My neighborhood surrounds Lower Merion High School.  Periodically neighbors complain about students' off-campus behavior, such as littering, congregating in smoking groups and more littering, marijuana in their cars, beer drinking and more littering.  The School District is very firm that its jurisdiction ends at the property line and that if residents see activity of which they disapprove their only recourse is to alert the Police Department.

This letter from the principals seems like a tut-tut of disapproval that is not likely to have much effect.

I'm Shmacked is a company. LM schools are just one of many they are filming. They've been to Temple too apparently. They started out with college students. I do not know why they included high school students.

I’m Shmacked: Why Colleges & Universities Should Start Getting Nervous

September 20th, 2011 by Lauren Landry

I’ve heard students describe themselves in a lot of ways after a night of severe intoxication. Twisted, blitzed, blasted, hammered, juiced, sloshed, slammed, sideways and shit-faced are all on the top of the list. The latest term that’s been introduced to me, however, is “shmacked.”

I typed “shmacked” into the search bar of Urban Dictionary and pulled up two definitions, the first of which summed up the term fairly well. “To be so drunk or high to the point of not being able to function.”

Well, that explains the students in these videos then.

“I’m Shmacked” is a documentary currently in the works. The purpose of the project is to visit 12 of the best colleges and universities around the country, and choose one student from each school to follow for at least three days. That experience will be recorded to show how diversity differs at each college and highlight what makes that school so special to its students.

The only two trailers that have, so far, been released are ones from Temple University in Pennsylvania and Syracuse University in New York. The other 10 schools being filmed have yet to be released, but the project really got me thinking about the college party scene. And, honestly, these videos made me a bit nervous.

True. I had the same rules when playing varsity sports in high school. Can't recall if they only applied only while in season, though.

As for notifying parents, I don't think any parents are under the illusion that partying does not occur in high school.

Doug hit the right tone with me with the word "Orwellian", and I also find it to be jumping the gun.

Given the lawsuits LMSD faced for webcam spying, I think they should have used more discretion - and especially for an incident that happened off campus and during the summer.

LMSD could have notified law enforcement, waited for the result of the investigation, and then notified parents based on the result if it wanted to play it safe and smart.

That way you limit legal liability.

That has been my concern on this issue primarily.

Further, these students are also innocent until proven guilty, and LMSD already seems to have had the trial and convicted them. Not a very good educational lesson on how you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in this country.

Again, that goes back to the webcam spying and bringing a 15 year old in alone without parents or a lawyer to a school disciplinarian based on secret webcam photos taken in his bedroom where LMSD alleged drug possession.

Taking recent history out of it, I think LMSD jumped the gun and should have waited for law enforcement investigation results, and given recent history, I'd figure LMSD would have learned something and waited for law enforcement instead of once again acting as if they are police officers instead of educators.

If there is an education lesson to be had here on substance abuse and illegal use of substances by youth who are off campus during the summer, wait for the law enforcement report to do it.

Since this occurred off campus and during the summer, I personally feel the eduction lesson should be given by law enforcement.

If anything, that would limit the liability of LMSD because you know they will be sued if they made the most minor mistake regarding the future of a student, and I'd prefer already high school taxes not go higher.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

LMSD stated it handed the YouTube over to law enforcement, so they are not just sending a message on off campus student behavior. They obviously feel crimes were committed off campus by students and LMSD wants it investigated by law enforcement.

If it is actual marijuana and alcohol (as opposed to the "props" the student who produced the video states), crimes were committed and it is the job of the police to investigate and prosecute criminal activity.

If any kids in the video admit to actual marijuana or alcohol use when interrogated by the police (the police have the legal right to lie, trick and deceive you into admissions), the LMPD has probable cause to arrest as the statute of limitations is far from expired. That's why I suggested to the parents they lawyer up. You are innocent until proven guilty in this country, and you have a right to legal defense and to remain silent.

However, D.A. Ferman could have one of her infamous grand juries that she so loves and force the facts out of the students with essentially no 5th Amendment right to remain silent or face contempt and imprisonment for the term of the grand jury (usually 18 months) for not talking (you are forced to talk before a grand jury - basically no right to remain silent) or face felony perjury if a student is not absolutely honest. You also have no right to cross-examination and legal defense by your lawyer before a one-sided grand jury that the D.A.’s office controls absolutely to seek its desired results.

