.

Perry Hall High Student Charged With Assaulting Homeowner

A Perryvale Road resident said she was attacked while taking a picture of students loitering outside her home.

UPDATE (4:16 p.m.)—Frustrated by teenagers loitering and defacing her property before school, a woman followed the advice of and police officials and began taking photos of students outside her home.

But Lynn Levin, a homeowner near the corner of Perryvale and Ebenezer roads, said she never expected a student to respond with violence.

At around 7:30 a.m. on Monday, a female student noticed Levin was taking photos and attacked her, according to the homeowner.

"She came over and smacked me—pretty hard for a girl. I was shocked," Levin said. "I have every right to take a picture."

Police have identified the suspect as Fotina Anna Alatzas, 18, of the 7500 block of Days Woods Court in Kingsville. Alatzas was charged Monday afternoon with second-degree assault.

When contacted by Patch, a family member of Alatzas declined to comment on the incident and charge.

Are crowds of students in neighborhoods near Perry Hall High School, before and after the school day, a problem? Tell us in the comments.

and happened to be at the school at the time of the incident.

Marks and Shellenberger met with Levin following the incident to discuss ongoing issues with loitering, graffiti and property damage in neighborhoods near the school, the councilman said.

"It's a tough issue. I live right by the school and it's extremely frustrating," Marks said.

Marks formed the last year to address to town-gown issues.

A contributing factor to loitering is a strict drug-free schools policy, which prevents students from smoking on school property. Teenage smokers, instead, gather on a public sidewalk along Ebenezer Road and sometimes enter the yards of adjacent homeowners, according to Marks.

Levin said the crowds of students in neighborhoods near the school, between 7:10 a.m. and 7:40 a.m., appear to be growing. Since the beginning of the school year, a lock to her fence was broken and part of her vinyl fence is now covered in graffiti.

"I'm really tired of dealing with all of that," she said. "I saw them doing it and I couldn't stop them."

Levin said she hopes school and police officials will take a more proactive approach following the alleged assault.

Capt. Michael Balog of the said he is working with school and government officials to develop a plan for addressing neighborhood problems with students.

Assistant Principal Stephen Arnold said the school has made multiple announcements discouraging students from loitering in neighborhoods before and after school.

Arnold added that warmer weather contributes to problems with crowds of students.

Marks said only a small percentage of the total school population causes problems.

"Most students are respectful," he said.

What can school and police officials do about unruly crowds of students near schools? Tell us in the comments.

Editor's Note: A previous version of this article misspelled the suspect's first name. Patch regrets the error.

Brandon June 11, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Jeanne you are simply wrong. "The police have the right to take their pictures or videotape because they are the law" this is a scary statement. It almost sounds like something that would come out of Fidel Castro's mouth. We do not live in an authoritarian country...
Evets June 12, 2012 at 12:28 AM
Brandon, you have it mostly right. The government is restricted from "unreasonable searches and seizures," (i.e. pictures), but there is no such restriction on private citizens. I can legally stand at the intersection of Joppa and Belair Roads and spend all day videotaping and/or photographing vehicles as they travel on the road or stop at the red light. I can take their picture or videotape them when they park in the lot at the Double T Diner (so long as I stay on the sidewalk). I can sit on my porch in Perry Hall and record vehicles passing by to my heart's content. I can set up a camera, on my property that records the parked cars on my road. None of this is illegal or unconstitutional. There are of course some restrictions as to what can be done with the pictures (no efforts to slander, libel, or blackmail, of course) By the way, Jeanne, what would you have the police do if they were called in this case. The police could ask the picture taker to voluntarily surrender the camera. They cannot seize the camera (without a warrant or subpoena). They cannot arrest the picture taker, for she has broken no laws. My advice, offered free of charge, is that when you are in a public place (even your vehicle), assume that you are being recorded. Most of the time the recording will be by the local authorities, but not always. My standard has always been this: Don't do anything in public that you would be ashamed of if your mother saw it.
Evets June 12, 2012 at 12:35 AM
I also want to reiterate the point that there are some limits to photographing people in public places. Public restrooms, changing rooms at public pools, many government buildings and military installations, etc. Also, while it is not illegal to photograph young children in public places, it is best avoided unless you have the consent of the parents.
Jeanne June 12, 2012 at 01:47 PM
Not that it is anybodys business but I was stalked by an ex boyfriend for many years and I asked the police when he is crossing the line and I can call the police in. One of the ways was if he was taking pictures of me in my home, car, private gathering on private property, etc.... He did take pictures of me walking to my car and kept taking pictures while I was in my car. I called the police and they came out right away and took the film out of his camera and told him to leave the area. I don't know the exact law but I do know whatever it is in gave me peace of mind for a little bit. If anyone takes pictures of me now in simalar situations I am on the phone to the police right away. I am not a public figure who people what to know everything about I am a average citizen that is not important to the public.
Evets June 12, 2012 at 03:01 PM
This will be my last comment on this. Unless the police charged your ex-boyfriend with a crime, they had no legal basis for taking the film out of the camera. This film was his property. If he had committed a crime (not enough details to know that), then the film was evidence of the crime and therefore could be confiscated if he was charged or if charges were pending. Failure to charge meant that the property could not be confiscated and if it was it must be returned intact. If the police removed the film from the camera, thus destroying it, they destroyed any evidence of a possible crime. Most likely, the police intimidated the guy into agreeing to give up the film, a common practice of police officers (which I have no problem with). The guy was obviously a jerk and needed a good scare to get him to stop.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »