School threats | One district's report first, investigate later policy

John says the same happened to him and he wants to raise awareness of the need for San Dieguito Union to not be so quick to accuse young children or teens of threatening violence without a thorough investigation.

"It feels like the longest part of my life, just dealing with everything. It's never far away from me, even here, thousands of miles from San Diego and one of my nicknames here at school is, 'Sandy'. Something like this follows you," said John.

John says it started in early January 2018. 

His friends and swim teammates had joked that his long and unkempt hair made him look like a school shooter. 

John played along. 

The "joke" carried over to a private group chat on Snapchat.

"Someone in the group made a comment. They said, 'Shut up, you look like a school shooter'. I responded, 'I'm going to shoot up a school tomorrow.' People responded, like, 'come to my classroom first, or, you know, find me second, whatever'. But it was understood to be a joke," said John.

Two weeks later John says someone grabbed his phone and posted a photo of a classroom to a different Snapchat group with the caption: "let's just remind people here I wanted to shoot up the school but I forgot my backpack :( [frown-face emoticon]." 

John says he had no idea someone had posted the message to Snapchat and wasn't told until several months later when he was fighting to overturn the district's decision to expel him and as he waded through the criminal justice system.

The following night after someone else posted the message to his Snapchat page, John woke up to a sight he had never witnessed before.

"I had just been studying for my finals that day," recalled John. "I go to bed really tired. I just had a workout. And the next thing I know there is four police officers in my bedroom shining flashlights in my eyes, without any explanation of what was going on and why.."

John says the officers placed him into the police vehicle and started asking questions without providing any other information.

"The officers didn't show me anything. They said, 'Did you make a post about like school shooting? Did you take this photo? They wouldn't specify what photo or what post it was. I was in shock. I said yes. I made a post without knowing which post they were referring to. And, you know, that was used later in the school hearings," said John from inside his small college dorm room.

The District Attorney later charged John with a felony for making a criminal threat.

Over the course of the following months, John and his parents fought San Dieguito Union High School's decision to expel him from school.

In June 2018, the San Diego County Board of Education overturned John's expulsion after board members found that San Dieguito Union School District "abused its discretion."

"There was a prejudicial abuse of discretion in the hearing because the decision to expel is not supported by the findings prescribed by Education Code section 48915, and the findings of a terrorist threat are not supported by the evidence," reads a June 4, 2018, Board of Education letter. 

And despite the board's decision, John says school administrators at Torrey Pines and district staff did everything in their power to prevent John from returning to high school.

Despite the attempt, John's attorneys forced the school to re-enroll John.

Now, nearly five years later to the day of his arrest, John says he is disappointed to hear that the district is once again targeting a young student over what he believes is a similar non-threat posted to social media. 

"To the district, I say you need to be held responsible for what you've done to all these kids, you also need to find a better way to deal with this, because this is the fifth instance that I have heard about," says John. "And I think, the district needs to step it up. If you're going to be in the position of power that you're in, you need to understand that kids are your focus. And yes, the safety of the kids is important, but it's also the safety of the kids that are accused is equally important."

CBS 8 reached out to San Dieguito Union High School and asked to sit down with administrators to learn more about the district's policy in responding to perceived threats.

The district, however, sent the same comment it did for CBS 8's previous story on the 12-year-old who is facing a felony terrorism charge, which reads in part, 

"The privacy of our students and their families is an inherent right for all members of the San Dieguito Union High School District community as afforded to them by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. As thus, the district does not and cannot comment on individual student academic or disciplinary records.

The San Dieguito Union High School District takes student safety very seriously. Every student, teacher and staff member has a right to feel safe when they come to school or their place of work."

However, according to public records obtained by CBS 8, San Dieguito Union appears to take a report-first and assess-later approach.

Records show that the district has suspended 5 students since 2018 for violating Education Code 48900.7, making terrorist threats against school officials or property. Three of the five occurred during the 2021-2022 school year. 

During the same time frame, the district has recommended that three of the five students be expelled. 

And while five students were disciplined internally, the district and school administrators under its guidance reported a total of 11 terrorist threats to police, an indication that school administrators are encouraged to report any and all threats to law enforcement without a thorough assessment.

In fact, according to the documentation provided through CBS 8's request for public records, the district and school's refusal to speak to John and the 12-year-old boy that is now facing criminal charges appears to violate the district's own written threat protocol policy.

That policy states that upon learning of a threat, the first step requires the principal or vice principal to "evaluate the incident" by answering a series of questions including whether there was intent to harm something or someone.

If the answer is no, according to the district policy, then the administrator should "stop" and file the assessment in the office and make a note that they spoke to the student.

If the answer to the question is 'yes,' then administrators must look at the threat and determine whether it is transient or not, whether the meaning was a joke, or was the threat made out of frustration or anger. If it was, the administrator should "resolve the case as transient." Administrators can then decide whether to discipline the student or contact their parent or guardian.

