Joe Bridy and Joseph B. Horton 1 May 1998



Written Review of Court Case

Case : Brown et.al v. City of Oneonta, N.Y. Police Dept.et.al (SUCO)

Nature of the Action : Plaintiffs, Brown and others filed suit to recover damages from the defendant, State University of New York College at Oneonta (SUCO), claiming that the defendants violated the plaintiff's FERPA (Family Education Right to Privacy Act of 1974) rights and that the defendants conspired to violate the plaintiff's FERPA rights.

Facts / Case Background: On 4 Sept 1992 a man with a knife broke into the bedroom of a house just outside the city limits of Oneonta, NY and attacked an elderly woman who was staying there as a guest. During the attack both the assailant and the victim were cut. After a brief struggle the assailant fled the scene on foot. When police arrived the victim identified her assailant as a black male. She also said that she believed that her attacker was young because he sprinted out of the room after the struggle. A police canine unit tracked the assailant from the crime scene to the edge of the SUCO campus but then lost the scent.

At that time Sergeant Shedlock of the Oneonta Police Department informed Lieutenant Hunt of the SUCO public safety office that the perpetrator's trail led to a wooded area at the base of the SUCO Campus. After informing LT. Hunt of the situation the Oneonta police asked for a list of the names and addresses of all black, male students. Because SUCO didn't keep a list of students by their particular race, the list needed to be generated through the school's computer center. Eric Wilson, head of SUCO's computer department created the list, as instructed, but questioned the legality of its release. After a conference Dr. Hartmark, vice president for administration, and Wilson decided that (1)the information requested was a reasonable request by law enforcement officials conducting an investigation, (2)that the situation was a serious one, and (3) failure to release the list could place SUCO's students in jeopardy.

After SUCO released the list, police used it to created "lead sheets" which were distributed to officers who used them to locate and question students. Police officers also conducted a "sweep" of Oneonta by stopping and questioning non-white males, but no suspects were apprehended.

In 1993 a suit was brought by students whose names were released who claimed that SUCO (1) Violated their FERPA rights and (2) Conspired to violate their FERPA rights. The defendants filed for summary judgment (which simply means that there is no dispute of facts, that the law supports their claim) claiming that they had qualified immunity, and argued that it was not clearly established that the release of the list was forbidden under FERPA's "emergency exemption", which allows release of information to appropriate persons to protect health or safety in an emergency situation.

Lower Court Decision: The lower court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment claiming that, since the situation was unclear, a jury should decide whether or not FERPA's emergency exemption justified the release of the list.

SUCO then appealed the decision to the circuit court of appeals claiming that they were, indeed, entitled to summary judgment. The higher court overturned the district court's ruling. On the FERPA violation charge, the higher court said that, "Because we agree with the apellants' contention that it was unclear whether the emergency exception permitted SUCO to release the list, then the plaintiff had no clearly established rights to be violated." On the conspiracy charge the court said that, "The alleged conspiracy could not have violated the plaintiffs' clearly established rights, because they had no clearly established rights under FERPA not to have the list created, released, and used. Nor can they allege that apellants' intent was to violate FERPA."

After carefully reviewing and analyzing this case I felt that the higher court was correct in overturning the district court's decision. Even if the grounds on which the list was released were somewhat shaky, I believe that SUCO acted as they did because they were looking out for the best interests of their students, not because of some racial bias. Despite the fact that I felt that the higher court did indeed make the correct decision, I believe that if this case had gone to a jury trial that the result would have been much different.