Baugus Actions by School, Sheriff

[XLFD]

Prologue

I went to Mason County Central (MCC) High School in Scottville back in the late 1970s early 1980s.  It was not uncommon to see guys, and even an occasional gal, drive to school around this time of year in their hunter orange, having driven directly from their morning hunting grounds to reluctantly attend school for the day.  They weren't generally shy in telling you of their hunting successes and excesses while school was in session, nor how they wished the school day would end so that they could get back in the woods to continue hunting for the couple of hours of daylight left.  

Hunting was ingrained in our rural culture back then, the multiple sports stores that Scottville used to have in the downtown would annually set up their buck pole and encourage successful hunters to bring their game around for a chance for a prize and a place in the local records and newspaper.  This pervasive hunting ethic was impressed on the young; those boys who avoided or eschewed hunting (like myself) were the minority.

And so it did not cross anybody's mind at the time, adults or students, that leaving a hunting rifle in a locked vehicle when one went to school was a serious crime.  Nor was it uncommon to see hunting knives being honed or even made in shop classes, which were virtual caches of deadly weapons in themselves masquerading as tools.  

A dozen years after I graduated, in 1994, Congress authorized withholding public-school funding unless schools adopted zero-tolerance policies for weapons on campus and other offenses.  Twenty five years later, violent school deaths are at an all time high, with more kids being killed at school since 2015 than in the twenty years spanning the 1970s and 1980s.  Other increases:  kids without behavioral problems being expelled from school for minor violations of zero-tolerance policies and kids getting police records by running afoul of school resource officers (SRO) enforcing laws subjectively.  Which brings us to a local tragedy, or rather part two of a tragedy.

The Baugus Incident Report

This 17 year old has been a student at MCC, I have no predispositions about him either way since I know neither him nor his family, just his plight.  I wrote about him recently in Baugus Weapon Charge? which is a prerequisite for better understanding of the facts as the public knew them.  

The article finishes with three unanswered questions:

1) Who claimed Baugus possessed marijuana, and was this really a credible claim?
2) How was Baugus approached off-campus and did he voluntarily consent to having his bag searched or did the deputy conduct an unwarranted search based on a bogus claim?
3) Was Baugus advised of his rights to an attorney and to remain silent before or when the deputies found a device in the bag that could land Baugus in jail for five years?

Questions which should be answered by the corresponding incident report, which are public records I requested through FOIA.  When I received a response it claimed some unusual exemptions that seemed to indicate that the information 'whited out' had to do with confidential informants or undercover officers.  It also indicates that the incident location was somehow exempt (another item on appeal), so I have to presume that Sheriff Cole was accurate about the incident not being on school grounds, while noting that the sheriff (and superintendent) did misrepresent the facts about Baugus having marijuana.

Baugus had neither marijuana nor any other sort of drug paraphernalia, so why hasn't the superintendent and sheriff looked to have news outlets retract their false and libelous accusations in the intervening months since this incident?  Consider that it seems to be because of their own egos and their own indifference over the future of Nick Baugus and his family.

The 9-12-19 incident report is more redacted than it should be, but still provides some interesting insights into what actually happened.  

At first, you wonder who 'Juvinals' is, but then you realize that Mason County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) Deputy Matt Murphy meant 'juveniles'.  The incident location is removed, as is the name of another person with Baugus, and for some reason, Baugus' age, which isn't normally considered exempt because it is not considered an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Baugus was smoking a (normal) cigarette, that is definitely against the law, but violating that section of law does not lead to a probable cause reason for checking Baugus' backpack as it states:  "a minor shall not (b) Possess or attempt to possess a tobacco product. (c) Use a tobacco product in a public place."   Had the deputy uncovered cartons of cigarettes in the backpack, the charge would not be any worse than just having the one in his possession and using it in a (likely) public place. 

Deputy Murphy says he asked if there were more cigarettes in the backpack.  Without an answer listed, he resorted to a search noting Baugus' age as probable cause for a backpack search.  This indicates the deputy did not have consent, but listing age as the only factor in a probable cause search is blatant profiling, just as if an officer said the person's race was the sole factor that led to a search.   

