Joppatowne High School shooting shows misplaced privacy protections

Listen to this article

A few weeks back, two Joppatowne High School students fought in the men’s lavatory adjacent to the principal’s office. The 16-year-old participant pulled a handgun from his backpack and shot the 15-year-old victim once in the chest killing him.  The shooter fled school and was quickly captured.  He has been charged with murder and was denied bail.

Jeffrey Gahler, the Harford County sheriff, announced at a press conference that the shooter was known to the Sheriff’s Department as he had a history of run ins with law enforcement. While the shooter was on law enforcement’s radar due to his history, his criminal record was not publicly available and the Harford County education officials were unaware of his interactions with the police or their nature.

What, if anything, these school officials could or would have done if they had known is an open question although they have the option to remove dangerous students and provide them teaching outside the classroom.

Regardless, the intention to protect the privacy of one juvenile at the risk of a school population is misplaced. The school should have known about the shooter’s earlier problems with the law; if they had maybe the 15-year-old student would be alive today.

There have been other reported instances of school attendance by students charged with violent crimes, unknown to the school officials. For example, there was a reputed MS-13 gang member charged with killing a young woman. His school knew nothing and he sat in class while the investigation proceeded. He pled guilty to the crime.

In an effort to protect the privacy of minors, Maryland law prohibits release by law enforcement of certain information pertaining to criminal activities engaged in by minors. Other information is allowed to be shared.

State Del. Mike Griffith says he intends to file a bill that would allow law enforcement to report to school systems certain felony offenses, investigations or charges, against minors. Griffith would add to the information that law enforcement can convey to school systems 4th degree sex offenses, child pornography, threats of mass violence, revenge pornography and stalking.

Currently, Maryland law allows law enforcement to report murder, arson, armed carjacking, some sex offenses, and some other serious offenses. The law as it exists today relating to disclosure is well briefed in a memo from the interim superintendent of schools to State Board of Education members, dated Jan. 23, 2024.

The goal of Griffith’s bill is to provide school officials with information that will enable them to decide if a student poses a risk to the general school population and if so, to remove the student from classes and educate them by an alternative method.

The bill has yet to be filed, or maybe even drafted, but in general terms we believe that school officials, acting perhaps with the advice of law enforcement, must be allowed to make informed decisions that are intended to protect all the students under their supervision. Times have changed since most of us went to school and students are too often confronted with gun violence and other threats. School officials need reliable information to confront these problems.

While we recognize the burden will fall on the local school system to determine what if anything must be done when a student is reported by law enforcement, we encourage the delegate to proceed and we will read and comment on Griffith’s bill when filed.

Editorial Advisory Board member Susan Francis did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

James K. Archibald

Gary E. Bair

Eric Easton

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Nilson

Catherine Curran O’Malley

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record. Through their ongoing exchange of views, members of the board attempt to develop consensus on issues of importance to the bench, bar and public. When their minds meet, unsigned opinions will result. When they differ, or if a conflict exists, majority views and the names of members who do not participate will appear. Members of the community are invited to contribute letters to the editor and/or columns about opinions expressed by the Editorial Advisory Board.