Have you seen what Ferman has done in abusing the grand jury process lately? She dragged a county commissioner in under subpoena over an alleged summary offense (no different than a speeding ticket) Sunshine Law violation she could not prove, but that county commissioner is facing seven (7) years in prison over Ferman's perjury trap that she set-up on an unrelated issue.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.

dmuth, you're famous!

And to think I was made fun of in high school!  How about now, former classmates!?

Oh, I had been meaning to ask you about something you said in your earlier comment:

Anything they do, on or off campus, can affect their status on the team.

Can you elaborate on this?  Never played sports when I was a kid (was a bit overweight...) nor do I have children of my own (much to the relief of many).  Is a student doing something illegal off campus a potential PR issue for the school, or is there another concern entirely?

No, Ferman should not convene a grand jury over this issue.

That was my point. She should not have convened a grand jury over a summary offense Sunshine law violation in order to set-up a felony perjury trap either. I don’t like County Commissioner Jim Matthews, but I believe in justice – not political retribution in order to destroy lives. I know about that all too well.

Ferman should also not convene grand juries where the police commit perjury and are not only allowed to get away with it, but Ferman accepts those lies as gospel. This sets a horrific precedent for the police that they are above the law, can do whatever they want, and that Ferman will cover for their criminal misconduct.

Also, I did not state a witness has “no right” to remain silent before a grand jury. I stated you “essentially” have no such right. You do supposedly retain your 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination before a grand jury, but when it comes to issues supposedly unrelated to self-incrimination, you cannot remain silent.

You can’t just plead the fifth and remain silent before a grand jury to every question or you will be jailed for contempt. It then becomes very tricky as to what questions will incriminate you, and the D.A. will argue an answer won’t incriminate you when it will – and remember, you can’t object to any questions asked, but your lawyer can invoke the fifth and let a judge decide in a separate meeting (judges are not present before a grand jury). Problem is, you and your lawyer don’t know what questions were asked and what answers were given by other witnesses (who could be lying) in these secret proceedings, so you may not even know that you could be incriminating yourself and thus won’t realize you should take the fifth on a certain question.

With multiple witnesses, it is very easy for the D.A. to piece to together an indictment or to use the grand jury process for nefarious means such as a perjury trap.

This Pace University Law Review article gets into the process and perjury traps.

To quote:

In accord with the oft-stated principle that "the public has a right to every man's evidence," 26 this modern inquisitorial body is empowered to summon any person before it and, subject to modest constraints imposed by the fourth and fifth amendments, to compel that person to disclose under oath everything he or she knows about the matter under inquiry29. "[T]he witness is bound not only to attend but to tell what he knows in answer to questions framed for the purpose of bringing out the truth of the matter under inquiry." 30 Moreover, as a general rule, a witness may not challenge the questions as incompetent or irrelevant nor object that the grand jury is exceeding its authority, "for this is no concern of [the witness]," his role being simply to testify truthfully to what he knows 31.

It is thus not surprising that the rights of witnesses, when balanced against the broad powers of the grand jury, are severely attenuated.

This Seattle University Law Review article goes further:

In this article, I consider the propriety of an indictment of a person who was subpoenaed to testify before a grand jury at which the person invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination on any questions relevant to the investigation and where the government knew that this person would assert the privilege. In Part I, I explore the prosecutor's power to secure evidence and present it the grand jury. In Part II, I describe how the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination limits the prosecutor's power to secure evidence and present it to the grand jury. In Part III, I apply the privilege to a situation where a prosecutor knows that the person will invoke the privilege and refuse to testify, yet still forces the person to exercise her privilege in front of the grand jury which later indicts her.

A grand jury is a secret proceeding run by the D.A. with broad powers where there is no judge present and your defense attorney is essentially gagged. The D.A.’s team runs the show and decides what evidence to present to the grand jury and what evidence to hide from the grand jury. The grand jury just snoozes and does everything the D.A.’s team of prosecutors and detectives says and wants.

I should know as I recently testified at length as a witness before one of Ferman’s perfidious grand juries.

Grand juries are ripe for abuse by an unscrupulous D.A.

=================

Brotherhood of Thieves ~ As we must account for every idle word, so must we account for every idle silence.