (adult prison system) for a term of: up to 40 years if the conduct constitutes a capital felony, first-degree felony, or an aggravated controlled substance felony; up to 20 years if the conduct constitutes a second-degree felony; and up to 10 years if the conduct constitutes a third-degree felony. So instead of being sent to the Texas Youth Commission until the child turns 18, determinate sentencing would allow the child to be sentenced to up to 40 years in the adult prison system by a judge or jury.

Habitual Felony Conduct: Texas Family Code Section 51.031

(a) Habitual felony conduct is conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony, other than a state jail felony, if:

1. the child who engaged in the conduct has at least 2 previous final adjudications as having engaged in delinquent conduct violating a penal law of the grade of felony; and,
2. the second previous final adjudication is for conduct that occurred after the date the first previous adjudication became final; and,
3. all appeals relating to the previous adjudications have been exhausted.

Review by Prosecutor: Texas Family Code Section 53.012

The prosecuting attorney shall promptly review the circumstances and allegations of a referral made to her for legal sufficiency and the desirability of prosecution and may file a petition without regard to whether probable cause was found during the court's preliminary investigation.

If the prosecutor does not file a petition requesting the adjudication of the child referred to the prosecutor, the prosecutor must terminate all proceedings, if the reason is for the lack of probable cause; or return the referral to the juvenile probation department for further proceedings.

The prosecutors have considerable discretion and control over your child's case.

Deferred Prosecution: Texas Family Code Section 53.03

(a) Subject to subsections (e) and (g) below, if the preliminary investigation results in a determination that further proceedings in the case are authorized, the probation officer or other designated officer of the court, subject to the direction of the juvenile court, may advise the parties for a reasonable period of time not to exceed 6 months concerning deferred prosecution and rehabilitation of a child if:

1. deferred prosecution would be in the best interest of the public and child;
2. the child and her parent, guardian, or custodian consent with knowledge that consent is not obligatory; and
3. the child and his parent, guardian, or custodian are informed that they may terminate the deferred prosecution at any point and petition the court for a court hearing in the case.

(b) Except as otherwise permitted, the child may not be detained during or as a result of the deferred prosecution process.

(c) An incriminating statement made by a participant to the person giving advice and in the discussion or conferences incident thereto may not be used against the declarant in any court hearing.

(d) The court may adopt a fee schedule for deferred prosecution services. The maximum fee is $15 per month.

(e) The prosecuting attorney may defer prosecution for any child. A probation officer or other designated officer of the court may defer prosecution for a child who has previously been adjudicated for conduct that constitutes a felony only if the prosecuting attorney consents in writing.

(f) The probation officer or other officer supervising a program of deferred prosecution for a child shall report to the juvenile court any violation by the child of the program.

(g) Prosecution may not be deferred for a child alleged to have engaged in conduct that constitutes: driving/flying/boating while intoxicated, intoxication assault, intoxication manslaughter, or that constitutes a third or subsequent offense of consumption of alcohol by a minor or driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) of a minor.

First Offender Program: Texas Family Code Section 52.031

A juvenile board may establish a first offender program for the referral and disposition of children taken into custody for: (1) conduct indicating a need for supervision; or (2) delinquent conduct other than conduct that constitutes a felony of the first, second, or third degree, an aggravated controlled substance felony, or a capital felony; or a state jail felony or misdemeanor involving violence to a person or the use or possession of a firearm, illegal knife, or club, or a prohibited weapon, as described by Section 46.05, Texas Penal Code. If the child has previously been adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct he may be ineligible for the First Offender Program. Also, the child's parents or guardian must receive notice that the child has been referred for disposition under the First Offender Program.

Teen Court Program: Texas Family Code Section 54.032

A juvenile court may defer adjudication proceedings during an adjudication hearing for not more than 180 days if the child:

(1) is alleged to have engaged in conduct indicating a need for supervision that violated a penal law of Texas of the grade of misdemeanor that is punishable by a fine only or a penal ordinance of a political subdivision of Texas;

(2) waives the privilege against self-incrimination and testifies under oath that the allegations are true;

(3) presents to the court an oral or written request to attend a teen court program; and

(4) has not successfully completed a teen court program for the violation of the same penal law or ordinance in the two years preceding the date that the alleged conduct occurred.

Note: The teen court program must be approved by the court.

