The American Civil Liberties Union has sent a letter to the Davis school district challenging the questioning of two students last May conducted at school by a member of the Davis Police Department.

In the letter dated Tuesday, the ACLU calls on the school district to “prevent such incidents from recurring” and urges the district to “revise existing policies on police interrogations by training school personnel about students’ rights” and calls on the district to prohibit law enforcement personnel “from interrogating students on district property without first obtaining parental consent.”

School district Superintendent Winfred Roberson responded with a statement on Wednesday, saying that “the district has attempted and continues to shape its policies and practices regarding the questioning of students on campus by law enforcement to cooperate with police investigations, maintain and uphold student rights and ensure that the district itself is acting in accord with the law. Public school officials have a duty to cooperate with police investigations.”

Roberson added that “California law has long recognized that law enforcement personnel have the right to question students at school without parental consent.”

Lt. Paul Doroshov, public information officer for the Davis Police Department, also issued a statement saying “Davis police officers are trained to preserve and protect student rights … and always follow the law. Such was the case with regard to the situation the ACLU commented on.”

The situation stems from an article about graffiti that appeared last April in the entertainment section of the Davis High School newspaper, The Hub. The article, written by co-editor Alana de Hinojosa, was headlined “Art or Vandalism?” and included quotes from two unnamed students who had defaced public property with graffiti; the director of the Davis Art Center, which has been tagged with graffiti; a member of the Davis Police Department; and others.

The ACLU letter contends that a few days after the article appeared in print, de Hinojosa was summoned out of class by a school staff member and taken to the school office, where she was questioned by Davis police Officer Eddie Ellsworth.

De Hinojosa, who has since graduated, told The Enterprise that Davis High Vice Principal Sheila Smith and other school staff were present.

“The officer pulled out my newspaper article … he said ‘This is a serious matter, you need to comply with what I ask,’ and he started asking me a lot of questions. He was asking that I disclose the identities of the two graffiti artists I had interviewed.”

De Hinojosa said she declined to identify the two unnamed students, “not only because I had given these boys my word … that was the agreement in doing the article. But I also knew about the California shield law (which protects journalists seeking to maintain the confidentiality of an unnamed source) and my First Amendment rights. I did not have to disclose sources.”

After the questioning, de Hinojosa said she was accompanied back to class and her cell phone was confiscated from her backpack. She said she was able to reclaim her cell phone at about 3:30 p.m., waiting for about an hour after her last class ended.

Another student, who is not identified by name in the ACLU letter, also was questioned in the matter, and asked to identify students who had defaced property with graffiti, according to the ACLU.

In the letter, the ACLU contends “neither student was suspected of any wrongdoing … they were questioned because of their participation in activities protected by the First Amendment … and made to feel like criminals for attempting to exercise their constitutional right to remain silent.”

Roberson, in his statement, said that the presence of school administrators during the questioning was in accordance with district policy.

“When students are to be questioned, it is the district’s policy to stay with the student during the interview unless the student declines or our presence is prohibited on statutory grounds,” Roberson said.

He added that under district policy “parents and/or guardians are notified as soon as possible when a law enforcement officer interviews a student on school premises. However, school personnel are required by law to refrain from willfully resisting, delaying or obstructing law enforcement personnel in the discharge of their official duties.”

Doroshov told The Enterprise that the ACLU letter “relies on only one side of the story” and “differ(s) significantly from the facts as we understand them to be. Nevertheless, the Police Department leadership continues to be guided by an understanding that perceptions are often as valid and important as reality.

“With that in mind, in our endeavors to deliver the highest quality police services, it is our practice to digest and analyze these differences of opinions to better inform us of how our actions might be perceived and, when necessary or appropriate, modify our training or response expectations.”

— Reach Jeff Hudson at [email protected] or (530) 747-8055.

Comments

comments