Gonzaga University students could face expulsion for gun - Page 2

sigcurious · November 10, 2013, 11:14 PM

Landlords can discriminate it just can't be for certain things (for example they can prohibit smoking or age discriminate 55+ communities, even though age is technically a protected class.) However, I suspect that in this case standard real estate law will not be the deciding factor. I suspect the laws surrounding school property will be the deciding factor.

rebs · November 11, 2013, 06:03 AM

Thank God we are not reading an article where two students were found dead, they had a need to protect themselves and did so. That should be the end of it.
I am getting fed up with reading articles like this where someone defended themselves and then found themselves in trouble for doing so.

Cnon · November 11, 2013, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Thank God we are not reading an article where two students were found dead, they had a need to protect themselves and did so.
That should be the end of it.

I am getting fed up with reading articles like this where someone defended themselves and then found themselves in trouble for doing so.

That makes at least two of us on this board.

Cnon

**44 AMP** · November 11, 2013, 11:18 AM

More reporting today on the web....

Student was of legal age...

Had WA state CPL (totally irrelevant to the situation, other than to show the character of the student)

Intruder was a SIX TIME convicted felon.

Police approved of the manner they handled the situation (no shots fired)

Student(s) apparently unaware of Gonzaga "no weapon" rule

University inquiry board finds them "guilty of gun possession".

Day (maybe 2) later, (and with no reported reason why... Gonzaga sends email to student body saying they will be reviewing the policy...

Brief interview, student says policy covers ALL/any weapon "could have used a baseball bat and still have been found guilty..."

KyJim · November 11, 2013, 01:16 PM

Gonzaga is a private university. The application of their weapons policy to off-campus housing is grossly over broad and unfair. Nevertheless, they can set that policy and enforce it so long as it does not discriminate against protected classes; e.g., those based on race. Fortunately, the university seems to be re-thinking its policy.

vranasaurus · November 11, 2013, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Posted by Jimdandy

Actually Vranasaurus, as I understand it, Landlords can't discriminate Constitutionally based on the 14th. Statutes may further define and explain that prohibition, but Heart of Atlanta Motel was decided on 14A grounds as I understand.

The case you cite was about the civil rights act of 1964. The court held that congress had the power, under the commerce clause, to prohibit discrimination by hotels.

Justice Douglas in his concurrence would have held that Congress' power for the act would be the enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment. However, that was not the majority opinion.

zxcvbob · November 11, 2013, 01:30 PM

There is another wrinkle to this case; the campus cops (who are not sworn LEO's) came back at 02:00 and broke into the apartment (not necessarily illegal) and seized the weapon (that WAS illegal.) The student reported the theft to the real police.

The school is backpedalling now.

I predict the students will be reinstated (eventually) if they promise to secure the weapon offsite or move out of the university-owned housing, and agree not to press charges.

vranasaurus · November 11, 2013, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Posted by zcvbob

There is another wrinkle to this case; the campus cops (who are not sworn LEO's) came back at 02:00 and broke into the apartment (not necessarily illegal) and seized the weapon (that WAS illegal.) The student reported the theft to the real police.

Sounds like a burglary to me.

Quote:

RCW 9A.52.025

Residential burglary.

(1) A person is guilty of residential burglary if, with intent to commit a crime against a person or property therein, the person enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling other than a vehicle.

amd6547 · November 11, 2013, 01:58 PM

Imagine the lawsuit of the original aggressive felon returned after the campus cops seized the students weapon...and killed them.

RX-79G · November 11, 2013, 01:59 PM

Wouldn't that make it burglary when your car gets towed from a private lot?

On topic:
It's a stupid policy on the part of the school. However, had a student been accidentally shot with this gun at the apartment, then the school would be pointing to the reason for their policy.

If that happened, we'd all have less commentary on the school policy and just be talking about the stupid kid who caused the accident. Meanwhile, all the non-gun people would be agreeing with the school. Despite all the statistical approximations, I don't think I could say which is more likely on a campus - successful self defense or an accidental shooting. We are talking about a group of people that fall drunk off rooftops with some frequency.

