D.O.F., a minor, and D.J.F. and M.F., His parents and natural guardians, Appellants, v. Lewisburg Area School District Board of School Directors, Appellees

Court of Common Pleas of the Seventh Judicial District,
Union County Branch, Criminal Division

No. 03-405
Dated February 2, 2004

Facts of the Case

D.O.F. and his parents appealed the decision by the Lewisburg Area School District Board of School Directors that the student violated School District Policy No. 227 and the corresponding Administrative Guideline 227 which resulted in the student’s expulsion. This action arose from the East Buffalo Township police contacting the high school principal to inform him that on Friday May 9th an incident had occurred at the Linntown Elementary School, which may have involved four high school students using marijuana. The principal interviewed the students and determined that they had “collectively contributed to the purchase of marijuana”, which was made off of school property by another student. A concert had been held at the high school earlier in the evening which concluded about 9:00 p.m. After the concert the four students had gone to D.O.F.’s home, decided to go for a walk, and proceeded to the playground of the elementary school. Arriving there, D.O.F. prepared the pipe with marijuana, smoked it and passed it to the other students. D.O.F. was subsequently charged with “possession, use and distribution of marijuana while on school property”.

Decision of the Court

The Appellants’ appeal was sustained. The Lewisburg Area School District was determined to have exceeded its statutory authority (24 P.S. §5-510) in expelling a student for a drug related incident that occurred on school grounds outside of the time that the school personnel were providing supervision or at a school-sponsored event. The decision by the school board of the Lewisburg Area School District was reversed and the record of D.O.F.’s expulsion was ordered expunged.

Basis for the Decision

In making this decision, the court noted that “local school boards have broad discretion in determining school disciplinary policy” Hamilton v. Unionville-Chadds Ford School District, 552 Pa. 245, 714 A.2d 1012 (Pa. 1998), and that “in the absence of a gross abuse of discretion, the courts will not second guess policies of the school board” Hoke v. Elizabethtown Area School District, 833 A. 2d 304, 313 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); In re Appeal of J.A.D.,782 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). In further reference to Hoke, it was noted that school districts were limited in their authority to discipline “only those students enrolled in the district and under the district’s supervision at the time of the incident.” Id., at 313. Since the incident occurred outside of the district’s supervision, well beyond the conclusion of the school sponsored event, the school district had no authority over the student. Additionally, it was found that there had been no planning of this incident while the students had been under the direct supervision of the school in contrast to Giles on behalf of Giles v. Brookville Area School District, 669 A.2d 1079 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995), appeal den., 544 Pa. 686, 679 A.2d 231 (Pa. 1996).

Prepared by Gary Nuss, 2005