Florida Appeals Court Says Middle School Student's Threatening Online Comments Against State Law
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a court order finding the student guilty of disrupting school activities. The student purportedly posted troubling remarks on a YouTube video depicting the aftermath of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
October 18, 2019 at 12:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Daily Business Review
Florida's Third District Court of Appeal ruled Wednesday that a Miami middle school student's threatening online comments —left in the wake of the 2018 Parkland school shooting—constituted a violation of state law.
The appellate court's opinion affirmed lower court orders denying a Miami Lakes Middle School student's motions to dismiss the case against him in Miami-Dade Circuit Court. The juvenile, referred to as O.P-G. in the Third DCA's ruling, had been found guilty of violating section 877.13 of the Florida Statutes. The law assigns a second-degree misdemeanor to anyone found to have knowingly disrupted educational institutions or school functions.
O.P-G was prosecuted for allegedly posting violent remarks on a YouTube video depicting the aftermath of the February 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. According to the Third DCA, the student posted under the pseudonym 'Ninja Roos' and left a comment that purported to threaten gun violence against his own school just two days after the Parkland attack.
As detailed in the opinion, the comment said "I[']m going to shoot my school in [F]lorida[.] [I']m only 13[.] I got bull[ied] and [I']m getting my revenge with my guns[.] [T]he school is [M]iami [L]akes [M]iddle [S]chool."
Law enforcement discovered the comment and subsequently determined the student's identity. After being alerted to the possible threat, Miami Lakes Middle School administration directed students to enter the building through a single entry point as well as submit their backpacks to pat downs.
Read the opinion:
The Third DCA noted "classes did not commence in a timely manner" as a side effect of the additional security measures.
After being removed from class and brought before school officials, O.P-G purportedly drew the connection between "postings [he] placed on the internet" and the presence of law enforcement at his school. The appellate panel said the student confessed to writing the online post and was charged with disrupting school functions.
The student filed a motion for dismissal during the trial proceedings and was summarily denied. Although the lower court opted to withhold adjudication, O.P-G. was found guilty and subjected to a period of supervision.
The motion for involuntary dismissal filed by O.P-G. after the trial was premised on alleged discovery violations committed by the prosecution.
"Subsequent to trial, O.P-G. submitted a public records request to the Miami-Dade Schools Police Department which yielded a five-page supplement to a truncated offense incident report previously disclosed to the defense in discovery," the opinion said. "Although the report did not reflect O.P-G.'s statement to the assistant principal, it contained other inculpatory evidence, including additional online threats purportedly penned by O.P-G. On the basis of the incomplete report, O.P-G. again sought involuntary dismissal."
O.P-G appealed to the Third DCA after his second motion to dismiss was denied. His appeal argued discovery violations had occurred and his prosecution under Florida Statute Section 877.13 was overbroad, contending the law "solely proscribes on-campus actions," according to the appellate court.
The Third DCA concluded there was no error in the case's discovery proceedings and rejected O.P-G's interpretation of the school disruption statute.
"Although 'section 877.13(1) is limited to the disruption of activities 'on school board property,' it does not, by its express terms, insulate conduct that occurs off-campus," the opinion said, adding the law "penalizes behavior, regardless of where initiated," that impedes school function.
The appeals court deployed graphic imagery while rebuffing O.P-G's interpretation of state law.
"For example, an individual could launch an incendiary device from his window into an adjacent school yard, during school hours while students were outside in physical education class," the opinion said. "Despite ensuing panic, untold injuries, and an emergency services response, because the perpetrator did not throw the missile while standing on school grounds, he could not be deemed to have disrupted a school function. … Accordingly, we decline to undermine the legislative intent by importing an unpenned element into the statute."
O.P-G received representation from the Public Defender for Miami-Dade County. Richard M. De Maria, an executive administrator with the public defender's office, said it had no comment on the appellate court's ruling.
Assistant Attorney General David Llanes did not respond to press inquiries by deadline.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrending Stories
- 1DC Bar’s Proposed Anti-Discrimination, Harassment Conduct Rule Sees More Pushback
- 2California's Chief Justice Starts Third Year With Questions About Fires, Trump and AI
- 3Justin Baldoni Sues Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for $400M in New Step in 'It Ends With Us' Fight
- 4Top Leadership Changes Coming for NJ Attorney General's Office
- 5SCOTUSBlog Co-Founder Tom Goldstein Misused Law Firm Funds, According to Federal Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250