I side with the students on this one. But this just serves as another reminder of why gun rights are so difficult to defend - both sides are trying to manage the "what ifs" in a culture that is armed but doesn't think of itself that way.

vranasaurus · November 11, 2013, 02:25 PM

No, the elements of burglary, in Washington, require that the person enter a dwelling unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime.

Towing a car without justification could be theft or some taken with intent to temporarily deprive but only if the towing was done without legal justification. If you are illegally parked in a private lot the owner can have your car towed as you are trespassing.

In this case campus security entered the apartment with the intent to take the gun. I don't think they had the renter's permission to enter and the gun owner's permission to take the gun. Now whether they entered unlawfully will likely be determined by the terms of the lease. Landlords generally have provision allowing them to enter in order to make emergency repairs. Many times a lease requires a certain period of notice before they enter the premises for other purposes.

tomrkba · November 11, 2013, 02:51 PM

The SCOTUS decision allowing a mere contract to override a right needs to go away.

TimSr · November 11, 2013, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Towing a car without justification could be theft or some taken with intent to temporarily deprive but only if the towing was done without legal justification. If you are illegally parked in a private lot the owner can have your car towed as you are trespassing.

A better analogy would be if the car was parked in the driveway of the house you were renting, and the landlord had it towed.

I would think violation of the no guns terms of a lease is a civil matter, and the only thing the landord could do is evict them. Even if used illegally, which was clearly NOT the case here, your landlord cannot seize your property. They would need to have the REAL police do that, which they were unwilling to do, nor did they even charge the students with breaking any laws.

I dont believe campus rent a cops have the authority to seize any property, for any reason. I hope these students get a good civil attorney.

RX-79G · November 11, 2013, 03:06 PM

What do you mean? I can agree to give up anything I want via contract, including my privacy, ability to travel, say whatever I want. No one forces me to do so and I get something in return. That's my choice to make, not SCOTUS.

Tomrkba,

If a landlord removes something that is contacturally forbidden, it isn't any different than towing a car, unless the landlord keeps it.

BigD_in_FL · November 11, 2013, 03:59 PM

Seems they have been put on indefinite suspension:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...intruder_.html

If I was one of those students, AFTER I sued the hell out of them, I would be looking for another University to finish my studies

KyJim · November 11, 2013, 11:11 PM

I went back to the original story to clarify a couple of points:

1. This was not "off-campus" housing as commonly understood. The story identified it as "a school owned apartment."

2. Campus police came back and opened the door with a master key. This is certainly not burglary because they entered without intent to commit a crime. It is likely not a criminal trespass as the lease surely allows entry. It is probably not be a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches since the lease would give the university permission to enter.

SSA · November 11, 2013, 11:51 PM

The kids knowingly broke the rules. If somebody had simply seen them taking a cased firearm into the apartment, they could have been expelled. They snuck it in.
The school decided to cut them a fair amount of slack and put them on probation.
Now these two students are loving their new celebrity, simpering in front of every camera they see in an exceedingly unattractive manner, and talking about appealing the lenient decision.

62coltnavy · November 12, 2013, 03:24 AM

KyJim I think you are way off base. This was off-campus university owned housing, not on campus housing, and that makes a difference. Further, the guns were seized not by campus police, but by campus security--i.e., not cops. Second, while I certainly can make no representation as to what the laws are in all fifty states, the general rule is that the landlord after renting a unit does NOT have unfettered access. Although he is the nominal owner, the landlord has given up the right of entry and of possession during the term of the lease, with the exception of emergencies, illegal activities, and maintenance with reasonable notice given. The tenant has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a right to exclude intrusion by the landlord. [This rule is quite different in a dorm, but this was not a dorm.] There was no emergency and certainly no illegal activity--both students are over 21, and the handgun owner has a CCW. Nor was notice given--the security "officers" showed up in the middle of the night demanding entry, then entered, searched, and seized the weapons WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY. A landlord cannot seize your personal property--even if the presence of that property is a breach of the lese. The remedy is by way of summary eviction (unlawful detainer). In short, the evidence establishes that the university security committed an unlawful seizure (conversion) of private property--and arguably a criminal theft of private property.

