View Single Post
  #15  
Old 12-21-2017, 01:37 PM
Kevin Kevin is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Posts: 18,211
Checking the citing references on my Westlaw account, aspects of the statute have been overturned. Not this provision yet. On the organizational hazing aspect, there are zero citing references.

As to the other parts which have been preempted as unconstitutional:

Quote:
Section of education code providing that person commits personal hazing offense by recklessly permitting hazing to occur was unconstitutional as applied to high school wrestling coach;  wrestling coach, student wrestlers, parents, and members of Booster Club attended a party on a Saturday at a private residence, party was not sponsored by high school, attendance by student wrestlers was not mandatory, and many of the students' parents attended, and thus, even if coach was “educator” under circumstances, he assumed neither actual care nor custody of students because party was not mandatory, and students' parents were not excluded from attending.  State v. Zascavage (App. 2 Dist. 2007) 216 S.W.3d 495, petition for discretionary review refused.  

and

Section of education code providing that person commits personal hazing offense by recklessly permitting hazing to occur was facially unconstitutional;  section failed to identify any person or class of persons upon whom a duty to act, whether statutory or otherwise, was imposed, and statute simply imposed a duty on every living person in the universe to prevent hazing.  State v. Zascavage (App. 2 Dist. 2007) 216 S.W.3d 495, petition for discretionary review refused.  

and

Statute that criminalizes the failure to report knowledge of a hazing incident involving a student in an educational institution did not violate the privilege against self-incrimination in light of the defendants' statutory immunity from civil or criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of the report.  State v. Boyd (Cr.App. 2001) 38 S.W.3d 155.

and

Statute requiring reporting of hazing incidents at educational institutions was unconstitutional as applied to two defendants who had also been indicted as perpetrators of hazing incident on university campus that they were charged with failing to report, as such reporting would create real and appreciable risk of self-incrimination in violation of defendants' Fifth Amendment rights.  State v. Boyd (App. 14 Dist. 1999) 2 S.W.3d 752, petition for discretionary review granted, reversed 38 S.W.3d 155.  

and

Statute providing for grants of immunity from prosecution to persons reporting hazing incidents at educational institutions and testifying for prosecution with respect thereto did not permit construction of statute requiring reporting of hazing incidents in manner not repugnant to Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination, as immunity statute vested considerable discretion in trial court to determine whether immunity would be granted in particular case.  State v. Boyd (App. 14 Dist. 1999) 2 S.W.3d 752, petition for discretionary review granted, reversed 38 S.W.3d 155.  
The operational language is this:

Quote:
(a) An organization commits an offense if the organization condones or encourages hazing or if an officer or any combination of members, pledges, or alumni of the organization commits or assists in the commission of hazing.
While I'm buying that by being a "member" of Pi Kappa Alpha, one can be a member. I don't think membership confers agency unless, for example, the Chapter Adviser, an appointee of the general HQ is in on the hazing.

It's an interesting question. I hope Pike doesn't plead out.
__________________
SN -SINCE 1869-
"EXCELLING WITH HONOR"
S N E T T
Mu Tau 5, Central Oklahoma
Reply With Quote