Mrs. Superintendent was shocked by an article that she read in the Nutmeg Bugle, which reported that two students from Nutmeg High School had driven to a neighboring community and beat up a student from that town, supposedly in a dispute over a girlfriend. To make matters worse, one of them used a tire iron to inflict serious injuries on the victim. She called Mr. Principal to discuss the matter and got an earful about how these students should not be allowed to return to Nutmeg High School.
Mrs. Superintendent told him that she would handle it, but before she could decide what to do, the telephone rang. Veteran Board member Bob Bombast was on the line, demanding to know what she was going to do with these "despicable creatures." Mrs. Superintendent told Bob to back off because she is investigating and that she would be back to him soon. Bob closed the conversation by telling the Superintendent that he expected prompt and decisive action.
Mrs. Superintendent worked with Chief O’Blue of the Nutmeg Police Department, and he was able to pull some strings to get the police report from the other town. Mrs. Superintendent reviewed the various witness statements. She read that the victim had identified his attackers, but that he didn’t really see who did what, given that he was defending himself. Mrs. Superintendent was not deterred, and she wrote the two families to notify them that she was recommending expulsion of these students.
Much to her surprise, Mrs. Superintendent promptly received letters from both parents withdrawing these students from school. Mrs. Superintendent was pleased to call Bob Bombast and let him know that the students were gone from Nutmeg. He thanked her for her decisive action to keep Nutmeg students safe.
Mrs. Superintendent was therefore surprised when Bob called her back a little while later. He reported that he saw both of the students outside the high school talking to friends after school. Mrs. Superintendent drove right over to the High School. Sure enough, there were the two students in a center of a group on the adjoining athletic fields, apparently holding court over their arrest and withdrawal from school.
Mrs. Superintendent strode right into the group and told the two students that they must leave school property immediately. The other students were horrified when one of them swore at Mrs. Superintendent, telling her to bug off because he was on public property. Before Mrs. Superintendent could call the police, however, the student just walked away slowly to his car, laughing with his friends.
As she drove back to her office, Mrs. Superintendent started to worry. Had she made a mistake by not going through with the expulsion?
* * *
Yes, but not because this former student had any right to be on school property. State law provides that, when students withdraw from school when expulsion proceedings are "pending . . . after notification of such hearing but before the hearing is completed," the board of education is required to complete the hearing and render a decision. Here, the Superintendent had notified the parents of the two students of the scheduled expulsion hearing, and the Board of Education should have completed the hearing and rendered a decision. However, that aside, Mrs. Superintendent had every right to tell the student to leave school property.
Property dedicated to use for school purposes is owned by the public, through its municipal government, and the board of education has jurisdiction over such property. Therefore, school officials have the right to tell specific people that they are not welcome on school property. Of course, it is important to have a good reason related to the person who is being asked to leave. As a matter of equal protection, parents, students and others have the right to the same privileges (here, access to school property) unless there is a valid reason for treating them differently. However, a disruptive parent or former student may be prohibited from entering school property. Here, once the Nutmeg Public Schools have notified the former student that he may not enter school property, he is subject to prosecution for trespassing if he does.
The Nutmeg Public Schools were fortunate here to avoid expulsion hearings. First, it may have been difficult to prevail at the expulsion hearing. Mrs. Superintendent was not certain who had the tire iron, and that could have been a problem. Whichever student used the tire iron to assault the victim was subject to mandatory expulsion, because he committed a crime using a dangerous instrument (any object which as used or threatened to be used could cause death or serious bodily injury). By contrast, it is not clear that the other student was subject to expulsion at all. When off-campus conduct does not trigger the mandatory expulsion provisions of the statute, school officials are authorized to expel students only if their conduct violates a school rule and seriously impedes the day-to-day operation of the school. However, Mrs. Superintendent may have prevailed in this expulsion hearing if she could show that the presence of such bad actors was disruptive of the educational process. Alternatively, Mrs. Superintendent may have been able to argue that the students acted in concert, thereby ascribing possession of the tire iron to both students and thus triggering the mandatory expulsion provisions.
In proving an expulsion case, superintendents often rely upon police reports, particularly when the conduct occurs off-campus. Here, Chief O’Blue facilitated the production of the record. Sadly, however, police officials are not always as cooperative as we may wish, sometimes claiming confidentiality obligations. Accordingly, it is important to note that Connecticut General Statutes, Section 10-233h permits the use of such reports in expulsion hearings and provides that police officials "may testify and provide reports and information on the arrest at such hearing."
Finally, Bob Bombast should be more sensitive to his role in expulsion proceedings. In such hearings, students are entitled to due process. A basic element of due process is a decision by an impartial decision-maker. Here, Bob was way out of line in his conversation with Mrs. Superintendent. While board members may hear of situations involving students that may result in expulsion, they should avoid any public comment as well as any private conversation about the matter. When a superintendent refrains from discussing such pending matters with board members, he or she is not being secretive. Rather, such restraint assists the board members in serving appropriately as judges and preserves the due process rights of the accused student.
Thomas B. Mooney is a partner in the firm's Labor and Employment Law Practice and heads the firm's School Law Practice.