Can schools punish you for a legal act?

[Hup the Fool]

Mods, please move if you feel this is more of a IMHO question.

Link (http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforksherald/news/local/8316779.htm)


A 18 year old girl was banned from attending her prom because she was observed smoking off school grounds.

Since we have a great bunch of lawyers on the board, can this banning be upheld? Is there some kind of precedent that would allow schools to punish someone who is not breaking a law?

[Mathochist]

A 18 year old girl was banned from attending her prom because she was observed smoking off school grounds.

Since we have a great bunch of lawyers on the board, can this banning be upheld? Is there some kind of precedent that would allow schools to punish someone who is not breaking a law?

Legally, schools and school systems are allowed to set virtually any regulations they see fit as long as they don't run afoul of preexisting legislation. I'm not sure what the procedure is where she was going to school, but if she was in Howard County, MD she'd have been presented with the student handbook of rules and regulations at the outset of each academic year, so she'd have no excuse for not knowing that this is a prohibited act with specific consequences.

Now, schools cannot ban headwear, excepting that they make exceptions for yarmulkes and hijabs and such so as not to infringe on the preexisting freedom of religion. I'm not sure on the fine points there: I know that some Orthodox Jews regard a baseball cap as sufficient head covering, but could a school insist that more traditional coverings be used if there is a religious? I don't know.

[Hup the Fool]

Schools can set regulations for legal things that occur off school grounds?

[dnooman]

Quote from your link, "The School Board policy suspends students from extracurricular activities for using alcohol, tobacco or narcotics."

She used tobacco, Prom is extracurricular, according to their policy she would be suspended from it. It appears that the school board, after a vote no less, feels they have a good legal position.

I'm not saying that this rule couldn't be changed through litigation, she might have a really good lawyer. I'm sure the school board does too. IANAL, but it seems the only way this might be reversed is for the judge to declare the rule to be excessive, or illegal, or something along those lines.

[Mathochist]

Schools can set regulations for legal things that occur off school grounds?

Yes, I'm capable of reading. I know for a fact that public schools in Howard County have such regulations in place and that the whole of central Maryland is beset (plagued, even) with flag-wavers looking for a cause. One girl in my grade so devoted herself to overturning the (relatively new) no-hats policy that she went from nearly straight As to high Cs. Believe me, if the school system wasn't on bedrock with this, someone would have raised nine kinds of hell about it by now.

[dnooman]

Are you saying they couldn't wear hats off school grounds?? His issue is with jurisdiction.

[Fish Cheer]

I am still not sure if I fully get this.

The school can punish a student for doing a legal thing off school premises -- in his own backyard maybe?



It's none of their business what I'm doing at home. Or is it?

[dnooman]

The school can punish a student for doing a legal thing off school premises -- in his own backyard maybe?



It's none of their business what I'm doing at home. Or is it?
According to the school's rules, yes. According to the law..that's the debatable part. Now if she were doing drugs, or drinking, there's no question. Since she is legally allowed to smoke, and wasn't on school grounds, the school law is being applied to other property. IMO it's all up to the judge now.

[Mathochist]

Are you saying they couldn't wear hats off school grounds?? His issue is with jurisdiction.

I think there are other problems in our nation's high schools if I have to restate this again.

My citation of the no-hat debacle was to show the extent to which the student culture of my high school had become one of activism. If there were the hint that the school was overstepping its authority, it would have been blown out of the water very quickly.

In the context of this pattern, the fact that a ban on smoking off school grounds for any student (even those over 18) persisted shows that such a ban was not beyond the school board's power.

[dnooman]

I think there are other problems in our nation's high schools if I have to restate this again.

My citation of the no-hat debacle was to show the extent to which the student culture of my high school had become one of activism. If there were the hint that the school was overstepping its authority, it would have been blown out of the water very quickly.

In the context of this pattern, the fact that a ban on smoking off school grounds for any student (even those over 18) persisted shows that such a ban was not beyond the school board's power.
How is this different from my explanations? I understood your anecdotes, even though hats and tobacco are quite different animals. Re-read my posts and see if I'm missing anything.

