Florida Appeals Court Rules Against Middle School Student Accused of Posting Threatening Content Online
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a Miami-Dade Circuit Court order finding a Miami Lakes Middle School student guilty of disrupting school activities. The student purportedly posted troubling remarks on a YouTube video depicting the aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
October 17, 2019 at 03:00 PM
4 minute read
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday that a Miami middle school student's threatening online comments — left in the wake of the 2018 Parkland school shooting– constituted a violation of state law.
The appellate court's opinion affirmed lower court orders denying a Miami Lakes Middle School student's motions to dismiss the case against him in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The juvenile, referred to as O.P-G. in the Third DCA's ruling, had been found guilty of violating section 877.13 of the Florida Statutes. The law assigns a second-degree misdemeanor to anyone found to have knowingly disrupted educational institutions or school functions.
O.P-G was prosecuted for allegedly posting violent remarks on a YouTube video depicting the aftermath of the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. According to the Third DCA, the student posted under the pseudonym 'Ninja Roos' and left a comment that purported to threaten gun violence against his own school just two days after the Parkland attack.
As detailed in the opinion, the comment said "I[']m going to shoot my school in [F]lorida[.] [I']m only 13[.] I got bull[ied] and [I']m getting my revenge with my guns[.] [T]he school is [M]iami [L]akes [M]iddle [S]chool."
Law enforcement discovered the comment and subsequently determined the student's identity. After being alerted to the possible threat, Miami Lakes Middle School administration directed students to enter the building through a single entry point as well as submit their backpacks to pat downs.
Read the opinion:
The Third DCA noted "classes did not commence in a timely manner" as a side effect of the additional security measures.
After being removed from class and brought before school officials, O.P-G purportedly drew the connection between "postings [he] placed on the internet" and the presence of law enforcement at his school. The appellate panel said the student confessed to writing the online post and was charged with disrupting school functions.
The student filed a motion for dismissal during the trial proceedings and was summarily denied. Although the lower court opted to withhold adjudication, O.P-G. was found guilty and subjected to a period of supervision.
The motion for involuntary dismissal filed by O.P-G. after the trial was premised on alleged discovery violations committed by the prosecution.
"Subsequent to trial, O.P-G. submitted a public records request to the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department which yielded a five-page supplement to a truncated offense incident report previously disclosed to the defense in discovery," the opinion said. "Although the report did not reflect O.P-G.'s statement to the assistant principal, it contained other inculpatory evidence, including additional online threats purportedly penned by O.P-G. On the basis of the incomplete report, O.P-G. again sought involuntary dismissal."
O.P-G appealed to the Third DCA after his second motion to dismiss was denied. His appeal argued discovery violations had occurred and his prosecution under Florida Statute Section 877.13 was overbroad, contending the law "solely proscribes on-campus actions," according to the appellate court.
The Third DCA concluded there was no error in the case's discovery proceedings and rejected O.P-G's interpretation of the school disruption statute.
"Although 'section 877.13(1) is limited to the disruption of activities 'on school board property,' it does not, by its express terms, insulate conduct that occurs off-campus," the opinion said, adding the law "penalizes behavior, regardless of where initiated," that impedes school function.
The appeals court deployed graphic imagery while rebuffing O.P-G's interpretation of state law.
"For example, an individual could launch an incendiary device from his window into an adjacent school yard, during school hours while students were outside in physical education class," the opinion said. "Despite ensuing panic, untold injuries, and an emergency services response, because the perpetrator did not throw the missile while standing on school grounds, he could not be deemed to have disrupted a school function. … Accordingly, we decline to undermine the legislative intent by importing an unpenned element into the statute."
O.P-G received representation from the Public Defender for Miami-Dade County. Richard M. De Maria, an executive administrator with the public defender's office, said it had no comment on the appellate court's ruling.
Assistant Attorney General David Llanes did not respond to press inquiries by deadline.
Related stories:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Courts of Appeal Conflicted Over Rule 1.442(c)(3) When Claims for Damages Involve a Husband and Wife
Trending Stories
- 1Best Practices for Corporate Compliance Programs in an Era of Enhanced DOJ Scrutiny and Uncertainty
- 2Lawsuit Asks California Supreme Court to Expand Use of Electronic Case Recording
- 3Law Firms Are In a Strong Spot, But Their Continued 'Growth Mindset' Comes With Challenges
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250