FBISD: Police Were Pulled From Drug Search Of Teacher’s SUV Due To ‘No Workplace Misconduct’
January 21st, 2009 | by Bob Dunn | Published in News | 30 Comments
Fort Bend Independent School District administrators ordered campus police not to search a teacher’s vehicle suspected of containing marijuana because “there was no evidence of workplace misconduct.”
District administrators declined requests Wednesday to answer questions about a Jan. 13 incident in which two Fort Bend ISD Police Department dogs alerted to the possible presence of drugs in a teacher’s SUV, parked at Kempner High School.
Instead, the FBISD administration issued the following statement Wednesday afternoon:
“On the morning of Tuesday, Jan. 13, there was a search by a Fort Bend ISD Police Department K-9 unit around a vehicle parked in the Kempner High School faculty parking lot and the following information was known by district officials:
→ Initially, there was conflicting information as to whether the vehicle in question belonged to a student or faculty member. After checking the license plate, the district discovered the vehicle belonged to a teacher.
→ There was no evidence of workplace misconduct, and the teacher’s vehicle was not searched.
→ It is not the practice of our district to conduct searches of staff parking lots, and that information was shared among district officials.
“After an internal review of the circumstances, the district learned:
→ There was probable cause to search the employee vehicle.
→ The vehicle was subject to a subsequent search, and to the district’s knowledge, no contraband was found.
“The district always reviews its policies and procedures to make sure they provide current and clear information,” the district’s statement concluded. “Given the ongoing legal debate concerning the validity of employee vehicle searches, the district will consider this issue as part of the review. Prior to this incident, the district planned an audit of the Fort Bend ISD Police Department to include a review of the department’s policies and procedures.”
It was unclear to what “ongoing debate” the district referred. A district spokeswoman said the administration’s prepared statement “is all the information we have to share with you.”
Houston ISD officials have mounted an aggressive campaign to use campus police K-9 units to search for drugs in teacher parking lots in that district. At least 16 employees, mostly teachers, have been arrested on drug charges at HISD since late 2008, the most recent on Jan. 13.
Fort Bend ISD Police sources questioned the district’s apparent “practice” of not conducting drug searches in staff parking lots, while the police department routinely conducts such searches on a random basis at student parking lots.
One police source, who asked not to be identified for fear of being fired, noted the possibility of a district employee providing drugs to students.
Also, “If reliable information is obtained, is it district policy not to search a specific car in the teacher’s lot,” the police source asked? “Is it the administration’s policy to interfere with an active police investigation?”
According to police sources and information obtained by FortBendNow, the incident began Jan. 12, when a parking attendant at Kempner High smelled the odor of marijuana coming from an SUV in the teacher’s lot.
The next day, the attendant saw the same SUV, noticed the ordor again, found the SUV belonged to a teacher at the school, and alerted the FBISD Police Department’s K-9 officer.
The officer brought two police dogs. Sources familiar with the case say both dogs alerted twice to the possible presence of drugs in the SUV.
At that point, the K-9 officer notified a Kempner associate principal of what he had learned. Shortly thereafter, the sources said, the officer was told to drop the matter.
A Sugar Land Police Department spokesman said their Special Crimes Unit conducted a drug search of a vehicle at the request of a Fort Bend ISD police officer, apparently of the same SUV parked at Kempner. Nothing was found and no arrest was made.
However, a Fort Bend ISD police source said if drugs had been present in the SUV, the driver easily had time to dispose of them from the time the campus K-9 search was called off and the time Sugar Land officers stopped the vehicle.
January 21st, 2009 at 4:41 pm (#)
Where are the school board members questioning this ridiculous policy?????
1. US Supreme Court has ruled that a police K-9 walking around a car is not an unreasonable search since it is unobtrusive. If he alerts, it is probable cause to search.
2. Odor of marijuana is probable cause to search.
You don’t think the employee heard his/her car was the center of attention for an hour and got rid of it before he left????
No evidence of misconduct? Possession of marijuana is an offense that is normally a violation of a company’s policy….
