Had that been my kid, I would have thanked him, not sued. Way to teach those mean girls they have unlimited power and no consequences ever. $10k says theres at least one man whose life one of them will ruin with a false charge.

Depends on if they had actually committed the crime Momof4. I can tell you from experience that a lot of the time schools are cracking down on bullies they are actually cracking down on the victims of bullies. Either way it is not an appropriate use of the police.

Per the girls' attorney: "The moral of the story is 'don't arrest somebody unless they committed a crime.'"

Better yet, no matter how much of an asshole someone is, don't order them to do something you don't have the right to require them to do: "Come here", "Go over there", "Answer my question", "Stop video recording", "Sit on the curb", "Give me that"...

Some cops get personally offended if someone they're rousting doesn't grovel sufficiently; or get into power struggles that, no matter how just, they don't have the authority or right to win. Sometimes they just can't force someone do what they want them to do, even if they're idiots and deserve it.

he arrested them because he believed they were being uncooperative in a bullying investigation

Deputy, when you arrested them, did you not give them their Miranda warning? would you be so kind as to read the first line of that warning to the jury?

You have the right to remain silent.

Would you say that's "uncooperative"?

No, Momof4, I believe you to be mistaken.

Is bullying a legal infraction, exposing one to arrest? it isn't nor should it be. As Ben points out, with "zero (thought) tolerance" policies, school administrators bust both bully and victim indiscriminately.

So they don't have to actually think and make a judgement call on who done what to whom. Or worse, be accused of racism because a person of color was bullying a person of pallor.

So...which crime did those girls commit? take your time, I'll wait.

I think everyone is missing a very large point here. Why were the police called to begin with? This is a problem that should be handled by the school administers. Unfortunately they have become so weak and PC that they are unable to perform the functions that years ago were handled internally.

Now it seems they simply abdicate all responsibility and call the police for the most minor problems. The police should be called in only if there is suspicion of an actual crime or possibility of actual harm to someone. Otherwise the school administrators are shirking their responsibility while wasting tax dollars and police time.

Jay, here's your answer:

On Oct. 8, 2013, Balbina Kendall, then the school’s assistant principal, asked Ortiz, the school resource officer, for help with a group of girls who had been involved in bullying and fighting at school.

The deputy was assigned to the school. The ass. principal thought bringing the heat would speed things along. He thought having a badge and a gun made him THE law.

Too bad neither will pay a penny towards the settlement.

"with "zero (thought) tolerance" policies, school administrators bust both bully and victim indiscriminately."

It's been my experience they are more likely to bust the victim and let the bully go free IRA.

Look at the classical example, the jocks bullying other people. While I agree that is more of a TV thing than real life it does point out the general setup. The jocks bully because they can get away with it. They typically have a teacher (the coach) who is protecting them. It is far easier for administrators to go after the victims who don't have anyone protecting them than to get into a fight with coworkers over a student.

As for what crime was committed, there are usually several that apply. Assault is still assault even when it happens on school grounds. In this case I don't know what crime happened. The article doesn't mention and no charges appear to have been presented.

"Too bad neither will pay a penny towards the settlement."

Honestly that is a lot of the problem today. Being part of a government organization makes you immune to a lot of inappropriate and even criminal activity. You would hope the officer that violated the law would have some consequences that would encourage him and his coworkers to not do that again. But most likely not.

Either way it is not an appropriate use of the police. ~ Ben at December 25, 2018 6:09 AM

I've said it before and I will say it again, we're using the police for too many things that are not in their job description, things for which they are neither trained nor equipped.

The police are government force, not social workers, marriage counselors, rehab therapists, school guidance counselors, or mental health workers.

School discipline problems should not involve the police - until and unless they escalate to actual crimes or violence. Schools need a mechanism with which to handle these kinds of issues that doesn't involve the legal system.

Our problem is we've left ourselves no resources other than the police to handle these things. There are no longer men in white suits with nets to take away the schizophrenic standing in the park screaming about the voices. There are only confused police officers scared of getting shot or stabbed by the raving lunatic in the park.

People should remember that any interaction with police is potentially a lethal one. If you call cops because your son is obstreperous or suicidal, they may simply shoot him.

Cops need training in de-escalation, to be patient. If someone is drunk, on drugs, crazy, suffering a seizure or diabetic coma, or does not speak English, they may not be capable of quick response to commands. There are cases where an autistic boy is sitting on the ground holding onto a post because he doesn't want to go and cops tased him. He was not a danger to anyone but the cops were in a hurry. Why in a hurry all the time? There was a crazy guy dancing around naked in the middle of the street with a knife--but not near anyone. You can't kill with a knife from a distance, so why did they shoot him? Sometimes the cop starts hitting someone--why? Because of lack of respect? That is not a reason. Once they start hitting it is almost impossible for someone to not fight back, and it escalates from there. I am not talking about while trying to arrest someone, but when they start hitting without even trying to arrest them. No valid reason ever. Lack of training

The ass. principal thought bringing the heat would speed things along. He thought having a badge and a gun made him THE law. ~ I R A Darth Aggie at December 25, 2018 7:55 AM

The ass. principal, Balbina Kendall, thought having the law at her command made her the law. "Obey me or I'll have the police arrest you." In doing that, she had all the power with none of the responsibility for the exercise of that power.

Besides, using the deputy was easier than actually doing the work herself; far easier than facing the fact that these girls were not intimidated by her and did not respect her. The deputy was apparently frustrated and ticked off when he found that out, too.

