Santa Maria teacher pleads no contest to sex with student

March 20, 2015
Brian Hook

Brian Hook

A former teacher and girls’ basketball coach at Santa Maria’s Pioneer Valley High School pleaded no contest on Thursday to three felony charges pertaining to a sexual relationship he had with a 16-year-old student. [KSBY]

Prosecutors accused Hook of engaging in a sexual relationship with the girl for four months. Hook pleaded no contest to charges of sex with a minor and sexual penetration with a person under the age of 18, as well as two counts of oral copulation with a person under 18.

Santa Maria police arrested Hook in Feb. 2014. At the time, his wife, with whom he has five children, was working as an administrative assistant at the same high school.

Authorities said the sexual relationship with the student took place on and off campus. Police said Hook’s position as the girls’ basketball coach did not have anything to do with the arrest.

Hook’s sentencing is scheduled for April 2.

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Correct. She is a minor, a child, incapable of consenting to the acts.

Only in America is a 16/17 year old a ‘child’. No, wait, only in America, and only when it pertains to willing and voluntary sexual activity, is a 16/17 year old a ‘child’.

Do we let children operate 2-ton automobiles? Do we support child labor? ‘Children’ cannot decide to engage in voluntary sexual conduct and when doing so are completely absolved of all complicity as ‘child’ victims but are always held responsible for all other conduct, frequently as ‘Adults’ at the age of 14 and younger.

In California a 16 year old can get married – with parental permission – and then consent to all the sex they want. Is sexual intercourse not a requirement to properly consummate a marriage?

A 17 year old can join the military – with parental permission – and go kill people overseas.

Disregarding the school situtation here for a moment – in half the states in this country a 16 year old CAN consent. What sense does that make? At the Mariott Lake Tahoe (CA) – lacking the emotional and intellectual capacity to consent, is a child victim. 1,000 feet due east, at Harrah’s Lake Tahoe (NV) – totally can consent, has that capacity. Here a felony, there perfectly legal. A 5 minute walk apart. Bizarre.

A 16/17 year old cannot consent. Says who? A bunch of legislators who are afraid that their precious princesses are growing up? I was that age once. I knew full well what I was doing. And that I could get into big trouble for all my other actions. To tell me otherwise is insulting.

A teacher / student relationship is not acceptable. Someone like that has no business being a in classroom. Fire his @ss and take away his credential. Fine. But this is not a ‘child’ involved here, and as a tax payer I object to vast amounts of resources being spent on this sort of thing. Don’t we have bigger problems?

Does he remain on paid administrative leave?

Rich, that just drives you nuts that people enslaved into the act of being a sex slave are not going to be humiliated further with public photos and prosecution when it is clear they are being trafficked?

Do you think that the girls taken by the Muslim extremists should be charged with a crime? Do you think a young runaway girl should spend jail time when they are turned out by a thug and criminal street gangs after being abused and forced into selling themselves via craigslist? They have no choice in the matter, and are in fact victims of a crime. The people forcing them to do the acts should be getting prosecuted.

Geez…keep his poor wife and kids out of it. Why is that info even relevant?

Also, can we stop using the term “sexual relationship” when talking about statutory rape?

You can call it whatever makes you feel high and mighty but there is no such thing as ‘statutory rape’ in the California Penal Code.

It sure sounds like this was an inappropriate relationship with a person old enough to drive, work and be charged as an adult for any number of things.

Try section 261.5 of the penal code. Whether they still refer to it as statutory rape doesn’t matter. Sex with a minor is unlawful. A teacher taking advantage of a student, in addition to be unlawful, is a financial liability to the school district.

Words have a meaning and that meaning is extremely important. Especially when talking about the law, as words is all there is.

Having said this, I must rephrase my statement. I should have said “inappropriate and illegal relationship”. Of course it is not appropriate for a teacher to have a sexual relationship with a student, regardless of the circumstances. And of course it is against the law to engage in such conduct, as codified in PC 261.5 (Unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor). Here I stand corrected.

But it is NOT rape, of any sort or with any qualifier, quite to opposite is true. California has a rape statute – PC 261, which is intercourse against a person’s will by use of force or threat or with a person who is physically unable to consent due to unconsciousness or such. In 1970 (45 years ago – was that the Nixon administration?? I was not even close to born yet) the legislature specifically and purposely separated PC 261.5 (Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor) from the general rape statute. For the very reason that it is NOT rape and should not be lumped into anyting ‘rape’ related. Therefore, the continued use of such verbiage is inflammatory and judgmental.

It should also be noted that PC 261.5 (as well as PC 288a(b)(1) – Oral Copulation with a minor and PC 289(h) – Sexual Penetration with a minor) all read “ANY person who participates… with a minor”). Note that the person does not have be a teacher, not even an adult. Meaning that even two 17 year old kids (i.e. in High School) engaging in such conduct have committed the exact same crime as this teacher. Legally speaking, of course, but the law is the law. And it is a crime even if one does not get caught, is it not? Anyone here guilty?

And the reason that something like this has evolved into a possible financial liability for a school district in the multi-million dollar range is the public’s hysterical reaction about these incidents, fueled by incorrectly used language. Moral Outrage is not free. Nor cheap.

If only we would give the teachers a pay increase he could have afforded a hooker that now won’t be charged with a crime in SLO….oh the grand Irony!

are you referring to the basketball Hook Shot?

Would you make that crack if she was your child?

He’s creepy. At least he could boink a young woman in her 20s, not a child.