Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Posted by: BSP268

School police, saying halls meaner, seek bulletproof vests

By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff | April 14, 2007
Boston School Police officers say they want to start wearing bulletproof vests and carrying batons and pepper spray to protect themselves from increasingly brazen students who attack police officers as they break up fights. Article tools The officers are fearing more for their safety as violence in the city's streets spills into the schools, their union president said.
The bid for such equipment worries some school officials. One headmaster said a more heavily equipped police presence would send the wrong message to parents and students and could turn schools into combat zones, a common concern as schools ponder how far they need to go to protect teachers and students.
School officials, who are in the midst of negotiating a new contract with the school police union, would not comment directly on their position, other than to say the current model of community policing, in which officers get to know students and build trust, works best. Mayor Thomas M. Menino, through a spokeswoman, said he sided with school officials.
"Our school police officers really do an outstanding job of keeping our students and our schools safe with the tools they currently have," said James McIntyre, chief operating officer of the Boston public schools.
Unlike their peers around the country, Boston's school police officers do not carry guns or use Tasers, nightsticks, or mace.
"Kids come in with weapons every day, and we have to wrestle with them," said Troy Askew, president of the Boston School Police Patrolmen's Association. "It's a matter of officer safety. The only thing we have is a radio and a pair of handcuffs."
Askew said school police respond to an average of 18 incidents a day and break up fights, chase armed students through schoolyards, and respond to neighborhood shootings near schools. The number of weapons confiscated in and around Boston's public schools has risen 42 percent in the last five years, from 407 in 2001-02 to 577 in the 2005-06 school year, coinciding with a citywide rise in youth violence. Violent crimes, including assaults on teachers, staff, and students, rose 14 percent during the same period.
From September to April, police found 409 weapons, including four guns, down from the 479 weapons discovered during the same period last school year.
Raheem Goode, a sophomore at the Social Justice Academy in Hyde Park, said he would prefer that the school system spends money on books, rather than more equipment for police.
"The bulletproof vest sends a wrong message, and it's a waste of money," Goode said.
The police union said it would cost between $50,000 and $60,000 to outfit school police with bulletproof vests. The demands for extra protection and higher salary, have been responsible for the protracted pace of contract negotiations, which began in August, Askew said.Continued...

School police, saying halls meaner, seek bulletproof vests

By Tracy Jan, Globe Staff | April 14, 2007
Boston School Police officers say they want to start wearing bulletproof vests and carrying batons and pepper spray to protect themselves from increasingly brazen students who attack police officers as they break up fights.
The officers are fearing more for their safety as violence in the city's streets spills into the schools, their union president said.
The bid for such equipment worries some school officials. One headmaster said a more heavily equipped police presence would send the wrong message to parents and students and could turn schools into combat zones, a common concern as schools ponder how far they need to go to protect teachers and students.
School officials, who are in the midst of negotiating a new contract with the school police union, would not comment directly on their position, other than to say the current model of community policing, in which officers get to know students and build trust, works best. Mayor Thomas M. Menino, through a spokeswoman, said he sided with school officials.
"Our school police officers really do an outstanding job of keeping our students and our schools safe with the tools they currently have," said James McIntyre, chief operating officer of the Boston public schools.
Unlike their peers around the country, Boston's school police officers do not carry guns or use Tasers, nightsticks, or mace.
"Kids come in with weapons every day, and we have to wrestle with them," said Troy Askew, president of the Boston School Police Patrolmen's Association. "It's a matter of officer safety. The only thing we have is a radio and a pair of handcuffs."
Askew said school police respond to an average of 18 incidents a day and break up fights, chase armed students through schoolyards, and respond to neighborhood shootings near schools. The number of weapons confiscated in and around Boston's public schools has risen 42 percent in the last five years, from 407 in 2001-02 to 577 in the 2005-06 school year, coinciding with a citywide rise in youth violence. Violent crimes, including assaults on teachers, staff, and students, rose 14 percent during the same period.
From September to April, police found 409 weapons, including four guns, down from the 479 weapons discovered during the same period last school year.
Raheem Goode, a sophomore at the Social Justice Academy in Hyde Park, said he would prefer that the school system spends money on books, rather than more equipment for police.
"The bulletproof vest sends a wrong message, and it's a waste of money," Goode said.
The police union said it would cost between $50,000 and $60,000 to outfit school police with bulletproof vests. The demands for extra protection and higher salary, have been responsible for the protracted pace of contract negotiations, which began in August, Askew said.