[SSgtBaloo]

IANAL, but whatthehell...

The article referenced by the OP does not state the circumstances under which the "bust" took place.

When I was going to high school, the school was legally responsible for you from the moment you arrived on school grounds until you got home in the afternoon (more or less). Even if the incident took place off school grounds, but during the affected person's school hours (say, during a lunch break) the school has, in most jurisdictions, some legal responsibility for their behavior. If that was the case, the school is in a strong position, since they are responsible for the student.

OTOH, if the student was smoking after school with her parent's knowledge and permission, it gets kind of iffy. If she'd already been home since school, and was just hanging out or even having a smoke break at work, then I dunno. It depends on whether it's a public school or a private one.

I suspect a private school may have some clauses in their contract with the parents that proscribe certain behavior even when the student is not under school supervision. If it's a public school, I can't see how they could legally proscribe legal behavior if the behavior did not take place during school hours or on school property.

The incident took place in North Dakota, a place which I suspect does not have the same rate of litigation as many more-populated areas. Most folks might've either been unaware of this policy, only peripherally aware, or figured it was just legalese to cover the school's butt that would not actually be enforced -- just used to make sure that if someone gets caught smoking, they can't claim "the school lets me do it." (At my HS we had the "smoker's corner". It was understood that if you were 18 years old, you could go smoke there -- it was behind a hill so the other students c/n see you. If they could, well they were where they weren't supposed to be.)

Just my 2¢.

--SSgtBaloo

[DSYoungEsq]

It would appear that this is not an "open and shut" case. The school district is refusing to make an exception to their policy, which apparently doesn't conceive of the possibility that students might be of legal age to smoke; presumably the policy is rooted in the concept that such behaviour is illegal for the vast majority of students upon which it is imposed. Probably the school district has been advised not to carve out an exception for "legal" smoking in the fear that doing so will somehow weaken the future application of the law to other circumstances.

The news article isn't explicit; one can't tell if the upcoming hearing is a motion for temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or hearing on the merits. So it isn't possible to tell if there has been any look at the merits of this case yet. Let's not get a knot in our shorts without more data. ;)

[Abbie Carmichael]

I could see a private school getting away with this, because a lot of religious schools have the students sign a contract promising that they won't go out and participate in bad stuff like smoking, drinking, sex, etc. because they represent the school even off school grounds. In that case I could see a kid smoking as being a breach of contract and grounds for expulsion.

A public school, though? Say what? Don't these people KNOW what some of their students are doing off school grounds? I've got news for them, it's a heck of a lot worse than smoking cigarettes. The kid's 18. She was using a legal product and is of age to do so. Unless there is something specific in the school manual about not smoking, ever, I don't see this prom ban happening.

Why don't they go after, say, boys who are already slipping rufies into drinks at parties or girls who are snorting coke in the school bathroom between 3rd and 4th period? It's like every year some stupid public school system picks a kid to harass, and I think there must be a contest going to see who can find the dumbest reason to punish a student.

[Fish Cheer]

I suspect a private school may have some clauses in their contract with the parents that proscribe certain behavior even when the student is not under school supervision. If it's a public school, I can't see how they could legally proscribe legal behavior if the behavior did not take place during school hours or on school property.Ah, ok. That puts my mind at rest again. :cool:

[AngelicGemma]

I can't believe the school can get away with doing that. If she wasn't at school then it's none of their business what she does.

At my school you wern't allowed to smoke on school grounds. And in the last year I was there they banned the teachers from even smoking in the staff room. This just lead to students and teachers smoking in the field next to the school. The school only punished students they found smoking on school property.

[irishgirl]

In my school as long as you weren't drinking or smoking on school grounds or in school uniform, and it was legal for you to do so, it was allowed.

I'm not a fan of smoking, but as long as it was off school property, outside school hours, she was legally old enough to do so and wasn't wearing a t-shirt with "I'm a student at such and such HS", I don't see how it's their business.

