Woodford County School Administrators being sued

[JokersWild24]

Big difference in what schools can do and what police can do. I never heard you had to give "Miranda Rights" in my 20 year school administrative career.

 

I'm not saying you haven't, but the Kentucky Supreme Court had in 2013, and without knowing you, I'm going to say their word on it is going to carry more weight than yours when it comes up in court.

 

Again, look at this and it's damn pretty clear:

 

Legal Clips » Kentucky Supreme Court rules student was entitled to Miranda warnings before questioning by assistant principal in the presence of school resource officer

 

No Miranda = all evidence obtained from that is excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. School wants to argue against that, then their position seems to be, "well, our student has to obey the law as written, but we don't... oh and to the court above the one who'll be ruling on this that is above the current one we're in and that this could ultimately be appealed to-- we don't need your rules, we got this one."

 

I'm honestly a little surprised if you are an administrator and you haven't heard of this. Don't take that negatively, just saying that I'm a little surprised that someone didn't let you all in on this (isn't really your job to stay up on all the laws and recent holdings, but it seems like this one is something that you'd probably want someone to fill you in on).

[Plato]

Our SRO doesn't join the discussion until the parent arrives. The officer then mirandizes the student before asking questions.

 

Our admin team usually has already investigated the incident and searched locker and/or backpacks prior to the SRO being called. Nothing they say to us can be used in a court of law if a lawyer wants it excluded, but it can be used regarding school discipline.

[JokersWild24]

Our SRO doesn't join the discussion until the parent arrives. The officer then mirandizes the student before asking questions.

 

Our admin team usually has already investigated the incident and searched locker and/or backpacks prior to the SRO being called. Nothing they say to us can be used in a court of law if a lawyer wants it excluded, but it can be used regarding school discipline.

 

 

Sounds like a solid policy if you are planning on doing any follow-up with the court systems or if a parent ever takes you to court. If you have a kid dead to rights on something and their parent wants to be there, then they can have a front row seat. If not and you aren't even notifying the parents of a minor, then you should be prepared to have everything tossed once you get to court, and it should come as no surprise to the school given the KY Supreme Court's ruling.

 

I'm honestly kind of surprised that more people in administration aren't aware of this. Like it or not, it's a reality of how the law works in Kentucky right now.

 

As a school administrator, yes, you can have some discretion when it comes to punishing them at school, but good luck explaining that during a lawsuit in court when your evidence relating to the reason for the suspension has been tossed and any reference you make to it could mean a mistral and/or that the person trying to bring it up winds up facing a contempt charge.

 

Plato, it sounds like your school is doing a very good job on staying up to date on the policy and covers their bases when it comes to things like this.

 

Again, if a kid is dead to rights and their parent wants a front row seat, then they can see it first hand. Deny them that opportunity, no matter how you feel about it as a whole, and you'll probably see an outcome that isn't favorable to the school once you get to Court.

[capt278]

Kids do not know how ADHD stimulant-based drugs will affect them? Nowadays - they do.

 

One dose of water-soluble amphetamine-based Vyvanse will probably not do much more that a couple of cups strong coffees.

 

Non-prescription use of ADHD stimulants is rampant. Its not good. Its a problem. Kids seek it out before big tests. But to nail this girl and destroy her like this is not the way to address it.

 

Probably 1/4 or far more of the students in Woodford (and all schools) have had similar transactions or in most cases just good a pill or 2 from friend for free. It just seems the adminstrators went out of their way to make her an example instead of standing up (as is the case with most schools) to a growing problem in a more reasonable and less destructive manner.

 

Here is an excerpt from the article:

 

"However, in an affidavit, Hawkins, the superintendent, said four other students (and a fifth in a pending case) were assigned to 30-day stays in the alternative program after they were cited for drug offenses."

 

Read more here: Woodford parent sues high school for suspending senior who bought ADHD pill | Education | Kentucky.com

 

They are not treating her any different than the other students, as they shouldn't.

[capt278]

It is a fact that drugs are fairly rampant in most high schools. Rx meds and street drugs.

 

I am amazed that some posters just shrug it off as business as usual. It is a big deal. I see these kids come through the court system weekly. It's becoming a major problem that schools and law enforcement agencies are having to deal with.

[Bluegrasscard]

Here is an excerpt from the article:

 

"However, in an affidavit, Hawkins, the superintendent, said four other students (and a fifth in a pending case) were assigned to 30-day stays in the alternative program after they were cited for drug offenses."

 

Read more here: Woodford parent sues high school for suspending senior who bought ADHD pill | Education | Kentucky.com

 

They are not treating her any different than the other students, as they shouldn't.

