Hinds County Sch. Dist. Bd. of Tr. v. R.B., a Minor
| Docket Number: | 2006-CA-00326-COA Linked Case(s): 2006-CA-00326-COA ; 2006-CT-00326-SCT ; 2006-CT-00326-SCT ; 2006-CT-00326-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-18-2007 Opinion Author: KING, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Juvenile justice - Expulsion from school - Possession of weapon - Possession of marijuana - Due process Judge(s) Concurring: IRVING, CHANDLER BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Dissenting Author : ROBERTS, J., with separate written opinion Dissent Joined By : LEE AND MYERS, PJJ., GRIFFIS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - JUVENILE JUSTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-30-2006 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Patricia D. Wise Disposition: REVERSED DECISION OF HINDS COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD TO EXPEL MINOR AND ORDERED EXPUNGEMENT OF MINOR’S RECORD. Case Number: G2004-563-W/4 |
|
| Note: | This opinion was later reversed by the Supreme Court on 12/11/2008. See the SCT opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO52248.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | HINDS COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF
TRUSTEES |
IAN CHARLES JONES
RYAN ROBERTSON SADLER
JAMES A. KEITH
DAVID EARL ROZIER |
||
| Appellee: | R.B., A MINOR BY AND THROUGH HIS NEXT FRIEND, D.L.B. | LATRICE WESTBROOKS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Juvenile justice - Expulsion from school - Possession of weapon - Possession of marijuana - Due process |
| Summary of the Facts: | R.B. was expelled from regular school and then from alternative school. He appealed, and the court overturned both expulsions. The court ordered R.B.’s record expunged. The Hinds County School District Board of Trustees appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Possession of weapon The School Board argues that the decision to uphold the Appeals Committee’s recommendation to suspend R.B. for possession of a weapon was supported by substantial evidence. The weapon in question was a nail file device which was described by the school’s security officer as a “pocket knife.” R.B.’s father testified that the Appeals Committee did not conduct any real inquiry into the situation regarding the nail file device. The hearing officer in charge of the Appeals Committee testified that the nail file device, the alleged weapon, was not made available for the Appeals Committee to review. The Appeals Committee based its decision to expel R.B. and send him to an alternative school solely on the written report of the school’s security officer, which described the device as a “pocket knife.” The School Board considered no additional evidence in its evaluation of the matter but relied solely on the report from the Appeals Committee and a faxed photocopy of an item purporting to be the “knife” found on R.B. The findings of the Appeals Committee are themselves deficient, as the Appeals Committee chose to rely on the written report characterizing the device as a “pocket knife” without examining the device themselves. The superintendent’s decision to expel R.B. by relying solely upon the report from the Appeals Committee and a faxed photocopy of an item that did not match the description given by R.B.’s father was arbitrary and capricious. The facsimile copy attached to the School Board’s letter upholding the suspension is misleading, as only one prong of the device – the prong that most resembles a blade – is displayed. Had the School Board conducted even a cursory examination of the actual device, it would have realized that the Appeals Committee’s recommendation, which was based solely upon the written report of the school’s security officer, did not constitute substantial evidence upon which to discipline R.B. for possession of a weapon. Issue 2: Possession of marijuana The School Board argues that the evidence of the possession of marijuana was sufficient to support the School Board’s decision to expel R.B. for one year. A student facing disciplinary action is entitled to procedural due process because the potential loss of the ability to attend school and receive an education impacts a student’s property rights. Based on the circumstances of this case, R.B. was denied procedural due process at both the Appeals Committee level and at the School Board level. The Appeals Committee received evidence in the form of written statements from the other students involved in the incident who placed the blame on R.B. Not only was R.B. not allowed to pose questions to these students, who were not present at the hearing, the Appeals Committee advised R.B.’s father that R.B. had no right to even know the names of those students who accused him. In addition, R.B. received absolutely no notice of the School Board hearing in which the School Board was to review the Appeals Committee’s recommendation of expulsion for one year and render a final decision on the disciplinary proceeding. Due process, as well as R.B.’s first experience with the School Board, required that R.B. be provided with, at a minimum, notice and an opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the chancellor did not err in reversing R.B.’s expulsion from the alternative school for possession of marijuana. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