Page 2 of 2 -- Boston's school police unit was established in 1977 as part of the court order to desegregate and has never been armed with guns, batons, or mace. In 1987, some members of the School Committee recommended that officers be allowed to carry mace and batons, but the proposal was never approved.
Article To The Boston School Police have 81 officers, who cover all middle and high schools and operate independently of the Boston Police Department. The Police Department has a 10-member schools unit, whose officers wear bulletproof vests and carry guns, pepper spray, and batons. Some school police officers wear bulletproof vests they have bought on their own.


Last November, the school police union started a blog recording the daily incidents. In December, a former middle school student assaulted an officer when she tried to stop him from trespassing. The officer is out of work for the rest of the year because of her injuries and needs knee surgery, said Brian Simoneau, a lawyer representing the school police union.
The following day, a middle-school student kicked and pushed two officers, and cursed them in the school cafeteria. Another officer was attacked by a student's boyfriend in November and was hospitalized for bruised ribs, Simoneau said.
"We're not going to wait until it's too late and an officer is shot in the middle of the chest," he said. "Enough has happened that we think now is the time. They're sworn police officers with the power and obligation to make arrests, and they don't have the tools to do that safely."
The officers' goal is to be armed with guns, Simoneau said.
Clare Giacoppo, whose daughter attends Odyssey High School in South Boston, said she agrees that officers need more protection than they now have and should wear bulletproof vests.
"Some of these kids have been caught with handguns that have been loaded," Giacoppo said. "If school police come up on two kids who are fighting and one has a gun, how is he going to be able to defend himself and keep the situation safe?"
But some headmasters interviewed yesterday oppose increasing the officers' weaponry, saying they do not need weapons to do their main job, building relationships with students.
"It's ridiculous," said Michael Fung, headmaster at Charlestown High. "Headmasters have been breaking up fights throughout the history of the Boston public schools, and we don't need mace."
But school police in most communities carry guns, according to the National Association of School Resource Officers. Officers in Brockton and Springfield schools also carry guns, in addition to nightsticks and pepper spray.
School police officers should wear bulletproof vests, said Dick Caster, executive director of the St. Paul, Minn.-based school police officers' group.
"Body armor is not a wrong message," Caster said.
"It's like wearing a hard hat on a construction site. The body armor is the cop's answer to a hard hat."
Tracy Jan can be reached at tjan@globe.com

---

Posted by: k12kop

#@&%! Mike Fung is a flat out idiot!

---

Posted by: HousingCop

Quote:

One headmaster said a more heavily equipped police presence would send the wrong message to parents and students and could turn schools into combat zones,.....

Aren't they already at that point?

Quote:

Raheem Goode, a sophomore at the Social Justice Academy in Hyde Park, said he would prefer that the school system spends money on books, rather than more equipment for police. "The bulletproof vest sends a wrong message, and it's a waste of money," Goode said.

When I was in school, some of the textbooks we had were 20+ years old, in good condition and the information was still relevant. Just because some of your compatriots throw books out the window to see how far they can fly doesn't mean that Mr. Taxpayer should pay for new books every time your friends becomes an idiot and trashes a new book.
Note to Raheem, you're in one of the most dangerous schools in the system. Letting the School cop wear a vest underneath his shirt is the exact same thing as you wearing your Superman unde-roos to school. Both cannot be seen and you'll both feel better having them on.

Quote:

"It's ridiculous," said Michael Fung, headmaster at Charlestown High. "Headmasters have been breaking up fights throughout the history of the Boston public schools, and we don't need mace."

