by Erin Wessendorf-Wortman | May 23, 2017 | General, Student Education and Discipline
In a unanimous opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that a school’s search of an unattended bag, and the two subsequent searches that initiated from the initial search, were constitutional. The court held that the searches served a compelling governmental interest in protecting the safety of the students. Two lower courts had ruled that the subsequent searches were unconstitutional and thus suppressed the evidence found in those searches – including ammunition and a gun.
Whetstone High School student James Polk left a book bag on his school bus. The bus driver found the book bag and gave it to the safety and security resource coordinator, Robert Lindsey, who checks the buses to ensure that no students are remaining on board. Lindsey was not a police officer. Based on the high school’s practice of searching unattended book bags to identify the owner and to ensure the contents are not dangerous, Lindsey opened the bag and saw some papers and notebooks, along with Polk’s name written on one of the papers (search 1). He had heard that Polk was possibly in a gang, so he took the bag immediately to the principal’s office, where together they conducted a complete search of the book bag (search 2).
In conducting search 2, the principal and Lindsey found bullets in the book bag and then contacted a police officer. When the police officer arrived, they found Polk and searched him and the book bag he was carrying (search 3). They found a handgun in the book bag during search 3.
On trial for conveyance or possession of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school-safety zone, Polk asked the court to suppress the evidence – both the bullets and the handgun – arguing that the searches were unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment, which protects from unreasonable searches and seizures. Both the trial court and the court of appeals granted his motion to suppress the evidence, holding that search 1 – Lindsey’s initial opening of the bag enough to see Polk’s name on a document – was the only legitimate search. The other two searches, the courts held, were unconstitutional.
In general, under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer must have probable cause and a search warrant to conduct a search. However, courts have held that school searches may be conducted under a lesser standard of reasonable suspicion: justified at inception and reasonable in scope. In this case, the Ohio Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the search protocol used was reasonable through balancing the government’s interest in safety and security against the student’s privacy interests.
The court centered on the constitutionality of search 2: whether it was permissible for the principal and Lindsey to conduct a full search of the student’s bag, when search 1 provided them with the identity of the owner of the unattended book bag.
In its finding, the court determined that it was appropriate for Whetstone High School to conduct complete searches of unattended book bags to ensure that they do not contain dangerous contents. Anything less than a complete search would not be enough to ensure safety and security for students. Key to this determination was that Whetstone High School required searches of unattended book bags to not only identify the owners but also to verify that the contents of the book bag are not dangerous. This was their protocol, albeit unwritten. Further, the search protocol was appropriate, reasonable, and reflective of the school’s obligation to keep students safe in a time when schools face a myriad of security concerns (e.g., school shootings, bomb threats, terrorist attacks). As a result, search 1 was inadequate in the court’s mind as it did not advance the school’s interest in ensuring safety and security of its students. Search 2 was required to fulfill this interest.
Additionally, the court found that the student’s expectation of privacy in his unattended book bag was “greatly diminished.” A person’s reasonable expectation of privacy diminishes when an item is lost or unattended, to the extent that the contents may be examined by the person who has found the item. Furthermore, a lost item in a closed container such as a book bag would carry an even lesser expectation of privacy, especially in a school setting, which must ensure the safety and security of all students.
Therefore, in balancing the school’s strong interest in protecting its students against Polk’s low expectation of privacy in the unattended book bag, the court determined that search 2 was reasonable and appropriate because the school needed to not only identify the owner of the book bag but also ensure the contents of the book bag were not dangerous. The court did not comment on search 3 but instead left the resulting judgment on that search to the lower court to make, consistent with this new decision.
State v. Polk, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-2735.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Apr 5, 2017 | General, Legislation
General Assembly Once Again Changes Rules on Disposal of Real Property
In 2015 Ohio’s General Assembly enacted R.C. 3313.413. This statute added another step to the process for disposing of real property worth $10,000 or more. The statute required school districts to first offer the property to “high-performing” community schools, as designated by the Ohio Department of Education. These schools may be located anywhere in the state of Ohio. Then, assuming no such high-performing school took up the offer, the district was required to offer the property to any start-up community school as well as any college-preparatory boarding school located within the district’s territory.