In this case, the ass. principal had more direct authority and more situationally-applicable weapons than the deputy -- detention, suspension, calling their parents, etc. -- and should have exercised her authority. The deputy, here, had only one weapon, arrest.

The deputy was asked to mediate the dispute and made critical mistakes.

1. He put all the students in the same room, failing to identify and separate victim and aggressor, which would have allowed them to talk freely.
2. He didn't mediate, instead acting like a prosecutor in a trial seeking to find a guilty party.
3. He escalated too quickly, getting frustrated when students would not rat each other out in front of the other students.
4. He used government force to "prove a point."

To cc's point, some specific training in dealing with children and teenagers would have helped in this case. Being a school resource officer is not the same as patrolling a violence-prone neighborhood and requires a different set of skills.

Students bullying other students certainly do justify a police response, so long as the police will actually investigate and will respect the procedural rights of all concerned, but that usually doesn't happen and apparently didn't happen here.

Police (or even school personnel) interventions "against bullying" that don't even try to find out who started it are worse than no intervention at all, because the whole point is supposed to be to reach justice, not just peace.

The lesson that will undoubtedly be learnt here by all the students involved is to shun authorities and never trust them, because they don't care. It's too bad they had to learn that the hard way.

The only problems I have with this verdict are that the taxpayers have to pay the bill, and that the guilty cops not only get off scot-free, but get to keep their badges and guns which means they will certainly commit more abuses.

>> Why were the police called to begin with?

To transfer liability from the school to the Police.

It's standard practice now in CA to bring in Police to deal with discipline issues that arise from, or may result in, physical contact. They have more latitude and are indemnified against a broader set of liabilities.

In this case, a group of girls complained that they'd been assaulted. This was apparently the latest round in a long running feud between girl groups that had resulted in several altercations.

So the school called the police to address the assault. The responding officer took the girls aside to investigate but they refused to cooperate and instead taunted him. My guess is that they were afraid to 'snitch'.

He then cuffed them and took them in to 'teach them a lesson', which isn't appropriate but I'm guessing he was fed up and reacted out of frustration. You've got to keep in mind that if he just left and something bad happened, he'd be blamed for that as well.

I don't see how the court can justify a $400K judgement, but it's CA so money doesn't matter - it's the thought that counts.

I only scanned the comments, because Conan wrote a long one and he's usually right, so why bother. But the last sentence from Noam called to mind this.

Speaking of school bullies...

In the mid-1970s, Judy Blume wrote "Blubber," which was based on a true story. While it's easy enough to sympathize with real-life parents, teachers and critics who don't want kids reading the book, in or out of school (it would be far too easy for kids to use it as a how-to manual, since no one gets punished for what happens at the school and no one feels any remorse), it's crucial for ADULTS to read it, IMO, even today.

The message is clear: If you are a parent who resembles the parents of Jill (the 10-year-old narrator and a sullen, callous "bystander" to the bullying), you are Not Doing Your Job. Same goes for any teacher who resembles Jill's teachers, since even the better teachers don't really care what happens to Linda (the victim) outside of their own classes. Also, almost ALL of Linda's tormentors are Jills, really - the only moral difference between Jill and straight-A ringleader Wendy is that Wendy is a leader and Jill is a follower who, once Wendy passes out lists of ways to torment Linda, only tells the reader "school isn't as boring as it used to be."

(Also, you can tell from more than one scene that Jill's parents clearly want to believe that it's not really THEIR job to teach their kids to do the right thing or even teach them anything about empathy or humility; the only time they "care" about their kids' bad behavior is when some adult threatens to call the police. This happens - but not with regard to Linda. Callousness and contempt for others is NOT just a phase and cannot be treated as such.)

Forgot to say - one could argue that the teachers in "Blubber" are mostly adult versions of Jill, since even THEY have a certain contempt for Linda!

Per the girls' attorney: "The moral of the story is 'don't arrest somebody unless they committed a crime.'"

Technically, the moral of the story is don't arrest someone unless you're reasonably suspicious that they have committed a crime. The police are not judge and jury. Guilt is determined in court, not by the police.

I have long been distressed by the authoritarian mission creep that put police in the schools.

There needs to be a certain amount of trust and confidentiality to properly educate students and to help them when their home life is chaotic.
Putting law enforcement into the mix as an enforcer of school discipline tends to muddy the role of the school administration.

Many many years ago, I had a distant cousin whose child got hauled into the principles officer and grilled about his knowledge of a crime that had occurred off school property. That came to a screeching halt when my cousin showed up with an attorney.
I was involved in a bullying situation as a sophomore in high school. At least partially my fault of course. I was a superior obnoxious shit myself as a 15 year old, but never bullied anyone. Way too low on the social pecking order,
A really plain, untalented senior girl was involved, who happened to come from a mover and shaker family. My parents called a lawyer. Stopped the situation cold.

Like MO4, I'm wondering how this could possibly be good - even as I note that being in police custody IS NOT the same as being arrested, at least by current practice.

Cops have discovered that people do crazily stupid things when they're stopped for anything, so they routinely "detain" everyone, putting them in handcuffs to keep from being attacked while they fill out reports and/or search the vehicle.

A trip in the cop car was prescribed for a few miscreants back in my day. I dunno if it corrected their future behavior, but you will notice that we did not have police in the schools while we lie to ourselves loudly, calling them something else.

"Is bullying a legal infraction, exposing one to arrest?"

It is now. Schools routinely call the police for all sorts of discipline issues.