Adjudication Hearing: Texas Family Code Section 54.03

This is what is commonly referred to as the "guilty-not guilty" phase of a trial. A child may be found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision only after an adjudication hearing. The child is presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution proves that the child is guilty of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is on the state. The verdict must be unanimous.

At the beginning of an adjudication hearing the juvenile court judge shall explain to the child and his parent, guardian, or guardian ad litem: the allegations made against the child; the nature and possible consequences of the proceedings; the child's privilege against self-incrimination; the child's right to trial and to confront witnesses; the child's right to representation by an attorney if he is not already represented; and the child's right to a trial by jury.

Only material, relevant, and competent evidence in accordance with the Texas Rules of Criminal Evidence may be considered in an adjudication hearing. Hearsay testimony is generally not admissible. A statement made by the child out of court is insufficient to support a finding of delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision unless it is corroborated in whole or in part by other evidence. An adjudication of delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision cannot be had upon testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the child with the alleged delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision; and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the alleged conduct. Finally, evidence illegally seized or obtained is inadmissible in an adjudication hearing.

A child may be found guilty of committing a lesser-included offense of the offense charged.

If the judge or jury finds that the child did engage in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision, then the court or jury shall state which of the allegations in the petition were found to be established by the evidence. The court will then set a date and time for the disposition hearing.

If the judge or jury finds that the child did not engage in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision, the court shall dismiss the case with prejudice.

Disposition Hearing: Texas Family Code Section 54.04

This term can be confusing. What we're talking about here is the "sentencing" phase of the proceedings. The disposition hearing only comes into play if the child has been found guilty of the delinquent conduct or criminal activity alleged in the petition. If the child is found not guilty of all allegations during the adjudication hearing then there is no disposition hearing.

The disposition hearing is separate, distinct, and subsequent to the adjudication hearing. There is no right to a jury at the disposition hearing unless the child is in jeopardy of a determinate sentence as approved by the grand jury. If the child is eligible for determinate sentencing, then the child is entitled to a jury of 12 persons to determine the sentence.

At the disposition hearing, the juvenile court may consider written reports from probation officers, professional court employees, or professional consultants in addition to the testimony of witnesses. Prior to the disposition hearing, the child's lawyer is to have received all written matter to be considered in disposition. No disposition may be made unless the child is in need of rehabilitation or the protection of the public or the child requires that disposition be made. No disposition placing the child on probation outside the child's home may be made under this section unless the court or jury finds that the child, in the child's home, cannot be provided the quality of care and level of support and supervision that the child needs to meet the conditions of probation. If the judge or jury grant probation, the court will attach various conditions of the probation. Depending on the nature of the charges and the child's criminal history, if probation is not granted, the child could be sentenced to a term of confinement in the Texas Youth Commission.

Payment of Probation Fees: Texas Family Code Section 54.061

If a child is placed on probation, the juvenile court, after giving the child, parent, or other person responsible for the child's support, a reasonable opportunity to be heard, shall order the child, parent, or other person, if financially able to do so, to pay to the court a fee of not more than $15 a month during the period that the child continues on probation. If the court finds that a child, parent, or other person responsible for the child's support is financially unable to pay the probation fee, the court shall enter into the records of the child's case a statement of that finding.

Monitoring School Attendance: Texas Family Code Section 54.043

If the court places a child on probation and requires as a condition of probation that the child attend school, the probation officer shall monitor the child's school attendance and report to the court if the child is voluntarily absent from school.

Restitution: Texas Family Code Section 54.048

A juvenile court, in a disposition hearing, may order restitution to be made by the child and the child's parents. This applies regardless of whether the petition in the case contains a plea for restitution.

Admission of Unadjudicated Conduct: Section 54.045

During a disposition hearing, a child may admit having engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision for which the child has not been adjudicated and request the court to take the admitted conduct into account in the disposition of the child's pending case. If the prosecutor agrees in writing, then the court may take the admitted conduct into account in the disposition of the child. However, a court may take into account admitted conduct over with exclusive venue lies in another county only if the court obtains the written permission of the prosecuting attorney for that county. A child may not be adjudicated by any court for having engaged in conduct taken into account under this section unless the conduct taken into account included conduct that took place in another county and the written permission of the prosecuting attorney of that county was not obtained.

