Teacher arrested for gun in car at school

[srothstein]

Trying to determine if this is true, but on the blog from that post, somebody posted 9 hours ago they read the charging document:

"...the Defendant, heretofore on or about February 1, 2013, did then and there unlawfully intentionally and knowingly, and not pursuant to written regulations and written authorization of the instituion to wit: FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL, go and possess in a building where activity sponsored by said (allege one-school or institution) was bing conducted, with a firearm, namely a nine mm Taurus."

The bold red part is the important part of the document for our discussion. The news reports do not mention her taking the gun into a building but the filing document does. What will be interesting now is if the grand jury indicts her. They will need to see the evidence of the weapon being inside a building to meet the elements of the offense.

[texanjoker]

Trying to determine if this is true, but on the blog from that post, somebody posted 9 hours ago they read the charging document:

"...the Defendant, heretofore on or about February 1, 2013, did then and there unlawfully intentionally and knowingly, and not pursuant to written regulations and written authorization of the instituion to wit: FONDREN MIDDLE SCHOOL, go and possess in a building where activity sponsored by said (allege one-school or institution) was bing conducted, with a firearm, namely a nine mm Taurus."

The bold red part is the important part of the document for our discussion. The news reports do not mention her taking the gun into a building but the filing document does. What will be interesting now is if the grand jury indicts her. They will need to see the evidence of the weapon being inside a building to meet the elements of the offense.

Agreed, no proof that is real, but it does look like part of an affidavit. I imagine somebody will post the affidavit soon enough.

[jsenner]

Since this is in the Houston area, perhaps there is an attorney who reads these threads who might be willing to participate in the defense so that no hostile precedents are set.

The Michael Berry show was brodcasting this entire thing this morning. He was asking the entire listening area for assistance for the lady.

This is really the key. A few years ago the local da tried to charge my wife with writing a bad check. She wrote the check and it was good, they waited 6 months to try and cash it. We changed banks in that time and the check came back. The da threatened and intimidated, I basically said fine, let's go talk to the judge. He backed down and we walked out scott clean. These people will intimidate her into a plea to avoid admitting they are wrong.

I'm in Austin so I don't hear any details, anyone in Houston know if there's a contact where we can support her? I'd like to get the details and see if I can help. If just $$ for legal defense and encouragement. This feels like a precedent setting event. We need this to go our way.

[texanjoker]

I am reading the case file via the court website and it appears to have been dismissed. $5000 initial bail aka paying a bail bondsman 10% is still a loss of $500 for this. The affidavit also was as I described above, stating in a building. I wonder why the media didn't share that? Seems strange.

HCDistrictclerk.com The State of Texas vs. KEMP, CHARETTA TRISHAYE (SPN: 02662005) 2/5/2013
Cause: 137604401010 CDI: 3 Court: 179
APPEALS
No Appeals found.
PAYMENT PLAN
No Payment Plan found.
RELATED CASES
No related cases found.
DOCUMENTS
Proper credentials required. Please login or contact Harris County District Clerk's Office at (713) 755-7300.
HOLDS
No Holds found.
SUMMARY
CASE DETAILS
File Date 2/2/2013
Case (Cause) Status Dismissed
Offense CARRY PROH WPN PROHBITED PLACE
Last Instrument Filed Complaint
Case Disposition DISM-020513
Case Completion Date 2/5/2013
Defendant Status DISPOSED
Bond Amount $5,000.00
Next/Last Setting Date 2/5/2013
DEFENDANT DETAILS
Race/Sex B / F
Eyes BRO
Skin MBR
DOB 5/16/1984
US Citizen YES
Height/Weight 5'04 / 220 LBS
Hair BLK
Build HEV
In Custody N
Place Of Birth TX
Address 7411 HAWES STREET HUNGER FOR TX77448
Markings
COURT DETAILS
Court 179th
Address 1201 Franklin (Floor: 18)
Houston, TX 77002
Phone:7137556341
JudgeName Kristin M. Guiney
Court Type Criminal
BONDS
Date Type Description SNU
02/02/2013 BOND SET $5000 999
02/03/2013 BOND FILED CRT 179 TIME 1802 TYPE SURETY
02/03/2013 BOND MADE AMT $5000 DATE 02/02/13 RCPT #
02/03/2013 BONDSMAN SCHMIDT, DAVID
ACTIVITIES
Date Type Description SNU/CFI
02/02/2013 COMPLAINT FILED 0140 179 CARRY PROH WPN PROHBITE LEVEL F3
02/02/2013 BOND SET $5000 999
02/02/2013 REVIEWED BY WILHELM, MICHELLE STANSBURY
02/02/2013 ORI HOUSTON ISD OFFENSE NO: 013140713Q
02/02/2013 COMPLAINANT TRAN, TRIDUNG
02/03/2013 BOND FILED CRT 179 TIME 1802 TYPE SURETY
02/03/2013 BOND MADE AMT $5000 DATE 02/02/13 RCPT #
02/03/2013 BONDSMAN SCHMIDT, DAVID
02/05/2013 C87 ACTIVITY DISM OTHER STATUS D CFI 179 998
02/04/2013 C87 ACTIVITY WARN GIVEN STATUS CFI 179 999
BOOKINGS
Arrest Date Arrest Location Booking Date
2/1/2013 12:45:00 PM HCTY 2/2/2013 8:26:00 AM
HOLDS
No holds found.
CRIMINAL HISTORY
Case(Cause)Nbr / Status Defendant Filed / Booked Ct Defendant Status Disposition Bond Amt Type of Action / Offense Next Setting
137604401010-3 Dismissed(D) KEMP, CHARETTA TRISHAYE 2/2/2013 | 2/2/2013 179 Disposed(D) Dismissed(DISM) 2/5/2013 $5,000.00 CARRY PROH WPN PROHBITED PLACE (F) 2/5/2013
ACTIVE PARTIES
Name Connection Post Jdgm SPN #
GUINEY, KRISTIN MELISSA JUDGE - CRIMINAL 01897721
SCHMIDT, DAVID BAIL BONDSMAN 74357200
KEMP, CHARETTA TRISHAYE DEFENDANT - CRIMINAL 02662005
INACTIVE PARTIES
No inactive parties found.
SETTINGS
Date Court Post Jdgm Docket Type Reason Results Defendant Future Date Comments Attorney Appearance Indicator
2/04/2013 09:00 AM 179 Assigned Court Preliminary Assigned Court Appearance Reset By Operation Of Law Present 2/19/2013 12:00:00 AM Absent
2/05/2013 09:00 AM 179 Master Docket Arraignment Data Unavailable 1/1/0001 12:00:00 AM Absent
ALIASES
Defendant Alias True Name Race Sex DOB SPN#
KEMP, CHARETTA TRISHAYE Yes B F 5/16/1984 02662005