No consent, no legitimate probable cause given, means that this search was illegal and violated Baugus' Fourth Amendment rights.  Finding other contraband while conducting an illegal search typically gets that evidence thrown out under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine. 

A sheathed hunting knife with a 5 inch blade was inside his backpack.  Deputy Murphy shows no indication of letting the minor know about the potential seriousness of the offense and reminding the minor (who can be treated as an adult due to his age) about his Miranda rights to remain silent or consult with an attorney.  The report indicates that Baugus claimed it was for protection and self-defense.  It conceals about a whole line of other information, likely exculpatory.

Superintendent Mount would claim it forced the district's hand:   “When he says it’s for self-defense, then it’s carrying a concealed weapon on school property.”  Faulty reasoning: many non-weapons are employed for self-defense such as the deputy's body armor, riot shield, pepper spray, combat training, etc.  Using something for self-defense does not make it a weapon

The statute Baugus was caught under lists "a dagger, dirk, stiletto, a double-edged nonfolding stabbing instrument of any length, or any other dangerous weapon, except a hunting knife adapted and carried as such, concealed on or about his or her person."

A look at the weapon on p.6 of the report shows a well worn knife, likely never used for self-defense or even as a deterrent, but likely only used normally as a hunting knife.  The law excludes hunting knives adapted and carried as such, and the deputy could have easily prompted Baugus of that stipulation, but instead seems to have prompted him to find a reason other than using it as a hunting knife.  

Which seems likely, since the MCSO's informant seems to have thought Baugus would be carrying marijuana and the deputy's search uncovered no trace.  According to the report, Baugus was transported to the county jail and placed in custody as a result of an illegal search on him that uncovered a hunting knife in a sheath likely never used for anything not hunting related.

The Baugus Expulsion

Delayed from October, the school would go through the motions of expelling Zachary Baugus for a year from all Michigan schools, as per their nonsense policies, on the night of Monday November 18th, all because they seem to have gotten bad intel about marijuana (likely from their newly hired school resource officer), had a deputy search him unlawfully, and treated the sheathed hunting knife in his backpack as a dangerous weapon.  

Other than the board, the superintendent, recording secretary, school principals, visiting WSCC President Scott Ward, and Riley Kelly from the COLDNews, nobody showed up for the meeting other than myself, a resident of Ludington.  I surmise the reason for poor attendance and participation from the public is the lack of overall communication they have in their system.  This is their third monthly meeting this fall, and they have yet to post any minutes or agendas on-line.

Ward would tell about what was happening at WSCC (their board held their own meeting earlier in the same room in the Upper Elementary Building in Scottville).  Teacher Judy Mortensen and four students showed their math skills to the assemblage and each principal and Superintendent Mount reported on the status of their institution.  I remained quiet for both of the two public comment sessions.  

The agenda available at the meeting verified what the COLDNews had said would be happening that night.  Three closed sessions discussing Baugus' expulsion, a reinstatement of an expelled child, and what was titled 'MCCEA Contract Negotiations'.  

The school board gave a simple voice vote to enter into closed session after a five minute break.  If this seems rather insufficient to begin three closed discussions you would be right.  The door would remain closed during the three sessions, but I could still see into the room fairly well from my vantage point in the hallway.

Around this time, Zach Baugus showed up with his parents and sister, when they left they left as a unified unit in fair spirits.  Superintendent Mount was having a lot of laughs during that meeting, I wonder whether he considers his ongoing libel against the minor, and his family's good name, hilarious.  It would be about another ten minutes before the high school principal left and offered that they were beginning to discuss the contract.  They would spend about 15 more minutes in their closed room for that.

The COLDNews reporter and myself were called back in to hear the results of the three sessions.  Baugus was expelled, the unidentified student was reinstated, and the contract was ratified.  I went home unimpressed with what I saw.