Community Service: Texas Family Code Section 54.044

If the court places a child on probation, the court shall require as a condition of probation that the child work a specified number of hours at a community service project approved by the court and designated by the juvenile probation department. This requirement may be waived if the court finds that the child is physically or mentally incapable of participating in the project or that participating in the project will be a hardship on the child or his family or that the child has shown good cause that community service should not be required.

Note: The court may also order that the child's parent perform community service with the child.

Child Placed on Probation for Conduct Involving a Handgun:

Texas Family Code Section 54.0406

(a) If a court or jury places a child on probation for conduct that violates a penal law that includes as an element of the offense the possession, carrying, using, or exhibiting of a handgun, and if at the adjudication hearing the court or the jury affirmatively finds that the child personally possessed, carried, used, or exhibited a handgun, the court must require as a condition of probation that the child, not later than the 30th day after the date the court places the child on probation, notify the juvenile probation officer who is supervising the child of the manner in which the child acquired the handgun, including the date and place of any person involved in the acquisition. The juvenile probation officer is then to relay any relevant information regarding the handgun to the police. Your lawyer should be with you when this takes place.

Note: Information provided by the child to the juvenile probation officer regarding the acquisition of the handgun and any other information derived from that information may not be used as evidence against the child in any juvenile or criminal proceeding.

Rights of Appeal: Warning: Texas Family Code Section 54.034

Before the court may accept a child's plea or stipulation of evidence in a proceeding under this title, the court must inform the child that if the court accepts the plea or stipulation and the court makes a disposition in accordance with the agreement between the state and the child regarding the disposition of the case, the child may not appeal an order of the court pursuant to an adjudication hearing, a disposition hearing, or a hearing to modify disposition, unless the court gives the child permission to appeal; or the appeal is based on a matter raised by written motion filed before the proceeding in which the child entered the plea or agreed to the stipulation of evidence. An appeal from an order of a juvenile court is to the court of appeals and the case may be carried to the Texas Supreme Court by writ of error or upon certificate, as in civil cases generally. The requirements governing a juvenile appeal are as in civil cases generally.

Note: An appeal does not suspend the order of the juvenile court, nor does it release the child from the custody of that court or of the person, institution, or agency to whose care the child is committed, unless the juvenile court so orders. However, the appellate court may provide for a personal bond pending the appeal.

Sealing Juvenile Records: Texas Family Code Section 58.003

One of the most important things that can be done for a juvenile is to get the juvenile records sealed as soon as allowed by law.

The benefits of sealing a child's juvenile records are immense. Once the records are sealed, information relating to the arrest, detention, prosecution, and conviction, are physically sealed and/or destroyed. This means that the child can start adulthood with a "clean" slate. And it also means that the child is authorized by law to say that he has never been convicted.

Section 58.003 of the Texas Family Code provides that, except for juveniles who received a determinate sentence for engaging in delinquent conduct that violated a penal law such as murder, capital murder, manslaughter, aggravated kidnapping, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, aggravated assault, injury to a child/elderly/disabled person, arson, indecency with a child, etc., or engaged in habitual felony conduct, the juvenile records may be sealed if the court finds that 2 years have elapsed since final discharge of the person or since the last official action in the person's case if there was no adjudication; and if since that time the person has not been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or found to have engaged in delinquent conduct or conduct indicating a need for supervision and no proceeding is pending seeking conviction or adjudication.

A court may also order the sealing of records concerning a juvenile adjudicated as having engaged in delinquent conduct that violated a penal law of the grade of felony (not including many determinate sentences) if: the person is 21 years of age or older; the person was not transferred by a juvenile court to an adult criminal court for prosecution; the records have not been used as evidence in the punishment phase of a criminal proceeding under Article 37.07, Code of Texas Criminal Procedure; and if the person has not been convicted of a penal law of the grade of felony after becoming age 17.

If a child is referred to the juvenile court for conduct constituting any offense and at the adjudication hearing (guilt/innocence) the child is found to be not guilty of each offense alleged, the court shall immediately order the sealing of all files and records relating to the case.

David Finn is board certified in criminal law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Call today for a free initial consultation.


The information contained in this web site is intended to convey general information about David Finn, PC. It should not be construed as legal advice or opinion. It is not an offer to represent you, nor is it intended to create an attorney-client relationship. Any email sent via the Internet to David Finn, PC using email addresses listed in this web site would not be confidential and would not create an attorney-client relationship.