Dear Headmaster Fung-us, I have read your job description and nowhere in it does it say you have to break up fights. Just because you choose to put your hands on 2 juveniles scrapping, doesn't mean one of them cannot press charges of A&B on you.

The place is just an accident waiting to happen. Just my

---

Posted by: pucknut

I take my hat off to you guys at Boston School Police, I hate to say it but it will take someone getting seriously hurt for them to wake up and maybe doing something about getting you the tools you need. Stay Safe until then.

---

Posted by: justanotherparatrooper

Quote:

Originally Posted by k12kop #@&%! Mike Fung is a flat out idiot!

WELL PUT

---

Posted by: wolf9848

Mike Fung needs to get his head out of his ass. I went to Charlestown High for 9th grade, huge brawls would break out all the time. I never saw his ass get in and stop them. It was always the school police who would come in and break it up.

---

Posted by: masscopguy

How does wearing body armor send any kind of message when the only person who realy knows that you have a vest on is the officer wearing the vest?

To deny a $50,000 dollar allocation to protect police officers is such a slap in the face.

You guys earn every penny of the meager salary you recieve.

---

Posted by: BSP268

the boston school police have received a grant for 53 vest's. the school dept will not sign off on it. so it will not cost the schools a dime.

---

Posted by: Wiggum_1

This is a perfect example of why you shoud'nt have civillians administer a police department. To have people like Fung set policy for the BSP is assinine.

---

Posted by: bspd103

Here we go again.... Just another example of the liberals who don't want to admit that they have lost control of the schools. The Boston Schools have more problems than anyone can ever imagine. At least if the kids could go and feel safe, there would be a positive aspect.
The argument of vests setting up a hostile environment has been argued for a while. It all started when the kids would wear the "50 Cent" version of the vests, so they felt cool. Officers want legitimate vests that would be under a uniform and hidden. But some administrators won't ever tell a kid to take their "fake vests" off because they're too damn scared of the kids. Then you have people like Fung saying that they've been breaking up fights. Breaking up fights is one thing, placing a kid in handcuffs is a whole other story. Fung is also the person who was quoted that he doesn't need metal detectors because he expects the Officers to find all the weapons. A couple shootings later and a few found guns later, you'd think he'd change his mind after he lost control of his school. Maybe once he loses his job, he'll change his mind.
School Police Officers work their whole shift, you sit down for lunch and 2 minutes later you're running to a call 1/2 way accross the building. If it's not in your own school then you're jumping in your own car and trying to get to another school as you hear your fellow officer screaming for help (through a staticky (sp?) radio) because he's in a struggle with some little thug.
Spray and batons are a no brainer, it's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. I hope that the parents of these kids in the school realize that if someone is pointing a gun at their little darling, school police won't be able to help because you can't stop a bullet with a pair of cuffs and a faulty radio. The radio might work if you threw it at the suspect but that's about its only use.

---

Posted by: BSP268

[quote=bspd103 The radio might work if you threw it at the suspect but that's about its only use.[/quote]


been there and dun that!!

---

Posted by: rg1283

Quote:

Originally Posted by BSP268 the boston school police have received a grant for 53 vest's. the school dept will not sign off on it. so it will not cost the schools a dime.

WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! BULL SHIT, I hope they get the vests. Also I bet Mr. Fung doesn't show up on stuff on his own, he says call the school police probably and then walks behind the Boston School Police like a pussy.

---

Posted by: k12kop

That's if you can get him out of his office!

---

Posted by: BSP268

mike fung is the headmaster of charlestown high school and that is the same school the school police officer was shot 5 years ago on poke st!!!

---

Posted by: new guy

Well that's about as bad as it gets. I'll have to remember to read this article and gain a little perspective the next time I start complaining to myself about work. They are obviously more concerned about appearance and public perception than about legitimate safety and security needs. Those guys should do whatever they can to pad their resume's and GTF out of there !!!!!

---

Posted by: bspd103

People are jumping ship left and right. Every week there's someone who's either leaving or going on an interview....They don't get it

---

Posted by: coleyBSP

Mike Fung"s School was so out of control Court street appointed a Special Administrator to oversee all aspects of safety, security an discipline. Metal detectors were installed as well as a camera system. All this because he does his job so well?