At the current time, we do not know what the lease says. But the Volock (sp?) conspiracy quotes the university policy on firearms--and it is specific to the campus, and not facially applicable to off-campus housing.

Then there is the whole public perception issue. This housing is apparently located in a bad neighborhood, and campus security does not provide security for these units. What the boys "did" was perfectly legal--so they are punished for engaging in constitutionally protected activity. Not only punished, but had their personal property illegally seized and converted. Hmmm. What do you think a jury would think about that?

Oh by the way SSA--you refer to "kids." Maybe you are old enough to call anyone under thirty "kids," but in fact one of these guys was 21 and the other 23. Legally, they are full adults, no ifs ands or buts. Do you think that it is acceptable for the university to treat adults as children for their off-campus activities and exercise of constitutional rights?

JimmyR · November 12, 2013, 03:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomrkba

The SCOTUS decision allowing a mere contract to override a right needs to go away.

This is not "overriding" their rights. They chose to waive their rights by signing a lease and enrolling at Gonzaga U. We all have the right to waive our rights. They consented to the terms of the contract- regardless of whether or not they read it or knew the terms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 62coltnavy

KyJim I think you are way off base. This was off-campus university owned housing, not on campus housing, and that makes a difference. Further, the guns were seized not by campus police, but by campus security--i.e., not cops.

And this is why he is correct.

If the property is owned by the university &

If the Campus Security are agents of the university &

If the lease agreement/terms of residency stipulate that firearms may not be kept on campus owned property at risk of seizure by campus security

Then everything is legal, based on terms agreed upon by the students.

When I worked as an RA at a small liberal arts college, one of the campus rules stipulated that the campus banned the possession/consumption of alcohol. While doing room checks at the end of the semester, when students moved out for Christmas break, we found a resident with multiple bottles of alchol. Our campus security seized it, as it was stipulated within college policies. They aren't LEOs, but are acting as agents of the property owners, the college.

Cnon · November 12, 2013, 04:06 AM

Here's an update on this case from another source:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/g...n-gun-20846915

The sentence is probation.

Cnon

Armed_Chicagoan · November 12, 2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KyJim

I went back to the original story to clarify a couple of points:

1. This was not "off-campus" housing as commonly understood. The story identified it as "a school owned apartment."

2. Campus police came back and opened the door with a master key. This is certainly not burglary because they entered without intent to commit a crime. It is likely not a criminal trespass as the lease surely allows entry. It is probably not be a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches since the lease would give the university permission to enter.

The University in this case is acting as a landlord. I'm not familiar with the laws in Washington, but as a landlord here in Chicago I cannot enter my tenant's apartment without giving advance notice, and then only to either show the apartment to new prospective tenants or to make repairs. I don't have to give notice if there is an emergency, such as a broken water pipe or some such. And that's per state law, nothing I put in the lease can override that, such a clause in the lease would be illegal and unenforceable.

Most state laws are similar, I really doubt that seizing a legally owned firearm is a proper reason for entry by agents of the landlord.

NWPilgrim · November 12, 2013, 01:41 PM

Quote:

The University in this case is acting as a landlord. I'm not familiar with the laws in Washington, but as a landlord here in Chicago I cannot enter my tenant's apartment without giving advance notice, and then only to either show the apartment to new prospective tenants or to make repairs. I don't have to give notice if there is an emergency, such as a broken water pipe or some such. And that's per state law, nothing I put in the lease can override that, such a clause in the lease would be illegal and unenforceable.

Most state laws are similar, I really doubt that seizing a legally owned firearm is a proper reason for entry by agents of the landlord.