The designated list of high-performing community schools initially published by ODE contained 22 schools, so any district with an interest in selling a piece of real estate it owned was required to issue 22 offer letters, one to each these schools. Just as with the offer to community schools within a district’s territory, the offer to the high-performing schools could be for no more than the appraised value (the appraisal not being more than a year old) and the offer had to remain open for 60 days.
These relatively new requirements have now been modified by House Bill 438, which was signed in January and becomes effective on April 6. Under the new law, districts are back to the previous system of only having to offer properties to community schools and college-preparatory boarding schools within their territory – including high-performing community schools.
Along with the change in territory is a change in prioritization for districts that receive an offer from more than one high-performing or other community school. If a district receives notice from more than one high-performing community school, it must hold an auction at which only those interested high-performing community schools may bid. If no such high-performing community school expresses interest, the district may move on to the non-high-performing community schools and college-prep boarding schools. If two or more of these schools express interest, the district must hold an auction at which only the interested schools would participate.
If no community school or boarding school expresses interest, the district must hold a public auction for the property with at least 30 days’ prior notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the district. If no bids are accepted through the auction, the district may then sell the property at private sale on its own terms.
ODE will continue to maintain and publish the list of high-performing community schools.
Competitive Bidding Threshold Increased
The threshold for competitive bidding with construction projects was increased in Senate Bill 3, which became effective March 16. Under the new law, construction or demolition projects in excess of $50,000 (the previous threshold was $25,000) must be advertised for bids. All other provisions of R.C. 3313.46 remain the same.
Note about Personal Property
District-owned personal property valued at more than $10,000 is required to be sold at public auction after 30 days’ notice. This statute has not changed (R.C. 3313.41). If a district adopts a resolution that school district property worth less than $2,500 (fair market value) is obsolete or unneeded, it may donate that property to eligible nonprofit entities. The board must adopt a procedure and must publish its intent to donate in a newspaper. Contact an Ennis Britton attorney for the specific requirements and applicability of the law to any personal property being considered for sale or disposal.
by Pamela Leist | Mar 24, 2017 | Board Policy & Representation, General, Legislation, School Management
Senate Bill 199, which was passed during the lame duck session and signed by the governor in December, significantly expands the rights of certain individuals to possess weapons on public school grounds.
State law generally prohibits an individual from conveying or possessing a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone (R.C. 2923.122). R.C. 2901.01 defines a school safety zone to include a school, school building, school premises, school activity, and school bus. Violators may be charged with misdemeanor or felony criminal offenses.
There are a few exceptions to this prohibition, including one that grants a school district board of education the authority to issue written permission for an individual to possess a weapon on school grounds. Additional, narrowly tailored exceptions apply for police officers, security personnel, school employees, and students under certain circumstances. The new law further expands these exceptions in three key areas.
First, the bill specifically authorizes an individual to possess a concealed handgun in a school safety zone as long as the individual either remains in a motor vehicle with the gun or leaves the gun behind in the locked vehicle. For this exception to apply, the individual must have an active concealed-carry permit or must be an active-duty member of the armed forces who is carrying a valid military identification card and documentation of successful completion of firearms training (the training must meet or exceed requirements for concealed permit holder training).
Next, the new law expands the right of law enforcement officers to carry a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone at any time regardless of whether the officer is on active duty. The prior version of the law limited such rights to law enforcement officers who were on active duty only.
Finally, the new law now permits the possession and use of an object indistinguishable from a firearm during a school safety training.
The law became effective March 21, 2017. School districts should review board policies that regulate use and possession of weapons on school grounds and should contact legal counsel with questions about how the law will impact district operations.
by Gary Stedronsky | Nov 29, 2016 | General
A federal judge in Texas has granted a nationwide temporary injunction in response to a lawsuit filed by 21 states, including Ohio, to challenge the new Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime rule. The court agreed with the plaintiff states that the new rule could cause irreparable harm if it was not stopped before it was scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016, saying that the Department of Labor (DOL) exceeded the authority it was delegated by Congress in issuing this overtime rule.
Under the new overtime rule, “white collar” salaried employees not otherwise exempt from overtime pay would be eligible for overtime pay if their weekly salary is less than $913, which equals $47,476 when calculated on an annual basis – doubling the previous salary threshold.
