27 Feb 2002
Alert Action Leads To Arrest Of A 13-Year-Old Student
DALLAS—Superintendent Mike Moses on Wednesday commended the alert efforts of two Dallas school employees who helped identify the source of alleged bomb threats, leading to the arrest of a 13-year-old student who allegedly made calls to three, and possibly four schools.
The superintendent said the threats were received via phone at Spruce High School, Gilbert Cuellar, Sr. Elementary School, E.B. Comstock Middle School and possibly to Skyline High School.
An employee at Spruce High School and one at Comstock were instrumental in identifying the suspect, and notified the Spruce Cluster Youth Action officers and the Dallas Police officer assigned to the Spruce Youth Action office. Police arrested the student shortly thereafter and recovered the cell phone that allegedly was used to make the threatening calls.
"In light of the events of September 11 and the heightened state of alert we have been on since the terrorist attacks, we take this situation very seriously, " Moses said. "When we receive a bomb threat we promptly investigate the circumstances of the call, search our buildings, evacuate when appropriate, and set out to find those who are responsible.
"These DISD employees are to be commended for being so alert and having the sense of security for the students of Spruce High School and Comstock Middle School to get the phone number that led to this arrest" Moses said. "The message needs to be sent to those who might engage in such malicious activities—this behavior will not be tolerate."
The superintendent said Dallas police are reviewing what charges could be brought against the student.
"Prank bomb threats might seem funny to kids who want to cause a stir, but we take them very seriously because they are a threat to the safety of our students and teachers," Moses said. "This student is going to receive the fullest, fairest level of punishment possible if all the allegations are true."
Law enforcement officials would not identify the methods used by the employees citing security concerns that might lead to the capture and arrest of other offenders. The employees also could not be identified for purposes of protecting their identities as well.