The Maryland State Board of Education recently voted in favor an emergency measure designed to mandate school administrators be informed when a student has been convicted or charged with serious crime. The emergency measure came in response to a 17-year-old Howard County student being found with a loaded ghost gun in his backpack after he was arrested on a warrant for murder. School administrators from Howard County were not informed that this student had been previously accused of attempted murder in another unrelated case and was attending classes while wearing a GPS ankle monitor issued by the Department of Juvenile Services. This student transferred from Anne Arundel County schools to Howard High, and during the transfer process neither principal nor the Howard County superintendent were informed of the student’s criminal background. The student reportedly would not have been allowed to attend classes in person had administration known about his past.
Previous regulations gave the original school system discretion about what information to share with the new school system, but now the sharing is mandatory for serious offenses including robbery, carjacking and sex crimes. It took an alarming incident for changes to be implemented, and the Howard High community is still reeling from the recent events that began with a shooting outside of a Columbia office building on October 5. The defendant was arrested at Howard High 10 days after the shooting and charged as an adult with first degree murder. He will also face charges for possessing an illegal regulated firearm on school property. Police say the firearm was a ghost gun with no serial number and a large capacity magazine. These firearms are illegal for anyone to possess, and Maryland law prohibits large capacity magazines and anyone under the 21 from possessing a firearm. The Maryland Public Safety Code also prohibits anyone under the age of 30 with a qualifying record of juvenile delinquency from possessing a firearm.
In addition to the Board of Education coming under fire, there has also been an outcry of criticism directed toward the Department of Juvenile Services and its leadership. Concerned citizens are questioning why the 17-year-old student was out of custody in the first place, much less attending classes at a public high school. DJS seemed to deflect responsibility about reporting requirements to the police and the State’s Attorney’s Offices, who are required to report certain information to schools. They also noted that juveniles are detained by DJS when charged with certain high-risk category 1 offenses, but it is then the judge’s call whether to release or hold at a detention hearing on the next business day. Ultimately it is up to lawmakers to develop policy where decisions are not left up to DJS officials who can find themselves choosing between unlawful disclosure of juvenile records and protecting the public.