---

Posted by: policelaborlaw.com

Nope...no need for body armor (this case came out today from the SJC).............

COMMONWEALTH vs. DILLON D., a juvenile.

DOCKET
SJC-09783.
Dates:
February 6, 2007. - April 17, 2007.

Complaint received and sworn to in the Suffolk County Division of the Juvenile Court Department on September 23, 2004.

A pretrial motion to suppress evidence was heard by Marjory A. German, J.

An application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal was allowed by Ireland, J., in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk, and the case was reported by him to the Appeals Court. After review by the Appeals Court, the Supreme Judicial Court granted leave to obtain further appellate review.

Holly T. Smith for the juvenile.

Dean A. Mazzone, Assistant District Attorney (Kathleen Celio, Assistant District Attorney, with him) for the Commonwealth.

IRELAND, J. Dillon D., a juvenile, was charged with delinquency by reason of possession of a firearm and ammunition without an identification card in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (h). He filed a motion to suppress, arguing his Miranda rights were violated. The motion was granted by a Juvenile Court judge. The Commonwealth appealed from the decision, and the Appeals Court reversed the suppression order in an unpublished memorandum and order pursuant to its rule 1:28. Commonwealth v. Dillon D., 66 Mass. App. Ct. 1107 (2006). We granted the juvenile's application for further appellate review. Because we conclude that the circumstances of this case warranted a heightened public safety concern and triggered the limited public safety exception to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), we reverse the order granting the motion to suppress.

Procedural and factual background. We summarize the facts contained in the motion judge's written findings of fact and rulings of law requested by the Commonwealth pursuant to Mass. R. Crim. P. 15 (b) (2), as appearing in 422 Mass. 1501 (1996).(1) See Commonwealth v. Bottari, 395 Mass. 777, 778 (1985). On September 22, 2004, an administrator of a Boston middle school saw the thirteen year old juvenile carrying and showing students a clear plastic bag containing over fifty bullets near the school's lunchroom. This information was conveyed to Boston school police Officer Steven Partello. The school administrator confiscated the bullets, and the juvenile was then told to go directly to the main office.(2) On his arrival at the main office, Partello conducted a pat-down of the juvenile for weapons and found none.

After reciting the Miranda warnings to the juvenile in front of an administrator, Partello asked the juvenile to disclose the location of the gun, and he responded that he did not have a gun. The juvenile's mother and grandmother arrived approximately twenty-five to thirty-five minutes later. Although the mother was neither provided an opportunity to be alone with the juvenile nor informed of the juvenile's Miranda rights, Partello continued questioning the juvenile. The juvenile's mother also asked the juvenile questions in Partello's presence. The same day, school officials held a hearing resulting in the juvenile's expulsion. After the hearing, the juvenile agreed to lead Partello to the gun, which was located in an outdoor electrical box in a residential area approximately twenty-five yards from the school and approximately two feet from a residence.

In allowing the juvenile's motion to suppress, the judge found that the Commonwealth failed to prove that Miranda warnings were properly given to the juvenile in the presence of an adult as we have required in Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, 389 Mass. 128, 134 (1983), and concluded that the limited public safety exception to Miranda v. Arizona, supra, set forth in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 656-657 (1984), and Commonwealth v. Alan A., 47 Mass. App. Ct. 271, 273-274 (1999), was not applicable. Together with its request for findings of fact and rulings of law, the Commonwealth timely filed a notice of appeal.

In November, 2004, a single justice of the county court allowed the Commonwealth's application for leave to prosecute an interlocutory appeal, and reported the case to the Appeals Court. In reversing the motion judge's order, the Appeals Court concluded that the circumstances of this case triggered heightened public safety concerns and, consequently, that Miranda warnings administered in the presence of an interested adult were not required.