 

I seems the definition of 'drug offense' is rather broad and the penalty rather harsh and rigid. The girls is banned from all school extra-circular activities and is falling behind in AP courses due to the penalty. Her actions seem lumped in with hard-core dealers (which every school has). If the policy left no other options maybe they felt their hands were tied since the action was so known and out in the open and the 'perpetrator' was such a high profile student.

[True blue (and gold)]

Penalties shouldn't be different for AP students or class presidents.

[Bluegrasscard]

Penalties shouldn't be different for AP students or class presidents.

 

Not saying they should.

 

Policy should be flexible to address serious illicit drug dealing or sharing of aspirin (which is probably also against policy) and things in between.

 

Given the openness of the transaction it could not be ignored, that is for sure.

[capt278]

I seems the definition of 'drug offense' is rather broad and the penalty rather harsh and rigid. The girls is banned from all school extra-circular activities and is falling behind in AP courses due to the penalty. Her actions seem lumped in with hard-core dealers (which every school has). If the policy left no other options maybe they felt their hands were tied since the action was so known and out in the open and the 'perpetrator' was such a high profile student.

 

I feel she is learning a valuable lesson here, personal responsibility. It was HER choice.

[Bengal Maniac]

I'm not saying you haven't, but the Kentucky Supreme Court had in 2013, and without knowing you, I'm going to say their word on it is going to carry more weight than yours when it comes up in court.

 

Again, look at this and it's damn pretty clear:

 

Legal Clips » Kentucky Supreme Court rules student was entitled to Miranda warnings before questioning by assistant principal in the presence of school resource officer

 

No Miranda = all evidence obtained from that is excluded as fruit of the poisonous tree. School wants to argue against that, then their position seems to be, "well, our student has to obey the law as written, but we don't... oh and to the court above the one who'll be ruling on this that is above the current one we're in and that this could ultimately be appealed to-- we don't need your rules, we got this one."

 

I'm honestly a little surprised if you are an administrator and you haven't heard of this. Don't take that negatively, just saying that I'm a little surprised that someone didn't let you all in on this (isn't really your job to stay up on all the laws and recent holdings, but it seems like this one is something that you'd probably want someone to fill you in on).

 

_________________________________________________________

 

I retired in 2005, so maybe things have changed and this case probably caused that. No school board attorney ever told me that either. The one's I had represented several districts.

 

I never had a SRO present, in any case I investigated, because we never had them up to 2005 when I retired. If police were called to investigate I waited until their evidence came through after I had already given due process. Due process determined if I decided to involve the police or if statutes demanded it. Regardless, this became a police matter and a separate school matter. I called the parents and the officer(s) could not talk to the student until they arrived or if the parents wouldn't come, they would not have talked to the student on campus. Every parent came. The officers conducted the investigation either at school not in my presence or took them to the station.

 

The other issue in Woodford Co. is was the SRO a local police placement from the Versailles PD or the Woodford Co. Sheriff's Office. Not all of them are. Some are classified persons hired by the district.

 

Also to the bolded. I received 6-12 hours legal training every year, had a School Law Book as a reference, an attorney at my disposal, and a subscription to a school law weekly pamphlet that had several new information and rulings made throughout the nation. I took all of them seriously.

 

A lot to consider.

Edited October 2, 2014 by True blue (and gold)
fixed quote tags

[Bluegrasscard]

Based on the Student Handbook I do not believe that technically Woodford County High School has a policy on drugs and alcohol usage by non-athletes.

 

A link to the handbook can be found here on the right side:

 

Woodford County High School

 

The only section that deals with drug and alcohol use is specifically targeted to athletes. Its the last section of the handbook.

 

 

Opening section (bottom of page 30):

 

 

WCHS Drug and Alcohol Athletic Policy

 

Woodford County High School is concerned with the health- related conduct of its student athletes, and therefore it will strictly prohibit the use or possession of illegal controlled substances and alcoholic beverages, and the misuse of prescription and non-prescription medications. Because a student athlete’s health is affected by the use or misuse of these substances, regardless of where the use occurs, the Woodford County High School may take action regarding a student athlete consistent with this policy even where the drug or alcohol- related conduct did not occur on school property, during school hours, or at a school- sponsored event.

 

Beyond this 'athletic policy' there is no other mention of drug rules in the handbook.