[Newton meter]

Since we have a great bunch of lawyers on the board, can this banning be upheld? Is there some kind of precedent that would allow schools to punish someone who is not breaking a law?
Well, I'm no lawyer.

But there are all kinds of precedents. Can schools punish someone who is not breaking a law? Sure. My high school, back in the day, punished students for wearing shorts to school. There was no law agains wearing shorts.

In fact, pretty much the opposite of what you seem to believe is true. Schools do not ever punish a student for breaking a law, they punish a student for breaking school rules. Sometimes the things that are against the school rules are also illegal, sometimes not.

So it's clear that there is precedent for schools punishing students for things that are not against the law.

You might wonder if it is relevant that the offense occurred off school grounds. It seems that there is, again, a huge amount of precedent that it is irrelevant. My high school, for instance, had a prohibition against athletes drinking alcohol. Several athletes violated this prohibition (all off campus that I can recall), and were kicked off their teams. Now, they were not punished for "breaking the law" (though they did break the law); they were punished for violating school rules. In fact, the students were never convicted or even charged with any crime in several of these cases.

So, we have precedent that schools can make rules that legislate against things that are not illegal; and precedent that schools can legislate against behavior that occurs off school property.

One more example, again from my high school. Students who drove to school were required, on pain of losing their driving priveleges, to park in the school parking lot. They were expressly forbidden from parking in the residential streets around the school. However, parking on the residential streets was completely legal, and occurred off school property.

[Kinthalis]

Well, I'm no lawyer.


One more example, again from my high school. Students who drove to school were required, on pain of losing their driving priveleges, to park in the school parking lot. They were expressly forbidden from parking in the residential streets around the school. However, parking on the residential streets was completely legal, and occurred off school property.

Eh? How can the school revoke the driving privilidges of the student?? They are not the DMV, last I checked.

[Newton meter]

Eh? How can the school revoke the driving privilidges of the student?? They are not the DMV, last I checked.
Sorry. I didn't think anyone could possibly assume that I was claiming that my high school could revoke students' drivers licenses.

The privilege that was lost was that of driving to school, which was effectively revoked when the student's parking permit was suspended.

Of course, the student could then continue to park off campus as before, but they would be routinely harassed by the assistant principal (when entering school) or sometimes the police (when loitering in neighborhoods near the school). I believe that there was also other punishment for parking off campus (detention or ultimately suspension).

But other punishments were rarely used. The measure served to end the perceived problems caused by a large number of students parking (and driving, and hanging out) in neighborhoods around the school; and served as an effective deterrence for a student who might consider doing it "just this once".

Anyway, I'm not claiming that prohibiting parking off campus, or prohibiting smoking off campus, is right for a school to do. Just offering a data point (the OP asks for precedents) that schools frequently do allow priveleges (playing in a sport, parking on campus) based on off-campus behavior.

[Ike Witt]

What I would like to know, and the article doesn't mention is how was the girl caught?

Was it a teacher or school administrator who blew the whistle on her? If so are they obligated to report such activities? Or do some school districts have uber-truancy officers?

On campus is one thing, but for a school to punish somebody for legal activities off campus just doesn't sit right with me.

[susie426]

It was the principal's wife who ratted on her. I believe I heard that the school district's purpose in a policy like this was to mimic the state's athletic and arts competition league (NDSHSL), and extend the limitations sanctioned for athletes on the entire school population (or those who wish to go to school functions like dances...i.e. prom). I am guessing there was some hullaboo concerning athletes sitting out of games for tobacco offenses and their friend they were smoking with didn't get punished because they weren't in athletics.

It will be interesting to see what the judge will have to say in this case and it will be interesting to watch to see how much power schools do have in dictating student's life choices.

[Hup the Fool]

This link (http://www.123fargo.com/pages/120553.asp) contains a little more information.

Fitzpatrick gave a speech to a class last month about smoker's rights, and admitted she had smoked. The principal's wife reported that she saw Fitzpatrick smoking at a bank in town.

[Dag Otto]

Fitzpatrick gave a speech to a class last month about smoker's rights, and admitted she had smoked. The principal's wife reported that she saw Fitzpatrick smoking at a bank in town.

