Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 9 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Police defend actions at NSA
Published Saturday, March 28, 2009
Suffolk Police are defending their actions in last week’s drug sweep at Nansemond-Suffolk Academy, after the school’s headmaster sent out a letter saying he was “concerned” about the way police had handled the situation.
Search warrants for the 23 student cars alerted on by police dogs indicated that one car contained marijuana, and a second car contained suspected marijuana. Suffolk Police Capt. Stephanie Burch said Friday that at least seven vehicles in the private school parking lot contained “trace amounts” of marijuana, particularly flakes and seeds.
Only one arrest was made as a result of the sweep. Joshua Mullen, 18, of Chesapeake, was charged with possession of marijuana. He will be arraigned Monday in General District Court.
In a letter this week, Head of School Colley Bell III said the procedure police took was a departure from what has been done in the past. He also questioned the alerts from the police dogs – calling them “false-positive” – and said he is concerned about the “threshold of evidence” used to charge Mullen.
Burch, however, said police followed all laws and procedures, and were even “overly cautious” by obtaining search warrants for the vehicles, despite court precedents that would have allowed them to search the vehicles without warrants. She also said she does not know what “threshold of evidence” means.
“We followed the police procedures,” Burch said. “We outlined what we would do and how we would do it, and we did not deviate from that.”
The officers and their dogs are certified by the Virginia Police Work Dog Association, according to the search warrants that were filed in Suffolk Circuit Court.
In addition to the marijuana and suspected marijuana police seized, according to the search warrants, police seized a corner of a plastic bag from a third car and a pack of Marlboro cigarettes from a fourth car.
Burch said at least one student claimed to have known about the search in advance, and that more people were notified in advance of the search than police had expected.
The same procedure is followed during drug sweeps at the public schools, Burch said, with one exception: at public schools, the dogs go inside to sniff the lockers, as well. At NSA, they did not, at the request of the administration. However, police were present as the administration opened lockers inside the school.
The trace amounts of drugs found in some of the cars at the school were not enough to warrant pressing charges, Burch said, but police consider it evidence that drugs have been in the car.
Nansemond-Suffolk Academy officials have not responded to requests for comment since they sent home letters to parents on Wednesday apologizing for requesting the search.
In that letter, Bell wrote that he was “deeply sorry for the inconvenience” students and parents experienced as a result of the search, which had been requested by school administrators.
“Even in my early months at NSA,” he wrote, “I have come to know some of these students, and to see them in the midst of this was simply absurd.”
Police searched a total of 25 vehicles during the sweep — two of which belonged to faculty members, who agreed to allow the search without warrants being issued.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?
Comments
Posted by Factfinder (anonymous) on March 28, 2009 at 8:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This NSA pathetic apology is a joke. The police would not have conducted the sweep without approval or more than likely a request from NSA officials. This is a classic case by school officials to cover their collective butts and blame the police for something they initiated. NSA needs to apologize to the police and stop pandering to the rich kids families who are offended that their little angels may be using drugs. Dogs alerted on 25 cars? It wasn't an accident. And someone alerted the students before the sweep to clean up their act. What a joke Bell is. No one is buying it.
Posted by faithful (anonymous) on March 28, 2009 at 2:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Come on, Let's be honest......To the Head of NSA, stand up and be the principle and man you suppose to be! You know that some of your students are using drugs. If you didn't feel that way, why would you ask for the sweep in the first place? To the parents, get real! Never say what your child isn't doing. They may surprise you when they are out of your presence. Don't be so eager to defend them, but protect them. If you are so sure that your child isn't using, ask them. If that doesn't make you feel at ease, test them! You are the Parent. Use your voice for laying down the rules in your house, what you will and will not stand for, instead of calling up the Head of school laying out the principle, for during what he thought was right! You should be pleased that the Head cared enough about your child to do the sweep. It's better to find out now, than wait til they are standing in your bedroom in the middle of the night with a gun in your face. Drugs will take their life and yours too. Do what is necessary now to help them, later could come to late. To the students, You may think you are getting away with it, but time has a way of catching up with you. You might can fool the Head, parents and maybe friends, some of the time........But you CAN'T FOOL GOD, NONE OF THE TIME!!!!!!!
Posted by 711bia (anonymous) on March 29, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Enough said!!!!!!!.Those first 2 comments say it all.Hope the leaders at NSA read them.
Posted by OD (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we go with the religious commentary and view. I guess Katrina was punishment for those who live in the Gulf Coast region, especially those in New Orleans.
Posted by joy2bme1 (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 10:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)
THAT'S IS REALLY SAD THAT U GUYS JUST PUT YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND.LOL
Posted by CharlieBrown (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You have got to be kidding me.....it does not require inordinate intelligence to figure this one out.
The whole incident illustrates the half- hearted attitude of those who hold themselves-not withstanding- when the issue of drugs and other gray areas of moral turpitude is raised.
Could you imagine a principal at the local public high school sending letters home to parents apologizing that he did his job.... by deterring the use, possession and presence of illegal drugs upon the school property.
It is acknowledged that NSA is a business as opposed to local public high schools .....thus there are decisions that are business related that may take precendent over what may be conceived by the public as the greater good of the school.
Parents send their kids to NSA because they want / can afford a better learning environment for them.
Publicity...specifically "bad publicity"....is not very good for business. Translation- you will not see SPD dogs at NSA anytime soon.
It is also of concern that SPD used what they termed being "overly cautious"....by obtaining search warrants to search vehicles that were obviously "hit on" by the police dogs.
Why "overly cautious"..??...not to imflame- but why did they not just do what they do everyday on other vehicles in the city when a drug dog "hits" on a car...they search it... then and there... without the time consuming task of obtaining a search warrant.....as stated court precedents allow this.. and SPD does not normally get search warrants for cars in this situation....but why was it not follwed in this instance??
When we start making certain accomadations...as clearly it was done here....then we begin setting not just precendents but expectations for ourselves that will be demanded from the public in other alike circumstances.
I think both SPD and NSA have some things to think about following this incident.
Posted by Jay28757 (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 3:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why should there even be a apology. Do they think that just because they are a privite school that they can have drugs on the school grounds. I say " GOOD JOB SPD"
Posted by suffolk3 (anonymous) on March 30, 2009 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
CharlieBrown, I think they obtained the warrants because they were on private property, vs. a traffic stop on a city street. Just a guess.
Posted by Factfinder (anonymous) on April 2, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)
There is a U.S.Supreme Court decision concerning searches of vehicles during "traffic stops." A parked unoccupied car on private property is not a traffic stop. So without voluntary consent, a search warrant is required. Hope that helps Charlie Brown.
One final thought. Mr. Bell you are a disgrace and shoukld resign or retract your apology to the parents and apologize to the community and the police for being wishy washy. I am sure you teach the children at NSA to take responsibility for their actions. I suggest you do the same. In the vernacular of the day, "Man up."
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)