HOME :: ATTORNEY PROFILE :: IN THE NEWS :: FAQS :: PRACTICE AREAS :: RECENT RESULTS
RIGHT TO COUNSEL :: CONFIDENTIAL :: INTERVIEW :: BOARD CERTIFIED :: EXPUNCTIONS
ORDERS OF NONDISCLOSURE :: FRAUD/SEC CASES :: LIBRARY OF MOTIONS
OFFICE LOCATION :: CONTACT ME :: MY BLOG :: SITE MAP

copyright © 2003 david finn, p.c. all rights reserved.

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Scott Eliff is being sabotaged by the "groups" that want to educate the selective students picked to nurture these values........

Actuary "Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

* Adaptability
o Prefers to "go with the flow."
o They tend to be "now" people who take things as they come and discover the future one day at a time.
o Flexible, can stay productive when the demands of work are pulling you in many different directions at once.
o Don't resent sudden requests or unforeseen detours.
o The genius of adaptability talents lie in the way you respond to chaos. (haha!)
* Empathy
o Senses the feelings of other people by imagining themselves in others' lives or others' situations.
o Doesn't condone anyone's choices, but does understands why they made them.
o Hears the unvoiced questions.
o Anticipates need.
o Other people feel heard by you and experience your compassion
* Includer:
o Accepting of others.
o Shows awareness of those who feel left out, and makes an effort to include them.
o No one should be ignored.
o Notices people who might feel like outsiders or who feel unappreciated.
* Input:
o A craving to know more.
o Likes to collect and archive all kinds of information.
o Inquisitive/ active curiosity.
* Strategic:
o Creates alternative ways to proceed.
o Faced with any given scenario, you can quickly spot the relevant patterns and issues.
o Thinks through every possible "what if?" (aka: over-analyzing!)
* Relator:
o Enjoys close relationships with others.
o Finds deep satisfaction in working hard with friends to achieve a goal.
o Derives a great deal of pleasure and strength by being around close friends.
o Wants to understand their friends' feelings, fears, dreams, goals
o Vulnerable

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Open records to Parents is productive and inevitable

Actuary "Ezekial 25:17 - The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequites of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he that shepherds the weak from the valley of darkness for he is truly his brother's keeper, and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers, and you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.

Local News
| News | Sports | Business | Weather | Opinions | Archives | E-mail Us |



Sunday, Dec. 27, 1998

Closed doors often conceal open records, study finds

More than half of 100 requests in area result in violations of law

By JIM DAY
Staff Writer

Elizabeth Ann Mendoza wanted to know if any convicted sex offenders lived in the neighborhood where her daughter walked home from Los Encinos Elementary School.
Diana Garcia wanted to see documents outlining a beating her son suffered at the hands of other students in the Latchkey Program at Houston Elementary School.
Both women sought and obtained, with varying degrees of success, their information through the Texas Public Information Act, a law designed to ensure that governments make available to the public information collected and maintained at taxpayer expense.
In the 25 years since a scandal at the highest levels of Texas government helped spark open records laws, Texas lawmakers have overhauled and revised open government provisions. Further changes will be pushed in the upcoming legislative session that starts Jan. 12, with some lawmakers wanting to strengthen penalties against violators and to open administrative records of judges.
In cases such as Garcia's, citizens can use those laws to force changes in how government operates. After a three-month battle over the records with the Corpus Christi Independent School District and a threat to sue the district, an additional supervisor for the Latchkey Program was hired -satisfying Garcia's concerns.
Statewide, government agencies handle thousands of open records requests each year, frequently providing documents with little hassle or cost. But the laws also are commonly circumvented, abused and ignored by some government agencies.
In a four-month study, the Caller-Times sent requests for public records to 100 government agencies, including city and county governments, law enforcement agencies and school districts.
  • Forty-two governments complied fully with the law; 58 did not.
  • Twenty governments responded within the time period, but asked why the Caller-Times wanted the information. It's a violation of the Public Information Act to "inquire into the purpose for which the information will be used."
  • Twenty-one agencies responded only after follow-up calls.
  • Eight governments either never provided the information, sent it after a long delay or charged higher costs than allowed.
  • Officials with nine agencies said they did not recall receiving the request.
    Agencies frequently provide the information without question - Mendoza's request for the names of convicted sex offenders in her area was granted promptly by the Corpus Christi Independent School District.
    But in some statewide and local cases, requests for presumably simple and clearly public information are tied up for weeks - and sometimes longer - by government officials steadfast in their refusal to release it.