January 21st, 2009 at 5:23 pm (#)
Wow, a school district interfering with an active police investigation? I’m surprised the police relented, I figure they would politely tell the school officials “You teach, we will enforce the law….”
January 21st, 2009 at 6:33 pm (#)
Cool website #1…
“US Supreme Court has ruled that a police K-9 walking around a car is not an unreasonable search since it is unobtrusive.”
May an exact source or website be provided? (H.O.P.E.) Honoring Outstanding Prevention Efforts, for example, is a “highly” recognized program that perhaps FBISD Police/Administration may not be aware of?
January 21st, 2009 at 11:43 pm (#)
I’m not convinced this board questions anything from the administration.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:15 am (#)
Kat—
here is the link:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20050201.html
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 am (#)
So what’s the next step in this??? Is it that admistration is at falt for not stepping up??? There isn’t word about what’s going to happen to the teacher.. They have not found them to be guilty or not…
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:30 am (#)
I think SCOTUS needs to revisit this one. The initial drug dog SEARCH may be unobtrusive, but if they alert (how do WE know they alerted? Is it strictly up to the dog handler to tell us the dog alerted?)and the vehicle is searched, THAT is obtrusive.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 am (#)
Texas pig, it looks like they fell short on yet another no brainer.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:34 am (#)
Ahh, TP… referencing the “Legal Bible” in essence. I appreciate your link!
Mega, astute observation. It always intrigued me too, but mine connects deeper into the alleged suspects of any crime — the Scott Peterson murder case comes to mind. K-9s discovered on the pier, scents to the whereboats of the boat Peterson took out to dispose of the victims bodies submerged in water.
Hey, speaking of “canine tails”, what about that HUMONGOUSLY massive 18 wheeler bustful of cocaine & maryjane on the US-59? I just love looking at our pictures on FortBendNow, don’t youi? Say, if that K-9 GS was white, he certainly would be a mirror image of my doggie years ago.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:32 am (#)
Sounds like some belive this employee must “prove their innocence”….according to FBISD’s policy to authorize a search “there needs to be reasonable grounds to believe the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of workplace evidence”… Sounds like the Nazis have infiltrated FBISD.
January 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm (#)
MegaDittos John,
What about bomb-sniffing K-9’s? What about K-9’s at airports prior to boarding planes? America remembers 911 or do you forget how easy it is to kill people aboard a plane? Just what is the legal security process these days when one flies anyways?
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm (#)
If someone were “stoned” would they be able to walk, talk, & not chew gum at the same FBISD time?
January 22nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm (#)
SPED teach, I wonder how much time actually passed from the first k-9 report to the time that SLPD responded? I agree the kids need to be protected.
January 22nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm (#)
“Reliable information” here means???? If a husband, for example, wants to get even with his wife — because she’s pretty enough to walk, talk, and not chew gum at the same time, and do it with dignity at that, than praytell what is “reliable information” when the meanie who is jealous of you, rats on a perfectly sweet person? Justify that response if you can?
January 22nd, 2009 at 4:06 pm (#)
Having two drug dogs alert to the same car twice would constitute reliable information.
There might be a valid argument here by those suggesting unreasonable search & seizure as defined by the Constitution. But only if you’re will to go to bat for the kids who’s cars are being searched as hard as your going to bat for the teachers. Constitution applied to all, it can’t be applied selectively.
January 22nd, 2009 at 5:25 pm (#)
Well, at the point factually, Amgems “reliable” suggestion in #17, supersede any “unreliable” invalid inferances to #16. Good points Amgems!
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm (#)
I dunno, why does that Scooby Doo movie come to mind? Yanno the one when Scooby and Shaggy were “tokin’” in the Mystery Van– on the beach. I never saw the adult humor there….
January 23rd, 2009 at 5:31 am (#)
Since all my commentaries are based upon facts and authenticities of occurrences/experiences, any reliable commentary is congruent to sentiments in commentaries that I have written presently or formerly inclusive of Amgems, Kamf, and others as represented regarding this FBISD thread and other present and former FBISD threads. I only write commentaries about subjects of which I posses knowledge; otherwise I do not comment.