 

 

 

 

Also the assignment to 'alternative school' for 30 days is a point in the lawsuit. The handbook does specify the purpose of the 'alternative school':

 

AIMES

 

(ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTION MEDIATES EDUCATIONAL SUCCESS)

 

AIMES is a program to which students may be assigned by the administration or behavior/academic interventionist for discipline referrals. In this alternative setting, students are removed from their regular schedule for a short period of time and provided an environment with fewer distractions, more one-on-one instruction from a certified teacher, and more time to practice the skills they are being taught in their classes. The goal for placing students in AIMES is to assist students in changing behaviors that are detrimental to themselves or others, as well as, to support the continuation of students’ educational programs with adult assistance and supervision.

 

Emphasis added.

 

The goal of the program and its use here seem very inconsistent. It seems it was used as punishment - not to change a behavior pattern.

 

 

She was also banned from campus and all extracurricular activities. Again, there is nothing indicating that this is a defined punishment for any offense in the handbook. Application of this punishment is not policy driven but seems arbitrary.

[capt278]

Based on the Student Handbook I do not believe that technically Woodford County High School has a policy on drugs and alcohol usage by non-athletes.

 

A link to the handbook can be found here on the right side:

 

Woodford County High School

 

The only section that deals with drug and alcohol use is specifically targeted to athletes. Its the last section of the handbook.

 

 

Opening section (bottom of page 30):

 

 

 

 

Beyond this 'athletic policy' there is no other mention of drug rules in the handbook.

 

 

 

 

Also the assignment to 'alternative school' for 30 days is a point in the lawsuit. The handbook does specify the purpose of the 'alternative school':

 

 

 

Emphasis added.

 

The goal of the program and its use here seem very inconsistent. It seems it was used as punishment - not to change a behavior pattern.

 

 

She was also banned from campus and all extracurricular activities. Again, there is nothing indicating that this is a defined punishment for any offense in the handbook. Application of this punishment is not policy driven but seems arbitrary.

 

The athletic policy would apply to her. The article said she was permanently removed from the Cross Country team.

[Bluegrasscard]

The athletic policy would apply to her. The article said she was permanently removed from the Cross Country team.

 

They clearly did not use that policy. And if you are not an athlete where is the policy that outlines the banned action and the associated penalties?

[JokersWild24]

It is a fact that drugs are fairly rampant in most high schools. Rx meds and street drugs.

 

I am amazed that some posters just shrug it off as business as usual. It is a big deal. I see these kids come through the court system weekly. It's becoming a major problem that schools and law enforcement agencies are having to deal with.

 

 

To the first sentence: yes, it probably is. That's why the first sentence of the next paragraph isn't a huge shocker to me. There are probably a lot of things that I don't agree with that go on in all types of settings. To be clear, I didn't say that I did or didn't think it was a big deal, that I agreed or disagreed with it.

 

I just said that it didn't really surprise me that a kid who was worried about doing well on the ACT would be trying it.

 

I think there's also something to be said if the if the school blatantly disregarded or were that ignorant of the law and didn't notify the parents. In the end, that fact alone probably makes all of the rest of this a moot point because any evidence like statements made or reference to the incident is going to be thrown out.

 

If they have a slam dunk against her, why wouldn't they call the parents? It makes me think that there could have been them putting some pressure on her and exploiting a vulnerable situation. How long do you think a police officer would last if he or she just openly ignored Miranda?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I would think that if I had a child that was a minor and school administration blatantly disregarded or were ignorant of the laws regarding to how to conduct an interrogation and what was and wasn't permissible, and they used that against me, then I'd be lying if I said that I wouldn't be at least a little upset at them. Of course, depending on the situation, I would probably be more upset with my child and/or worried about their well-being, but as a secondary issue, the school cutting corners and ignoring the law isn't endearing either.

[True blue (and gold)]

Based on the Student Handbook I do not believe that technically Woodford County High School has a policy on drugs and alcohol usage by non-athletes.

 

A link to the handbook can be found here on the right side:

 

Woodford County High School

 

The only section that deals with drug and alcohol use is specifically targeted to athletes. Its the last section of the handbook.

 

 

Opening section (bottom of page 30):

 

 

 

 

Beyond this 'athletic policy' there is no other mention of drug rules in the handbook.

 

 

 

 

Also the assignment to 'alternative school' for 30 days is a point in the lawsuit. The handbook does specify the purpose of the 'alternative school':

 

 

 

Emphasis added.

 

The goal of the program and its use here seem very inconsistent. It seems it was used as punishment - not to change a behavior pattern.

 

 

She was also banned from campus and all extracurricular activities. Again, there is nothing indicating that this is a defined punishment for any offense in the handbook. Application of this punishment is not policy driven but seems arbitrary.

Have you checked for a district policy? That may be where you find the punishment for drug violations.