Although application of the new rules has been stayed, school districts should continue to track eligible employees’ hours and maintain meticulous payroll records. They should also require that employees submit time records.
Districts should be mindful that the new rule would affect only the salary threshold component of the overtime-exemption test – a two-part test that requires that employees meet the salary threshold as well as perform duties that are exempt under FLSA. Therefore, employees who meet the lower salary threshold ($23,660 annually) must also perform exempt duties for the overtime exemption to apply. Employees who perform nonexempt job duties are eligible for overtime regardless of their salary.
Ennis Britton attorneys are available to help with any questions regarding the overtime rule, the injunction, which employees are affected, how to maintain payroll records, and how the two-part salary–duties test applies.
by Bronston McCord | Nov 1, 2016 | General, Student Education and Discipline
Beginning with the class of 2018, Ohio’s graduation requirements will change. In addition to the state’s academic curriculum requirements, which have not changed, students must fulfill an additional requirement to earn their high school diploma. Students have three options to choose from to fulfill this additional requirement. (Note: The Ohio Graduation Tests are still in use for the class of 2017; however, these students may use the new end-of-course tests to satisfy the testing requirement.)
- Ohio’s State Tests: Meet the minimum number of points on end-of-course tests
Under this option, students must accumulate at least 18 total points on the seven state tests, with a minimum number of points in each of the three subject areas. The points given for each test range from 1 (limited performance level) to 5 (advanced performance level).
|
Subject Area
|
Courses Tested
|
Number of Tests
|
Minimum Points Required
|
Points Possible
|
| English |
English I |
2 |
4 |
10 |
| English II |
| Math |
Algebra I or
Intermediate Math I |
2 |
4 |
10 |
Geometry or
Intermediate Math II |
| Science and Social Studies |
Biology (or Physical Science – 2018 only) |
3 |
6 |
15 |
| American History |
| American Government |
| Additional points required from any of the above tests |
4 |
|
| Total Points |
18 |
35 |
This option gives students flexibility in which subject areas to earn points – as long as the minimum number of points is met in each subject area. Thus, a high score in one subject area can help to offset a lower score in another subject area.
Retakes: Students may retake any test anytime during the student’s academic career within the testing window offered by ODE.
Alternatives for Science and Social Studies tests: Instead of taking the state’s end-of-course tests in Science and Social Studies, the following alternative options are available:
- Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses: The tests offered in these courses will substitute for the end-of-course tests.
- College Credit Plus courses: The grade earned in the college course will determine the number of points credited to the test.
- College Readiness Tests: Meet the minimum scores on the ACT or SAT test
Under this option, students may meet or exceed the minimum score requirements on the ACT or SAT tests. (Note: These minimum scores are known as “remediation-free” scores, which are set by Ohio’s college and university presidents; therefore, they are subject to change.)
|
ACT
|
SAT
|
| Subject Area |
Minimum Score |
Subject Area |
Minimum Score |
| English |
18 |
Writing |
430 |
| Math |
22 |
Math |
520 |
| Reading |
22 |
Reading |
450 |
- Industry Credential and Work Readiness: Earn an industry credential and meet the minimum score on the WorkKeys test
Under the credential option, students graduate high school ready to enter the workforce with a job skill that Ohio employers need right now. Students must earn a minimum of 12 points from an approved, industry-recognized credential or group of credentials in a single career field, and then score 13 or greater on a job-skills test, WorkKeys, which shows their work-readiness in that job.
Students can choose from 13 career fields:
- Agriculture
- Arts and Communications
- Business and Finance
- Construction
- Education and Training
- Engineering
- Health
- Hospitality and Tourism
- Human Services
- Information Technology
- Law and Public Safety
- Manufacturing
- Transportation
|
WorkKeys Test
|
| Subject Area |
Minimum Points Required |
| Reading |
3 |
| Applied Mathematics |
3 |
| Locating Information |
3 |
| Additional points required from any of the above areas |
1 (class of 2018 and 2019) |
| 2 (beginning class of 2020) |
| Total Points |
13 (2018/2019) |
| 14 (2020) |
by Pamela Leist | Sep 26, 2016 | General, Special Education, Student Education and Discipline
A school district’s authority to discipline a student for off-campus speech is an increasingly relevant concern today for public schools. Inappropriate or offensive speech can cause lasting injury to victims and can trigger significant community backlash and unrest. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed this issue in a case that arose out of Oregon.