January 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 am (#)
Okay, Opinionated is fine. Thank you for explicitly telling it like you feel, as everyone whom posts On FortBendNow is entitled.
It is a fact, that the movie I spoke of my #20 is related, simply due to the fact I have publicized commentary to back it up. It was not funny then, it is not funny now.
As to Amgems, my commentary was precise..facts speak volumes if one wishes to legally implore truths. So let it be said, once again as in prior threads that indicated the links to the FBISD procedural rules and regulatory procedural handbook — that JohnBernardBooks graciously provided, that indeed their are implicit rules that FBISD has been following. In touching upon the specifics, if one is to change procedures as to these rules and regulations, there must be a clear and concise format that must therefore be followed.
I see we are on the successul path to allow the public their due respect to understanding the legal issues that have been “swept under the rug”. I say, let the light shine on the facts…..
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:13 am (#)
here’s the facts….”FBISD’s policy states to authorize a search “there needs to be reasonable grounds to believe the search will turn up evidence that the employee is guilty of workplace misconduct”…
What workplace misconduct was this employee guilty of? FBISD policy.
January 23rd, 2009 at 8:54 am (#)
For those that missed the link above, please visit it. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 and reiterated the point in 2005 that simple sniffing around a car or you is not an invasion of your privacy. Additionally, the Court has stated numerous times (and again in this opinion), that you have “no right to privacy when conducting illegal business”. When a police K9 alerts, it is admissible as probable cause to search and if you would ever witness these outstanding dogs while working, even the untrained knows when he is “alerting” to drugs. FBC DA John Healey stated on Channel 13 that he would like to hear an articulated reason why the car was NOT searched after the positive K9 indication. The real problem with all of this is FBISD’s desire to just sweep it under the mat. What “workplace policy” did the employee violate? Certainly possession of marijuana is against their policy. Then again, judging from the way FBISD Admin handles things, maybe not…….
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:19 am (#)
They found marijuana?
January 24th, 2009 at 3:58 pm (#)
Greetings,
Even though the police are working as “school police” they are still Texas Peace Officers and sworn to uphold the law. The law is clear on this one folks. The admin messed up and they are in violation of:
Texas Penal code Sec. 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;
Clearly these officers were working within the law.
January 24th, 2009 at 7:28 pm (#)
BigFish,
If that’s clearly the applicable law in question, than let’s hear why our Fort Bend County DA John Healey isn’t pressing charges? Pretty fishy…
January 24th, 2009 at 8:01 pm (#)
Pretty fishy why publicity over-rides sitting everyone down “in a corner” to peacefully talk the law through?
January 25th, 2009 at 7:39 am (#)
some…especially here think its ok to smear others with “unfounded allegations”……welcome to “change in America”….
January 25th, 2009 at 7:53 am (#)
Hmm, I see your dissmissiveness, once again, factors out “school tax dollars”? Negative publicity is just a way of life for sum.
January 25th, 2009 at 8:10 am (#)
Kampf,
All aspects to viewpoints are crucial, especially in how we empathetically relate to them — did we attempt to go “the extra sweet mile” to pledge our faithfully allegiance to freely speak dignifiably together? I am here, to truthfully say “yes” if one follows all the rules to dignified behavior. Can you say the same?
January 25th, 2009 at 8:46 am (#)
Re smearing: Anyone can throw a rock…that does not mean it hits its intended target or can’t be intercepted by some good defense.
January 25th, 2009 at 9:09 am (#)
Is it possible someone was smoking outside the SUV? Is it possible someone was smoking one of those little cigars…like the ones they sell at drugstores with little white plastic tips…if they still sell them…my Dad used to smoke Swisher Sweets if I remember their name correctly…that smell sort of like marijuana? Is it possible someone is trying to frame someone?
I hate pot and I think people who smoke it are very unwise (unless they really need it for medical reasons substantiated by a doctor)…Now, if someone thinks they smell it…I applaud them for reporting it…BRAVO!!!…but just keep in mind that unless you see something with your own eyes…you never know.
I have no idea what the truth is…but I am objective if I am not a witness. Now, if a teacher truly was doing this or if there truly was a cover up…shame on them!