When should principals call the police?
A Clayton County principal who waited 11 days before reporting a child sex abuse allegation to the police did not violate the law, according to a judge.
On Jan. 9, a 14-year-old girl reported that teacher and basketball coach Antonio Mahone summoned her to his classroom to give her some candy. He then hugged her and squeezed her buttocks, she told police.
Kendrick Middle School Principal Steve Hughes launched an investigation that same day. He turned in a report to the district on Jan. 15 saying the system’s lawyer should be notified, but added he could not substantiate that the incident occurred.
Hughes called the police on Jan. 20, after he after learned another teacher saw the girl upset after her encounter with Mahone.
The principal’s attorney said his client did what he was supposed to do.
But police and the county solicitor say the principal should have contacted the police immediately and let detectives investigate the situation.
Georgia law says school officials must call police within 24 hours when there is “reasonable cause to believe” a child has been abused.
Principals across the state and country have dealt with similar situations. What should principals and teachers do when they hear about incidents like this? Did the Clayton principal act correctly?
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
72 comments Add your comment
Lee
March 28th, 2009
10:41 am
Reality, regarding your sister, was she arrested? Because you usually don’t get your face on the 6 and 11 o’clock news unless you are arrested and you usually don’t get arrested unless the police have EVIDENCE of the crime.
Inquiring minds want to know….
How quickly we forget
March 29th, 2009
12:53 am
How quickly we forget the younger brother of the former Clayton County Chairman of the Board of Education, who falsely accused a teacher of having sex with him. How she had to go through the agony of baring her breasts to the jury, to show the surgical scars that the accused did not describe. How, even after all common sense showed that he was lying, the school system still tried to destroy her career.
Where there any consequences for the student? None that I’m aware of.
How quickly we forget
March 29th, 2009
12:58 am
And what happened when a union representative tried to exercise his First Amendment right to peacefully protest the abuse by holding up a sign at a board meeting?
The police were called, and he was arrested. Not convicted, as all charges were dismissed. But it goes to show just how far school systems will go to not support their teachers, even when they are falsely accused and totally vindicated.
Ernest
March 29th, 2009
12:15 pm
Regarding the comments on teachers reporting incidents to DFACS. I spoke to a teacher and they indicated that if the suspect abuse at home, they contact the school counselor, who then may contact a school social worker. The social worker then makes the determination how to proceed. The point being, there is a ‘process’ that one follows before escalating.
Practical
March 29th, 2009
12:16 pm
How quickly we forget,
It is truly unfortunate that the teacher was subjected to that false claim. It is also equally unfortunate when teachers embellish or outright lie about situations that involve students. Both scenarios happen in schools. This is why I believe it is important for good principals to practice due diligence and investigate (using the school’s SRO) before proceeding to the next level. When students lie, at a minimum a suspension should occur. When a teacher lie/embellish she/he should also be punished.
Lee
March 29th, 2009
12:50 pm
You’re right Ernest, there should be a “process” that schools follow in the event an alleged crime is reported to them. …and that process should entail the principal notifying an assigned person (legal counsel perhaps?) who would then immediately contact the appropriate authorities.
You want to cut the principal and local administration out of the loop as soon as practical. Why? Because they may be called upon to testify for one of the involved parties and you do not want any perception of local administration hindering or covering up an investigation.
In this case, by waiting 11 days before calling the police, this principal has exposed the school system to a substantial risk of litigation.
Q: So Mr Principal, why did you wait ELEVEN days before you called the police?
A: Well, I, ugh, wanted to, you know, investigate the allegation.
Q: Are you trained to investigate alleged crimes?
A: Well, ugh, no.
Q: How well do you know the accused?
A: Well, ugh, he’s worked for me for a long time. We go play golf about 2-3 times per month, and our kids play on the same ball team.
With that, the school attorney just hangs his head….
Now, what do you think would happen in this scenario…
Q: Well Mr Principal, when this student came to you about the alleged sexual misconduct, what did you do?
A: I immediately called the system legal counsel per the established protocol, who then contacted the police.
Q: Did you investigate?
A: No sir. The school system has established that is the role of law enforcement, who have the requisite training to conduct such an investigation.
See how that plays out. As a taxpayer, which scenario would you want your school system to follow? After all, you’re going to have to pay for any screw-ups.
Practical
March 29th, 2009
4:30 pm
The SRO is the police in the school? Aren’t they trained to investigate a crime?
Ernest
March 29th, 2009
6:31 pm
Lee, we are on the same page. You make an excellent point about the principal perhaps ‘compromising’ them self by conducting a local investigation. We don’t know if there was an SRO at that school. I feel we have to give the principal the benefit of the doubt in using sound judgment.