    Request leads to change


    When Garcia asked Latchkey supervisors at her son's school for the reports about his beating that occurred Oct. 17, 1997, they refused to give them to her. School officials said she needed to talk to the Corpus Christi Park and Recreation Department, which runs the program.
    Park and Recreation officials referred her request to the city's legal department; lawyers there said they could not release the information because the names and statements of student witnesses were confidential.
    Garcia said she didn't care about the names of the children. She just wanted to know what happened that day.
    City officials sought a ruling from the state Attorney General's Office, which ruled that the records were public information as long as the children's names were blacked out.
    The Attorney General's Office told the city on Jan. 6 to release the reports, but on Jan. 14, when she called the city again, she still had not received them, Garcia said.
    "My husband was saying, `Let it go,' but I said, `No, I'm not letting it go.'|"
    Finally, after reminding city officials that the attorney general had told them to release the reports, she got them - nearly three months after her original request.
    With those papers in hand, she told Latchkey officials she would sue unless they got more adults to supervise the program.
    The Latchkey Program at Houston Elementary has since hired a third coach to watch the children. Garcia is no longer threatening legal action because she is now pleased with the oversight, she said.
    What she's not pleased about is that it took more than two months to get information about an incident involving her own child.
    "There was a lot of red tape involved. It was much tougher to get the reports than we anticipated."

    Local, statewide struggles


    Garcia is just one of many people who have been blocked by government officials when they ask to see information that concerns them or their children.
  • In 1992, after his daughter got in trouble for being tardy to class, Robert Lett asked officials in Houston's Klein Independent School District to give him records that would show if she'd had other disciplinary problems.
    They declined. Attorney General Dan Morales ruled that the records were open.
    Klein ISD sued Morales and Lett to keep his daughter's records closed.
    That case went to the Texas Supreme Court, which allowed the records to be released -nearly five years after Lett requested them.
    "I saw two things: First, that the school district was being mean. Sometimes, the little guy gets hurt, and that was happening here," said Rob Wiley, Lett's attorney and a director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas. "Second, this was an important freedom of information issue."
    While that battle was being fought, the Legislature in 1995 passed a law saying requesters of information could no longer be sued over the requests.
  • One of the Caller-Times' open records requests filed last year sought reports and personnel files concerning the death of Edward Seth Rogers Jr., who was shot by police in April 1997. City of Corpus Christi officials refused to release the records, arguing that they expected to be sued over the shooting. They appealed the request to the state Attorney General's Office - a step outlined in the Public Information Act.
    Three times, the Attorney General's Office said the city should release the records. Three times, the city refused and asked the attorney general to reconsider. When the Attorney General's Office stood by its ruling, the city released personnel records of two of the officers involved. A state district judge blocked the release of a third officer's records earlier this year.
  • For more than a year, the Corpus Christi Police Department has routinely withheld the names of people arrested until charges are filed, a violation of the open records laws. After the Caller-Times this month provided Police Chief Pete Alvarez with an attorney general's opinion clearly stating that such names were public information, the chief agreed to review his department's policy. Recently, police released a suspect's name without delay.
  • Sometimes what may be considered minor information even is withheld. In June, the Caller-Times asked Corpus Christi city officials for the color choices being considered for the roof of Memorial Coliseum. The city refused to release the list of colors and required an official request under the state's Public Information Act. City Attorney Jimmy Bray took the position that the color choices were part of a "working document" and therefore not open to the public. Soon afterward, the city staff relented and revealed that the choice was either teal or the original gray.

