Facts of the Case

On November 20th, 2000, T.S., a ninth grade student who attended Penn Manor High School, arranged to purchase an undisclosed amount of marijuana in the school cafeteria. He paid a seller five dollars and obtained a packet of what he thought contained marijuana. After hearing from another student that the packet he had bought was not marijuana, T.S. threw the packet away. When questioned about the incident by school officials the next day, T.S. acknowledged that he was in the presence of other students who had been involved in a marijuana transaction, but he stated that he did not “see anything.” After being questioned further on November 30th, 2000, T.S. admitted he purchased what he thought was a packet of marijuana. The school charged T.S. with violating the school’s drug and alcohol policy, especially the use, transfer or disposition of “drug look-a-likes.”

The school notified the father, L.S., that T.S. was subject to a ten-day out-of-school suspension pending a hearing of the school judicial review committee. The judicial review committee held a hearing and the school board accepted the recommendation of the committee that T.S. be expelled from school for the rest of the 2000-2001school year. However, he could be readmitted prior to the beginning of the 2002-2003 school year if he met several conditions.

T.S. and L.S. filed an appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County (trial court). They also filled interrogatories and requests for production other student’s documents. The school district answered those interrogatories and requests, but objected to the document requests that sought other student’s records. The school observed that some of the requested documents were covered under the U.S. Family Educational and Privacy Rights Act 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1232(a), United States Department of Education, 34 C.F.R-99.1, and the guidelines of the State Board of Education referring to due process procedures found in 22 Pa. Code-Section 13.33. The trial court sustained the school’s objection and denied the request for the production of the documents. L.S. argued that he did not receive adequate notice that purchasing “drug look-a-likes” was not permitted at the school, despite evidence that the student handbook contained the school’s drug policy and that T.S. had signed a document that he had received and had read the student handbook. The trial court, without a written opinion, affirmed the school’s expulsion of T.S. T.S. appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Decision of the Court

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the trail court’s decision. The court’s review of the trial court’s discovery decision was limited and the Commonwealth Court stated that the trial court had broad discretion in deciding discovery issues. The court also stated that there was enough evidence supporting the conclusion that T.S. was clearly notified of the school’s drug and alcohol policies.

Basis for the Decision

The trial court has broad discretion in deciding discovery issues. Uhl vs. C.H. Shoemaker & Son, Inc., Pa. Super. 230, 637 A.2d 1358 (Pa. Super. 1994). A review court will not reverse a trial court on discovery matters absent an abuse discretion and will substitute its judgement for that of the lower court only if it determines the lower court decision was manifestly unreasonable. Id.; Smith v. Philadelphia Gas Works, 740 A.2d 1200 (Pa. Commonwealth 1999). The State Board of Education regulation requires each school board to adopt a code of student conduct and distribute it to all students and parents as well as to place that code in each school building’s library. 22. Pa. Code-12.3

Prepared by Sean Noonan, July 3, 2003.