[Keith B]

I am reading the case file via the court website and it appears to have been dismissed. $5000 initial bail aka paying a bail bondsman 10% is still a loss of $500 for this. The affidavit also was as I described above, stating in a building. I wonder why the media didn't share that? Seems strange.

My guess is the complainant stated she had carried it in a building, and when they arrested her they found the gun in the car so chose to let the DA decide on pursuing the charge. The case was probably dismissed by the DA due to no credible evidence the gun had actually been in the building.

If this is actually the case and it was me, I would be going back with a civil lawsuit against the agency and anyone else who was party to the false arrest. At least to the point I got my bond costs, legal fees and some restitution for the hassle.

[gdanaher]

Now the next question: Does the Houston ISD have a written policy that precludes employees from possessing a weapon on school property? You can bet it covers students with all manner of weapons, but does it specify that possession by an employee is a basis for termination?

[bayouhazard]

$500 is a lot of money for someone making $20,000 a year and commuting 45 miles each way to work.

I hope she finds a better paying job closer to home. And without a gun ban.

[gdanaher]

After all of the comments, things can get confusing here. So, a person has a chl and is employed by an isd with no written policy regarding employees possessing firearms. The gun is locked in their car during the normal work day. Are they violating any laws here? Same scenario for an employee without a chl but gun is locked away in car under mpa?

[RottenApple]

After all of the comments, things can get confusing here. So, a person has a chl and is employed by an isd with no written policy regarding employees possessing firearms. The gun is locked in their car during the normal work day. Are they violating any laws here? Same scenario for an employee without a chl but gun is locked away in car under mpa?

As I understand it....

Employee with CHL & no written policy (or oral notice) = no crime but can be fired (parking lot law doesn't cover schools).
Employee w/o CHL & no written policy (or oral notice) = violation of GFSZ act (MPA doesn't exempt from GFSZ).

Non-employee w/ CHL = no problem on school property (except in building & school-sponsored events)
Non-employee w/o CHL = violation of GFSZ act (MPA doesn't exempt from GFSZ).

[ScottDLS]

After all of the comments, things can get confusing here. So, a person has a chl and is employed by an isd with no written policy regarding employees possessing firearms. The gun is locked in their car during the normal work day. Are they violating any laws here?

No they are not. Even if the ISD has a written policy against it, they are not violating the law, though they could be fired.

Same scenario for an employee without a chl but gun is locked away in car under mpa?

They are not violating any state criminal laws. They are likely violating the Federal Gun Free Safe School Zone Act as it is currently interpreted.

[RPB]

$500 is a lot of money for someone making $20,000 a year and commuting 45 miles each way to work.

I hope she finds a better paying job closer to home. And without a gun ban.

I still hope she gets a nice settlement for her trouble too.

I am reading the case file via the court website and it appears to have been dismissed. $5000 initial bail aka paying a bail bondsman 10% is still a loss of $500 for this. The affidavit also was as I described above, stating in a building. I wonder why the media didn't share that? Seems strange.

My guess is the complainant stated she had carried it in a building, and when they arrested her they found the gun in the car so chose to let the DA decide on pursuing the charge. The case was probably dismissed by the DA due to no credible evidence the gun had actually been in the building.