Discussion. In reviewing a ruling on a motion to suppress, we accept the judge's subsidiary findings of fact absent clear error 'but conduct an independent review of [her] ultimate findings and conclusions of law.'" Commonwealth v. Scott, 440 Mass. 642, 646 (2004), quoting Commonwealth v. Jimenez, 438 Mass. 213, 218 (2002). We may also consider uncontroverted and undisputed facts that are supported by the record. See note 1, supra.

Here, the juvenile argues that the judge correctly concluded that his Miranda rights were violated because the public safety exception was not applicable. The juvenile points out that Partello initially questioned him outside the presence of a parent or guardian, despite the fact that he was only thirteen years old. The juvenile further notes that after the arrival of his mother, questioning continued even though Partello never recited Miranda warnings to him in his mother's presence and failed to give the mother an opportunity to consult privately with him prior to answering Partello's questions. Thus, the juvenile claims that the judge's order allowing the motion to suppress should be affirmed. We disagree.

Generally, "Miranda warnings must precede police questioning whenever [a] person is 'deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.'" Commonwealth v. Clark, 432 Mass. 1, 13 (2000), quoting Commonwealth v. Haas, 373 Mass. 545, 552 (1977), S.C., 398 Mass. 806 (1986). When a suspect is a juvenile under the age of fourteen years, we have held that, in order to establish that the juvenile waived his Miranda rights, the Commonwealth bears the burden to prove that "a parent or an interested adult was present, understood the warnings, and had the opportunity to explain his rights to the juvenile so that the juvenile understands the significance of waiver of these rights." Commonwealth v. MacNeill, 399 Mass. 71, 77 (1987). Additionally, in order to waive their Miranda rights validly, juveniles under fourteen years old must "actually consult" with an interested adult. Commonwealth v. McCra, 427 Mass. 564, 568 n.2 (199, citing Commonwealth v. A Juvenile, supra. This is based on the assumption that an informed parent is in a better position to understand the juvenile's rights than the juvenile, who may be unable to comprehend fully these rights without such assistance. Commonwealth v. MacNeill, supra.

However, the United States Supreme Court has held that a public safety exception to the general rule applies if there are circumstances in which "concern for public safety [is] paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda." New York v. Quarles, supra at 653. We have also adopted the public safety exception, allowing statements made by a suspect to be admissible in court if the questions posed by the police officers were based on a "concern for public safety," even if a suspect has not been given Miranda warnings. Commonwealth v. Clark, supra.

Here, Partello was faced with an emergency situation that required protecting approximately 890 children at the middle school and residents of the neighborhood. In these circumstances, where the juvenile possessed a clear plastic bag containing over fifty bullets and was observed showing the bag to other students, Partello reasonably concluded that there was an immediate need to question the juvenile about the presence of a firearm because the obligation of protecting other students and community members outweighed the administration of Miranda warnings to the juvenile in the presence of an interested adult. The juvenile's possession of over fifty bullets alone was enough to support the inference that a gun was in close proximity and to invoke the public safety exception to the requisite Miranda warnings.

Conclusion. For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the order granting the motion to suppress. This case is remanded to the Juvenile Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.
Footnotes
(1) We supplement the judge's findings with uncontroverted testimony she credited. See Commonwealth v. Watson, 430 Mass. 725, 726 n.5 (2000); Commonwealth v. Willis, 415 Mass. 814, 816 n.2 (1993).

(2) Partello testified that, after receiving the clear plastic bag of bullets, he was on his way to the main office when he observed the juvenile going up the stairs of the building near a side door that was closing. Partello described the juvenile as being "out of breath, sweating, breathing heavily." The motion judge's findings did not include details regarding Partello's observations of the juvenile possibly leaving the building after being confronted about his possession of bullets and of his sweaty and out-of-breath appearance on returning. However important these observations may be, we are unable to credit this portion of Partello's testimony because there is no evidence that the judge credited this testimony. See Commonwealth v. Isaiah I., ante 334, 338 (2007) (court declined to add facts where credibility determinations had not been made by motion judge).

---

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vB Easy Archive Final ©2000 - 2008 - Created by Stefan "Xenon" Kaeser