    Local test


    In August, the Caller-Times sent written requests for public records to 100 government agencies in the Coastal Bend. The information requested included names and birth dates of school bus drivers and travel records for city officials - all clearly public under state law.
    Under the law, public information must be "promptly" released. If an agency feels the information should be withheld, officials have 10 business days to ask the Attorney General's Office for an opinion.
    Less than half the agencies - 42 - complied with all aspects of the open records law. The other 58 either asked why the Caller-Times wanted the information - which is specifically forbidden by the law - responded after the time limits had passed, or didn't respond at all.
  • In Kingsville, city Finance Director Hector Hinojosa said the Caller-Times request - which was not filled until the newspaper asked about the information almost four months later - was delayed because our request "got buried in the paperwork on his desk." Hinojosa asked why we wanted the information.
  • In Mathis, city officials failed to respond to a request for the 1998-99 budget. On Aug. 31, City Administrator Manuel Lara telephoned the Caller-Times and said the budget would be mailed the next week. The Caller-Times never received the document.
    Contacted by the Caller-Times almost four months later, Lara apologized for the delay, saying he had been "really busy."
    "I accept full responsibility," Lara said. "I guess I really dropped the ball."
  • In Alice, new City Manager Gonzalo Chapa - who began work Nov. 10 - said he did not know why the original request for the city manager's travel records from 1997 through June 1998 was ignored.
    "It was probably put aside somewhere and somebody never got to it," Chapa said.
  • In Beeville, police department officials promptly acknowledged receiving a request for the types of radar equipment they use, but it took two more calls before officials sent the information.
    "A lot of times, it has to do with being short-handed and busy," Beeville Police Chief Joe Salinas said. "That's why it may have taken a little longer."
  • In Benavides, city employees asked the mayor for approval before sending the Caller-Times a copy of the city budget. But after the mayor approved it, putting the information together got put on a back burner, said Elda Sanchez, the city's bookkeeper. The Caller-Times received the budget Dec. 17 - almost four months after the request was made.
    "We put it to one side, I'm sorry to say," Sanchez said.

    High costs


    Other agencies sent the information much later than the time period allowed by the law, or charged more for copies than state law allows - 10 times higher, in one case.
    In Rockport, photocopy charges are $1 a page for city documents, higher than the 10 cents a page set by the General Services Commission, the state agency that sets the base prices that governments can charge for public information.
    The cost was set by former city staffers and has not changed recently, City Secretary Irma Parker said.
    She said she thought the cost for copies, and other services provided by city staffers, was based on past General Service Commission guidelines. But she has not looked to update the charges since she took over as secretary in July, she said.
    In addition to the written requests, reporters made in-person requests at the offices of nine area government offices - without identifying themselves as journalists.
    Public officials routinely told the reporters they must wait 10 working days to see basic information, such as phone bills or the city manager's contract. Officials in four offices - Corpus Christi's human resources department, Alice's city accounting department, Kingsville's assistant city manager's office and the Rockport City Secretary's Office - asked who the reporter was with or why they wanted the information. Although government agencies can ask to see a requester's identification, they are expressly forbidden from asking why the information is being requested or how it will be used.

    A call for change


    Texas governmental entities requested 2,847 attorney general opinions on open records in 1997 - up more than 600 percent from the 396 opinions sought in 1988, according to a study earlier this year by Consumer's Union, a watchdog group and publisher of Consumer Reports.
    While most of these requests for attorney general opinions were legitimate, Consumer's Union found that many government entities repeatedly ask the attorney general if clearly public information could be withheld. Some of the requests appeared to be attempts to stall on releasing information, the study found.
    The Consumer's Union study noted that the cities of Dallas and Houston each tried to conceal autopsy reports in 1997; Texas criminal law specifically states that autopsy reports are public records.
    Such actions violate the spirit of the Public Information Act, said Reggie James, the state director of Consumers Union.
    "What might sound like an arcane legal issue really has a wide impact," he said. "There is far less graft going on. And there's far more access to the public."
    Consumer's Union recommended that the state limit some of the broadest and vaguest exemptions to open records. Specifically, the report suggested that the state review the provision that allows governments to withhold information if officials believe there might be a lawsuit involving the information; to streamline the attorney general's review process by eliminating reconsiderations; and to provide for civil penalties against government entities that ignore open records laws.
    State Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio, who served as chairman this year of a committee that examined open records laws, said he plans to introduce bills in the upcoming legislative session that addresses these and other concerns.
    Getting those government bodies that do want to withhold public information into line is the point of continuing efforts to strengthen public access laws, said Nancy Monson, executive director of the Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.
    "It's a shame we even have to have access laws. The Constitution gives us various freedoms of speech and press. Access should be implied in that," she said. "There's nothing more important for citizens than access to government."
    Staff writer Jim Day can be reached at 886-3794 or by e-mail at dayj@scripps.com. Staff writer Novelda Sommers contributed to this report.
  • Post your comments on this story in our forums.

    Labels: , , ,