If this is actually the case and it was me, I would be going back with a civil lawsuit against the agency and anyone else who was party to the false arrest. At least to the point I got my bond costs, legal fees and some restitution for the hassle.

I wonder though, on the Federal Civil Rights suit for false arrest ... if the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act could be Limine'd out since no Federal charges were pressed, or if she might be incriminating herself in testifying in the civil suit such that charges could then be filed on the Federal charges....in fact creating sworn testimony as evidence to use against herself... just brainstorming (In which case ... I'd hate to be the one preparing her for Depositions)

[KaiserB]

After all of the comments, things can get confusing here. So, a person has a chl and is employed by an isd with no written policy regarding employees possessing firearms. The gun is locked in their car during the normal work day. Are they violating any laws here?

No they are not. Even if the ISD has a written policy against it, they are not violating the law, though they could be fired.

Same scenario for an employee without a chl but gun is locked away in car under mpa?

They are not violating any state criminal laws. They are likely violating the Federal Gun Free Safe School Zone Act as it is currently interpreted.

What many are overlooking is the fact that Texas (the State) has a Weapon Free Zone law for schools

§ 46.11. PENALTY IF OFFENSE COMMITTED WITHIN WEAPON-FREE
SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the
punishment prescribed for an offense under this chapter is
increased to the punishment prescribed for the next highest
category of offense if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt on the
trial of the offense that the actor committed the offense in a place
that the actor knew was:
(1) within 300 feet of the premises of a school; or
(2) on premises where:
(A) an official school function is taking place;
or
(B) an event sponsored or sanctioned by the
University Interscholastic League is taking place.
(b) This section does not apply to an offense under Section
46.03(a)(1).
(c) In this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "premises"
have the meanings assigned by Section 481.134, Health and Safety
Code.
(2) "School" means a private or public elementary or
secondary school.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 320, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1063, § 10, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

[RottenApple]

What many are overlooking is the fact that Texas (the State) has a Weapon Free Zone law for schools

§ 46.11. PENALTY IF OFFENSE COMMITTED WITHIN WEAPON-FREE
SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the
punishment prescribed for an offense under this chapter is
increased to the punishment prescribed for the next highest
category of offense if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt on the
trial of the offense that the actor committed the offense in a place
that the actor knew was:
(1) within 300 feet of the premises of a school; or
(2) on premises where:
(A) an official school function is taking place;
or
(B) an event sponsored or sanctioned by the
University Interscholastic League is taking place.
(b) This section does not apply to an offense under Section
46.03(a)(1).
(c) In this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "premises"
have the meanings assigned by Section 481.134, Health and Safety
Code.
(2) "School" means a private or public elementary or
secondary school.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 320, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1063, § 10, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to only be a penalty enhancement for someone who commits a crime within 300ft of a school and not a charge in and of itself.

[texanjoker]

I am reading the case file via the court website and it appears to have been dismissed. $5000 initial bail aka paying a bail bondsman 10% is still a loss of $500 for this. The affidavit also was as I described above, stating in a building. I wonder why the media didn't share that? Seems strange.

My guess is the complainant stated she had carried it in a building, and when they arrested her they found the gun in the car so chose to let the DA decide on pursuing the charge. The case was probably dismissed by the DA due to no credible evidence the gun had actually been in the building.

If this is actually the case and it was me, I would be going back with a civil lawsuit against the agency and anyone else who was party to the false arrest. At least to the point I got my bond costs, legal fees and some restitution for the hassle.

Agreed that could be, the arrest affidavit states she carried in the building and doesn't mention the car. If the gun was found in the car and not on her person in the building, the affidavit should also reflect that fact and state how they determined it was in the building ie. she stated that, witness, caught with it, ect. (at least mine would - just a couple more sentences). I would like to read the arrest report. Kudos to Harris County for having open records that are easily available for anybody to read that knows where to look.

[Keith B]

What many are overlooking is the fact that Texas (the State) has a Weapon Free Zone law for schools

§ 46.11. PENALTY IF OFFENSE COMMITTED WITHIN WEAPON-FREE
SCHOOL ZONE. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), the
punishment prescribed for an offense under this chapter is
increased to the punishment prescribed for the next highest
category of offense if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt on the
trial of the offense that the actor committed the offense in a place
that the actor knew was:
(1) within 300 feet of the premises of a school; or
(2) on premises where:
(A) an official school function is taking place;
or
(B) an event sponsored or sanctioned by the
University Interscholastic League is taking place.
(b) This section does not apply to an offense under Section
46.03(a)(1).
(c) In this section:
(1) "Institution of higher education" and "premises"
have the meanings assigned by Section 481.134, Health and Safety
Code.
(2) "School" means a private or public elementary or
secondary school.

Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 320, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1063, § 10, eff. Sept. 1,
1997.

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to only be a penalty enhancement for someone who commits a crime within 300ft of a school and not a charge in and of itself.

This is not an offiense in itself AND does not apply to violation of 46.03(a)(1)