That was my understanding when I rented out our house in Washington. State law allowed me to enter the house while rented only for maintenance (with notice) or emergency, not to search and seize items I didn't like. If for instance the renter had a pet and the contract said no pets, then I could terminate the lease and if necessary evict the renters. But I could under no circumstance enter the (our) house and seize the pet. Even under eviction I could not enter the house and throw their property onto the lawn or curb. I would have to get a police officer to enforce the eviction if it came to that.

Rental contracts do not include such terms as they would be invalid per state law. I am not an attorney, but just reading up and briefly talking with a real estate attorney that was my understanding of my limits as a Washington state landlord.

vranasaurus · November 12, 2013, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Posted by KYJim

Campus police came back and opened the door with a master key.

It doesn't matter that they entered with a key. Just because you have a key doesn't give you authority to enter.

Quote:

Posted by KYJim

This is certainly not burglary because they entered without intent to commit a crime.

The crime they intended to committ was stealing the gun.

Quote:

Posted by KYJim

It is probably not be a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches since the lease would give the university permission to enter.

The university as a private actor can't violate 4th amendment rights.

KyJim · November 12, 2013, 11:25 PM

Quote:

The university as a private actor can't violate 4th amendment rights.

I read "campus security" to mean "campus police." In my state, private colleges can employ "special police" much like railroad police, etc. If that is the case, then they are exercising police powers granted to them by the state and subject to the Fourth Amendment.

Quote:

The crime they intended to committ was stealing the gun.

Not if the lease and rules adopted under it allow entry and confiscation of contraband.

As far as whether state law allows them to enter without permission or advance notice, we don't really know. University housing is likely governed by different laws that typical landlord-tenant laws.

62coltnavy · November 13, 2013, 01:47 AM

NWPilgrim has told us that, according to his understanding, what the university did violated state law. I think he is probably right. It would certainly violate the law in California and Oregon, and I believe that it would violate the law in most if not all states. This is stuff they teach in first year law school property classes--the landlord may own, but has given up most of his rights along with possession of the property, and further owes the tenant a duty to protect his "quiet enjoyment." A landlord cannot simply come waltzing into the tenant's apartment at any hour of the day or night. Nor is the landlord a police entity--he does not have the right to seize ANY of the tenant's property. He cannot shut of the gas, electricity or water. he cannot seize the tenant's property as security for unpaid rent. His sole remedy is eviction. If there is contraband (and legally owned firearms are in no way shape or from "contraband") he can call the police.

Campus police vary tremendously, and no assumptions should be made. My campus had private security, but my sons had off-duty police officers.

One other thing. It also seems that Gonzaga did not even own the apartment--it leased it from the owners so that it would be available to students, and then (apparently) sublet the premises.

November 11, 2013, 11:18 AM	#29
44 AMP Staff Join Date: March 11, 2006 Location: Upper US Posts: 28,839	More reporting today on the web.... Student was of legal age... Had WA state CPL (totally irrelevant to the situation, other than to show the character of the student) Intruder was a SIX TIME convicted felon. Police approved of the manner they handled the situation (no shots fired) Student(s) apparently unaware of Gonzaga "no weapon" rule University inquiry board finds them "guilty of gun possession". Day (maybe 2) later, (and with no reported reason why... Gonzaga sends email to student body saying they will be reviewing the policy... Brief interview, student says policy covers ALL/any weapon "could have used a baseball bat and still have been found guilty..." __________________ All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.

November 11, 2013, 01:30 PM	#32
zxcvbob Senior Member Join Date: December 20, 2007 Location: S.E. Minnesota Posts: 4,720	There is another wrinkle to this case; the campus cops (who are not sworn LEO's) came back at 02:00 and broke into the apartment (not necessarily illegal) and seized the weapon (that WAS illegal.) The student reported the theft to the real police. The school is backpedalling now. I predict the students will be reinstated (eventually) if they promise to secure the weapon offsite or move out of the university-owned housing, and agree not to press charges. __________________ "Everything they do is so dramatic and flamboyant. It just makes me want to set myself on fire!" —Lucille Bluth

November 11, 2013, 01:58 PM	#34
amd6547 Senior Member Join Date: May 27, 2006 Posts: 2,313	Imagine the lawsuit of the original aggressive felon returned after the campus cops seized the students weapon...and killed them. __________________ The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now.