The case was filed after a school district suspended a seventh-grade student named C.R. for harassing two other students from school. C.R. and some of his friends had been involved in an escalating series of encounters with two sixth-grade students, a girl and a boy, both disabled, first calling them vulgar names and later increasing to sexual taunting. On the day of the incident at issue, the students were traveling home from school through a public park adjacent to school property, just a few hundred feet from the campus. About five minutes after school let out, C.R. and his friends circled around the two younger students, commenting and questioning them about sexual acts and pornography. A school employee rode by the students on her bicycle, noticed the group, and stopped to help the younger girl and boy. The girl reported that the encounter made her feel unsafe, and the employee walked the two students home.
After investigating the incident, school administrators concluded that C.R. was the “ringleader” of the group and that the conduct fell within the district’s definition of sexual harassment. All of the boys were disciplined. C.R. was suspended for two days, not only because of the harassment but also because he had lied to administrators during the investigation and had disregarded their request to not discuss the interview with his friends.
C.R.’s parents filed a lawsuit a year after the incident, alleging that his First Amendment and due process rights had been violated and that the school lacked authority to discipline him. The school district moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the district court. The parents appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, which considered the following.
Was C.R.’s conduct sexual harassment? The school had a policy that defined sexual harassment, and the investigation had yielded evidence that C.R.’s behavior fit within that definition. The Ninth Circuit Court noted, “Federal courts owe significant deference to a school’s interpretation of its own rules and policies. … We uphold a school’s disciplinary determinations so long as the school’s interpretation of its rules and policies is reasonable, and there is evidence to support the charge.” Therefore, the court upheld the district’s conclusion that C.R.’s behavior was considered sexual harassment.
Could the school regulate his speech and discipline him? The court first considered whether the school could permissibly regulate the student’s off-campus speech at all, and then considered whether the school’s regulation of the student’s speech complied with the requirements of the First Amendment.
Regulation of students’ on-campus speech is well established as constitutional; however, regulation of off-campus speech is another matter. Following a previous Supreme Court decision (Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)), regulation of student speech is permissible if the speech “might reasonably lead school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities” or if the speech might collide “with the rights of other students to be secure and to be let alone.” Speech that is merely offensive is not sufficient; however, sexually harassing speech is more than that. Sexually harassing speech, the court held, implicates other students’ rights to be secure, threatening their sense of physical, emotional, and psychological security.
The age of the student who is being harassed is also relevant. The Supreme Court has noted that children younger than age 14 are less mature, and therefore overtly sexual speech could be more seriously damaging to them. For this reason, elementary schools may exercise greater control over student speech than secondary schools.
The court held that the school district did indeed have the authority to discipline C.R. for his harassing speech, even if it was off campus, for a number of reasons:
- All of the individuals involved were students
- The incident took place –
- On the students’ walk home
- A few hundred feet from school
- Immediately after school let out
- On a path that begins at the school
- The students were together on the path because of school
Succinctly stated, the court held that “a school may act to ensure students are able to leave the school safely without implicating the rights of students to speak freely in the broader community.”
Were C.R.’s due process rights violated? Again citing previous court decisions, the opinion noted that the Constitution allows informal procedures when a student suspension is 10 days or fewer. The school must provide the student notice of the charges but need not outline specific charges and their potential consequences or notify parents of the charges prior to the suspension. If the student denies the charges, the student then must have an opportunity to explain his side of the story. A school is not constitutionally required to inform the student of the specific rules or policies in question. For these reasons, the court held that the school did not violate C.R.’s procedural due process rights.
C.R. also claimed that his substantive due process rights were violated when the school recorded the reason for suspension as “harassment – sexual,” which allegedly deprived him of a good reputation. The court opined that C.R. did not have a genuine interest in maintaining a good reputation, as he had since stolen supplies from the school, and held that the school may record the reason for suspension, “however unsavory,” so long as it applied appropriate procedural safeguards. Therefore, the school also did not violate his substantive due process rights.
Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit upheld the summary judgment that the district court had previously granted.
C.R. v. Eugene School District 4J, No. 13-35856 (9th Cir. 2016)