If the threat is considered 'transient' in nature then school staff can ask a counselor or psychologist to assess it and then move to step 4 which is to contact law enforcement. 

Both John and the mother of the 12-year-old boy now facing a felony say the school and the district failed to follow their own guidelines.

"I think the first thing that should have been done was a call to the parents," said John. "I think that's one of the easiest things because the parent can talk to their kid and, you know, at least ask them and then have a follow-up meeting with the kids. It seems as if it's just the kids saying something stupid. And that's how kids are these days. It really just takes the administrator to ask what they actually meant."

Deputy District Attorney Andrija Lopez works in the juvenile division.

Lopez says that while she can't speak on specific juvenile cases, there are basic tenets that the DA's Office takes when dealing with alleged threats of school violence.

"The goal is rehabilitation," Lopez tells CBS 8. "It's really to redirect and support not only the juvenile, but their families to get them on the right path, so they can have a successful future. We're not interested in derailing anybody we recognize people make mistakes, and it's about supporting them through those moments."

Lopez says that while school districts have a protocol in place it is up to law enforcement to ensure the public is safe, making it critical to respond to threats of gun violence at schools. 

"When somebody has threatened to shoot up a school, bomb a school, shoot particular people or administrators or teachers or students at the school, it is imperative that law enforcement plays a role. And here's why I think people have a myth about or misconception about why that is, that does not mean a person's going to be arrested. It doesn't mean a person's going to be formally charged. What it means is the school has a very narrow focus on what they're doing, and more importantly, the information they have available to them."

Law enforcement on the other hand, says Lopez, has a much broader scope that they are allowed to pursue, including going to the juvenile's home, looking to see if they have a criminal record and if Child Welfare Services have been to their home.

Another important factor, says Lopez, is that even if the threat was meant as a joke, the harm to those threatened is real and should be treated as such. 

"So it's not just the actions of the individual making the threat, it's how it impacted the person that received the threat. And you're talking about individuals who aren't looking at these in isolation, we have a national narrative of massive school shootings, that impact the students tremendously. So when that's brought to them the threat becomes personal to them. They're bringing all that fear and all those issues that they've seen on social media and the news," added Lopez. 

In fact, says Lopez, in the case of school threats, even claims that the student does not have access to guns would not exclude them from charges being filed. 

Added Lopez, "Criminal threats do not require access to guns, it doesn't require an intent to actually carry out the threat nor the means to carry out the threat. It is simply was a threat communicated, did they intend to communicate? It was the person who received it and sustained fear. So it's really much different than how people might be interpreting it."

State lawmakers appear to be following suit.

Beginning in July 2023, a new bill will go into effect that requires, among other things, that school administrators notify police when they learn of any perceived threat from a student in 6th grade and higher.

Reads Senate Bill 906, "The bill would require a school official whose duties involve regular contact with pupils in any of grades 6 to 12, inclusive, as part of a middle school or high school, and who is alerted to or observes any threat or perceived threat to immediately report the threat or perceived threat to law enforcement, as provided."

Former Torrey High School student John, however, feels the District Attorney and school administrators should investigate whether there was actual intent before jumping to conclusions and prior to sending a child into the criminal justice system over an ill-advised post on social media.

"I think the district attorney's office needs to not be as punitive because they keep saying everything about rehabilitation and yet all they do is punitive action and this retaliatory action like what they did to me and what they're doing to this other kid is all in retaliation if there is no rehabilitation in sight, and that's all," John said.

John's former attorney, Curtis Davis, specializes in school-related disciplinary actions and juvenile law. Davis says that the way San Dieguito Union responds to perceived school threats has long-lasting impacts.  

"The District decided on their own that they were just going to play by their own rules, that the law wasn't important," says Davis. "It raises the question of what message does that send to young people when they see leaders deciding to just disregard. Youth who go through the legal process. You know, families have to spend money on lawyers. They have to go to court proceedings. They have to go to an expulsion hearing where they're essentially told and framed that they're a terrible person and then that they're a criminal."

It is a practice that Davis says he has numerous examples of. 

"I've represented several students in expulsion proceedings. I have done my best to collaborate with this district and others to find a more student-centered approach. I don't want to bring these cases against high-paid law firms that are driving up the costs for the school district. But if they continue with this exclusionary discipline, including law enforcement, a very punitive approach, and placing kids in juvenile court, I'll work tirelessly to fight that. My clients are the ones who suffer. This is not going anywhere anytime soon."

Meanwhile, John says he is working with young children in the community surrounding his university to educate them about what happened to him and the impacts of saying the wrong thing on social media can have on their life.

"I tell them to just be mindful of what they say. And I think those that are in power need to recognize that they need to care more because there is a serious lack of attention paid to some of these kids. I'm not saying that they shouldn't take these threats. But a huge part of the problem is that kids want to be heard sometimes and need to be heard and they just aren't."