November 10, 2013, 11:14 PM	#26
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	Landlords can discriminate it just can't be for certain things (for example they can prohibit smoking or age discriminate 55+ communities, even though age is technically a protected class.) However, I suspect that in this case standard real estate law will not be the deciding factor. I suspect the laws surrounding school property will be the deciding factor.

November 11, 2013, 06:03 AM	#27
rebs Senior Member Join Date: January 10, 2012 Posts: 3,881	Thank God we are not reading an article where two students were found dead, they had a need to protect themselves and did so. That should be the end of it. I am getting fed up with reading articles like this where someone defended themselves and then found themselves in trouble for doing so.

November 11, 2013, 01:16 PM	#30
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	Gonzaga is a private university. The application of their weapons policy to off-campus housing is grossly over broad and unfair. Nevertheless, they can set that policy and enforce it so long as it does not discriminate against protected classes; e.g., those based on race. Fortunately, the university seems to be re-thinking its policy.

November 11, 2013, 01:59 PM	#35
RX-79G Junior member Join Date: October 27, 2013 Posts: 1,139	Wouldn't that make it burglary when your car gets towed from a private lot? On topic: It's a stupid policy on the part of the school. However, had a student been accidentally shot with this gun at the apartment, then the school would be pointing to the reason for their policy. If that happened, we'd all have less commentary on the school policy and just be talking about the stupid kid who caused the accident. Meanwhile, all the non-gun people would be agreeing with the school. Despite all the statistical approximations, I don't think I could say which is more likely on a campus - successful self defense or an accidental shooting. We are talking about a group of people that fall drunk off rooftops with some frequency. I side with the students on this one. But this just serves as another reminder of why gun rights are so difficult to defend - both sides are trying to manage the "what ifs" in a culture that is armed but doesn't think of itself that way.

November 11, 2013, 02:25 PM	#36
vranasaurus Senior Member Join Date: November 16, 2008 Posts: 1,184	No, the elements of burglary, in Washington, require that the person enter a dwelling unlawfully with the intent to commit a crime. Towing a car without justification could be theft or some taken with intent to temporarily deprive but only if the towing was done without legal justification. If you are illegally parked in a private lot the owner can have your car towed as you are trespassing. In this case campus security entered the apartment with the intent to take the gun. I don't think they had the renter's permission to enter and the gun owner's permission to take the gun. Now whether they entered unlawfully will likely be determined by the terms of the lease. Landlords generally have provision allowing them to enter in order to make emergency repairs. Many times a lease requires a certain period of notice before they enter the premises for other purposes.

November 11, 2013, 02:51 PM	#37
tomrkba Senior Member Join Date: November 29, 2011 Posts: 751	The SCOTUS decision allowing a mere contract to override a right needs to go away.

November 11, 2013, 03:06 PM	#39
RX-79G Junior member Join Date: October 27, 2013 Posts: 1,139	What do you mean? I can agree to give up anything I want via contract, including my privacy, ability to travel, say whatever I want. No one forces me to do so and I get something in return. That's my choice to make, not SCOTUS. Tomrkba, If a landlord removes something that is contacturally forbidden, it isn't any different than towing a car, unless the landlord keeps it.

November 11, 2013, 03:59 PM	#40
BigD_in_FL Junior member Join Date: December 20, 2012 Location: The "Gunshine State" Posts: 1,981	Seems they have been put on indefinite suspension: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...intruder_.html If I was one of those students, AFTER I sued the hell out of them, I would be looking for another University to finish my studies

November 11, 2013, 11:11 PM	#41
KyJim Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: The Bluegrass Posts: 9,142	I went back to the original story to clarify a couple of points: 1. This was not "off-campus" housing as commonly understood. The story identified it as "a school owned apartment." 2. Campus police came back and opened the door with a master key. This is certainly not burglary because they entered without intent to commit a crime. It is likely not a criminal trespass as the lease surely allows entry. It is probably not be a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches since the lease would give the university permission to enter.