What ‘troubles’ me is that according to the article, the principal forwarded a report to the central office the next day and suggested the system’s lawyer should be notified. At that point, should the principal still take it upon them self to contact the police? Why didn’t the central office take additional action? To me, that’s what makes this particular story and situation strange.
jim d
March 30th, 2009
7:02 am
Just for the record folks,
SRO’s are under the jurisdiction of the school system, and while trained in law enforcement they are not always trained to do in depth investigations. Keep in mind too that they are employed by the school system and may not always be impartial. All the more reason IMHO for SRO’s to be under the jurisdiction of the local sheriffs department and not be answering to people like Napoalvin.
Reality
March 30th, 2009
9:59 am
Lee,
Yes, my sister was brought in and “booked” but was quickly released. She had done nothing wrong and was proven innocent. However, the experience ruined her life and career.
An elementary student accused her of having/using drugs. This was totally fabricated. My sister was on prescription medication and the child saw her take her medicine between classes. The principal decided not to investigate and turned it over to the police. They promptly arrested her without even asking her questions. Once they saw the real evidence, they released her. However, by then it was too late.
She had to move from a school system in South GA to one in North GA. The small community already saw her on the news and rumors persisted. Her and her family suffered unfairly but what else could they do?
Practical
March 30th, 2009
11:28 am
Jim D,
Your records are WRONG!!!! True SROs are law enforcement officers placed in the schools. They do not work for the school system.
Campus security officers are possibly the ones that work for the school system.
jim d
March 30th, 2009
1:20 pm
Practical,
I don’t think so.
There are basically 3 types of SRO programs:
Sheriff’s Department Based
Municipal Police Based
School District Police
I’m fairly confident that at least in Gwinnett County they are of the latter type, answering to Chief Rikard who eventually reports to Napoalvin, and that they are all employed directly by the school system.
If you have data to the contrary, please share.
jim d
March 30th, 2009
1:28 pm
Practical,
BTW, you can find a previous AJC article colaborating my comments at.
http://www.gfaf.org/newsletters/winter_04_dodd.html
Ernest
March 30th, 2009
1:39 pm
You are correct JimD but just to ‘nitpick’, I believe they do have investigative experience/training. Many SROs in DeKalb were either MPs in the military or former municipal police officers.
@Reality, that is unfortunate what happened to your sister. A good example of what can happen when we take away discretion from a school official. I’m ‘guessing’ that happened because of previous cases in which the principal used discretion yet was burned.
jim d
March 30th, 2009
1:44 pm
Ernest,
True enough–HOWEVER, they may not speak about what they do! So what that amounts to is the school having the ability to filter and twist then say and do just about whatever they wish.
jim d
March 30th, 2009
1:49 pm
Ernest,
I’m not too sure what the problem would be with having the SRO program under the juristiction of an elected official such as The sheriff. seems to me this would eliminate any appearance of inpropriety. Not to mention being less expensive. Deputies pay and SRO salaries differ greatly.
Ernest
March 30th, 2009
3:04 pm
JimD,
I’m ‘guessing’ it may come down to who keeps the headcounts and associated expenses. As a taxpayer, it makes sense.
I’ve been pushing for a consolidation of the County Parks and Rec with the school system physical plant staff for a while. The rationale being that if Parks and Rec managed and maintained the gyms/fields/stadiums, they could then use those assets to generate revenue on behalf of the taxpayers. Egos may not let this happen, though. At the end of the day, taxpayers paid for the schools in the county.
Practical
March 30th, 2009
3:10 pm
Jim D,
Thank you for the article. I found it interesting.
Is this germane to Gwinnett County because of the size of its distict. Other school districts in the metro area do not have its own police department within the school system. Lets hear from you Paulding, Cherokee, Forsyth, Fulton, Dekalb, Clayton, Fayette, Rockdale, Coweta,and Atlanta Public School. Do you have a police department embedded in your school district?
jim d
March 30th, 2009
4:38 pm
WErnest,
I’m with ya man–let’s consolidate a few other things like janatorial services and building maint. while we are at it.
jim d
March 30th, 2009
4:41 pm
Practical,
NOPE!! It germane to Gwinnett County because Napoalvin has an authority complex larger than that of Adolph Hitler.
jim d
March 30th, 2009
4:50 pm
Ernest,
As a tax payer I disagree, it would make more sense to use existing law enforcement officers even if the schools were required to pay for the services. Like I said a deputies salary and an SRO’s are greatly divided, and it would not require adittional paper pushers or administrators, adittional vehicles (since the cops take them home) or the duplication of benefits.
Lakidaz Gundwigo
July 9th, 2012
8:19 am
What i don’t understood is actually how you’re not actually much more well-liked than you might be right now. You are very intelligent. You realize therefore significantly relating to this subject, produced me personally consider it from numerous varied angles. Its like men and women aren’t fascinated unless it’s one thing to accomplish with Lady gaga! Your own stuffs nice. Always maintain it up!