Comments on: FBISD: Police Were Pulled From Drug Search Of Teacher’s SUV Due To ‘No Workplace Misconduct’

By: MaryMcClure

MaryMcClure — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 15:09:34 +0000

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!

By: MaryMcClure

MaryMcClure — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:46:24 +0000

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.

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 14:10:02 +0000

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?

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:53:28 +0000

Hmm, I see your dissmissiveness, once again, factors out “school tax dollars”? Negative publicity is just a way of life for sum.

By: JohnBernard.Books

JohnBernard.Books — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:39:37 +0000

some…especially here think its ok to smear others with “unfounded allegations”……welcome to “change in America”….

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 02:01:39 +0000

Pretty fishy why publicity over-rides sitting everyone down “in a corner” to peacefully talk the law through?

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 01:28:02 +0000

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…

By: BigFish

BigFish — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 21:58:01 +0000

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.

By: MEGABITE

MEGABITE — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:19:13 +0000

They found marijuana?

By: TexasPig

TexasPig — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:54:47 +0000

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…….

By: JohnBernard.Books

JohnBernard.Books — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:13:02 +0000

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.

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:32:13 +0000

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…..

By: Factually Speaking

Factually Speaking — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:31:35 +0000

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.

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 03:28:08 +0000

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….

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:25:31 +0000

Well, at the point factually, Amgems “reliable” suggestion in #17, supersede any “unreliable” invalid inferances to #16. Good points Amgems!

By: Amgems

Amgems — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:06:33 +0000

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.

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:21:54 +0000

“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?

By: jboo

jboo — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:50:58 +0000

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.

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 19:01:24 +0000

If someone were “stoned” would they be able to walk, talk, & not chew gum at the same FBISD time?

By: Kat_Princess

Kat_Princess — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:50:02 +0000

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?