November 11, 2013, 11:51 PM	#42
SSA Senior Member Join Date: August 1, 2010 Posts: 641	The kids knowingly broke the rules. If somebody had simply seen them taking a cased firearm into the apartment, they could have been expelled. They snuck it in. The school decided to cut them a fair amount of slack and put them on probation. Now these two students are loving their new celebrity, simpering in front of every camera they see in an exceedingly unattractive manner, and talking about appealing the lenient decision.

November 12, 2013, 03:24 AM	#43
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	KyJim I think you are way off base. This was off-campus university owned housing, not on campus housing, and that makes a difference. Further, the guns were seized not by campus police, but by campus security--i.e., not cops. Second, while I certainly can make no representation as to what the laws are in all fifty states, the general rule is that the landlord after renting a unit does NOT have unfettered access. Although he is the nominal owner, the landlord has given up the right of entry and of possession during the term of the lease, with the exception of emergencies, illegal activities, and maintenance with reasonable notice given. The tenant has a reasonable expectation of privacy and a right to exclude intrusion by the landlord. [This rule is quite different in a dorm, but this was not a dorm.] There was no emergency and certainly no illegal activity--both students are over 21, and the handgun owner has a CCW. Nor was notice given--the security "officers" showed up in the middle of the night demanding entry, then entered, searched, and seized the weapons WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL AUTHORITY. A landlord cannot seize your personal property--even if the presence of that property is a breach of the lese. The remedy is by way of summary eviction (unlawful detainer). In short, the evidence establishes that the university security committed an unlawful seizure (conversion) of private property--and arguably a criminal theft of private property. At the current time, we do not know what the lease says. But the Volock (sp?) conspiracy quotes the university policy on firearms--and it is specific to the campus, and not facially applicable to off-campus housing. Then there is the whole public perception issue. This housing is apparently located in a bad neighborhood, and campus security does not provide security for these units. What the boys "did" was perfectly legal--so they are punished for engaging in constitutionally protected activity. Not only punished, but had their personal property illegally seized and converted. Hmmm. What do you think a jury would think about that? Oh by the way SSA--you refer to "kids." Maybe you are old enough to call anyone under thirty "kids," but in fact one of these guys was 21 and the other 23. Legally, they are full adults, no ifs ands or buts. Do you think that it is acceptable for the university to treat adults as children for their off-campus activities and exercise of constitutional rights?

November 12, 2013, 04:06 AM	#45
Cnon Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2005 Posts: 107	Here's an update on this case from another source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/g...n-gun-20846915 The sentence is probation. Cnon

November 13, 2013, 01:47 AM	#50
62coltnavy Senior Member Join Date: February 1, 2011 Posts: 356	NWPilgrim has told us that, according to his understanding, what the university did violated state law. I think he is probably right. It would certainly violate the law in California and Oregon, and I believe that it would violate the law in most if not all states. This is stuff they teach in first year law school property classes--the landlord may own, but has given up most of his rights along with possession of the property, and further owes the tenant a duty to protect his "quiet enjoyment." A landlord cannot simply come waltzing into the tenant's apartment at any hour of the day or night. Nor is the landlord a police entity--he does not have the right to seize ANY of the tenant's property. He cannot shut of the gas, electricity or water. he cannot seize the tenant's property as security for unpaid rent. His sole remedy is eviction. If there is contraband (and legally owned firearms are in no way shape or from "contraband") he can call the police. Campus police vary tremendously, and no assumptions should be made. My campus had private security, but my sons had off-duty police officers. One other thing. It also seems that Gonzaga did not even own the apartment--it leased it from the owners so that it would be available to students, and then (apparently) sublet the premises.