Letter to the Superintendent, Board

I digested what I had witnessed and what the records I had in my possession stated.  I reviewed portions of the Open Meetings Act (OMA) to make sure I was not mistaken.  Before midnight I had sent an E-mail to the superintendent with carbon copies sent to the board members, who generally seem like good people, many reared in Scottville like myself.  This listed what I witnessed they had did wrong at this meeting, and let them know that despite their several mistakes in clearly violating the law, they would not be expelled from school for a year like the person they had passed judgment on.   Here's what my letter said, I include links for the reader's personal research:

 Notifications of observed OMA Violations, FOIA request for records associated with secret conferences

I attended the November 18th meeting and was surprised by the school board's inattentiveness to the Open Meetings Act (OMA) as pertains to the three separate items that was discussed in closed session. A public body can only go into closed session by statutorily allowable provisions listed in section 8 of the OMA. The school board had one vote to go into closed session to deliberate over three topics, they gave no indication of their authority to do so at the meeting, only hinted at one in the records of the meeting.

1) In the green sheet labelled Superintendent's Informational Report (SIR), you indicate that pending the reception of a written request from the student or his parents, you would decide his fate in closed session. No such request, written or not, was referenced at the meeting, a requirement for going into closed session under section 8(b) of the OMA.

2) The board also considered the issue of reinstatement of a student in closed session by considering the recommendation of the Reinstatement Committee (as noted in the SIR). No representative of the expelled student was in this session, the session wasn't disciplinary in nature. This isn't permitted by any subsection of section 8. Totally illegal.

3) Courts, by established precedents are to consider these open meeting exemptions strictly and narrowly, for the public is ill-served by public bodies going regularly into closed session for impermissible reasons. Again, the school board had only itself and non-union staff in the last part of their secret confabs, to discuss a tentative agreement that was already ratified by the MCCEA, according to the SIR. Subsection (c) of section 8 allows a closed session "For strategy and negotiation sessions connected with the negotiation of a collective bargaining agreement if either negotiating party requests a closed hearing." This was labeled "MCCEA contract negotiations" on the agenda, but no negotiations with the other party took place-- I was watching. When Principal Tuka left the room after the first two issues were discussed, he acknowledged that this item was the only thing left and would require about 15 minutes (of the school board talking among themselves).

My FOIA request would be to have 1) any written records (if they exist) showing Nick Baugus or his parents formally requested a closed session for his disciplinary hearing, this record(s) must be prepared no later than November 18, 2019. 2) the 11/18/2019 closed session minutes for the closed sessions held contrary to the OMA.

For a school system that would expel a student a year for having a sheathed hunting knife in his backpack, discovered there only because of an unlawful search and seizure conducted off-campus by MCSO Deputy Matt Murphy, and then interpret that knife as a dangerous weapon, you hypocrites cannot interpret the law yourself when it comes to the OMA and your so-called 'public' meetings. Since you want to act like prosecutors rather than educators, maybe you should select a suitable discipline for your own transgressions against Michigan law. But fulfill my FOIA request before you do."

I forecast beforehand that Superintendent Mount will send me nothing for my FOIA request other than a rejection since the first record won't likely exist and he will claim the second one exempt because minutes of a legitimate closed session are exempt. 

[Willy]

Well done X. This is the kind of story that never gets out to the public. We may hear small details of what happened but never important details. If I didn't know better I would guess that Wilson is also the schools attorney since they do business almost like the City of Ludington. They seem to be acting in a similarly illegal manner probably from bad legal advice and or directions received from their attorney.. If I were the students parents I would make a beeline to a competent attorney because this entire situation has gotten well beyond common sense. What's happened to mature adults that should be running local Government and schools.

That knife looks like an old meat cutters knife not a hunting knife.

[XLFD]

Due to the thinness of the blade and the wear pattern, I would bet this knife was used more for fishing than for hunting, but I don't think the law distinguishes between the two.  

Thanks for your assessment, Willy.  Like hunting and fishing knives, I get the impression that Superintendent Mount and Sheriff Cole are cast from the same forge but doing essentially the same thing:  covertly weaning non-conforming kids away from the school system into the prison system.  Mount wins by having a higher percentage of 'good' kids, Cole wins by upping the numbers that matter to him.  The public loses; this one event that should have never happened could fracture the family irreparably.