Well, admitting that she smoked was not that bright of an idea, but saying that she has smoked isn't quite the same as smoking.

I would think that the source of the evidence is a bit tenuous here. Unless the principal's wife works for the school system, the ban from the prom is based on nothing but hearsay, right? (assuming, of course, that the student's speech can't be used against her). Could the principal's first cousin rat out the student? Maybe the principal's gardener?

[toadspittle]

As moronic as this all is, I think I see where they have their jurisdiction:

The prom is an extracurricular activity.

Now, if the school said that anyone caught smoking would not be allowed to take Math class, they'd be screwed. (Not to mention that every student would take up smoking to get out of class...) But students are guaranteed an education, not extracurricular activities like sports, marching band, A/V club, or the prom.

The policy is unreasonably intrusive, IMO, but I see where they get off thinking they have the right to enforce it.

[LordVor]

As far as juristiction goes, it's the Prom that's a school-sponsered event. So they can set their own (non-discriminatory) rules about who gets to attend. Since it's not illegal to "discriminate" against smokers, the school's within it's rights.

-lv

[susie426]

FYI: a judge granted an injunction today so the girl gets to go to her prom cuz the policy was unreasonable. The school district's lawyer says that the district will be "taking a serious look at the policy" to make changes.

[Spoons]

If this were my daughter, and she was of age to do so; and if the school said there would be no prom for her because she had been smoking, then the school, and the school board, would be hearing from my lawyer.

First of all, what she does or doesn't do at school is the business of the school. At the same time, what she does outside of school is my business. Not the school's. They dictate what happens in her life between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:15 (or whatever the school's teaching hours are); I and my wife look after the rest. If she is smoking at 5:00 p.m., that is not the school's problem; it is ours. The school doesn't enter into it.

Assuming my daughter was legally old enough to smoke, and this happened to her, then no matter how much I disapprove of teen smoking, I'd buy her a pack of cigarettes and tell her to light up on the sidewalk (that is, public property) in front of the school in view of the school administrators. What could they do? Call a cop and arrest her? They couldn't, and they know this full well.

They might be able to do something at the prom itself, being a school-sponsored event, but if she attended without cigarettes, they would be unable to do anything. Even if she did take cigarettes (would they search her purse on entry?), and chose to smoke outside on a public sidewalk, could they do anything? I am not a lawyer, but I feel that there is a case here somewhere. An adult of legal age cannot be prosecuted for possessing tobacco, can she?

I am not a lawyer, but this sounds way out of line for a school board. Does this school board do the same for students who have drug or alcohol offenses while driving?

My senior prom had ashtrays on every table and a cash bar (drinking age was 18 in those days). Have we forgotten that we are challenging and preparing young people for adulthood, or has this policy changed to one of keeping them children, never letting them experiment and grow? This policy seems to provide the latter as the answer, and thus, I wonder. If our children are not allowed to experiment, and are encouraged to accept only one answer, then I am afraid for the future.

[Mathochist]

My senior prom had ashtrays on every table and a cash bar (drinking age was 18 in those days). Have we forgotten that we are challenging and preparing young people for adulthood, or has this policy changed to one of keeping them children, never letting them experiment and grow? This policy seems to provide the latter as the answer, and thus, I wonder. If our children are not allowed to experiment, and are encouraged to accept only one answer, then I am afraid for the future.

Smoking was far more socially acceptable in those days. Now you've got lunatics in state legislatures outlawing it in all bars and clubs (damn you, Bloomberg), without even a loophole for having a smoking room. Basically, if it weren't such a common and historical crop, tobacco would be a controlled substance. Is it right or fair? Maybe not, but it's the way the wind blows.

[Newton meter]

If this were my daughter, and she was of age to do so; and if the school said there would be no prom for her because she had been smoking, then the school, and the school board, would be hearing from my lawyer.
Well sure, but I didn't think this was a debate, I thought we were trying to settle a general question of fact.

Schools routinely had prohibitions against smoking for athletes in-season, even when there was no such thing as a "smoking age" and 14 year olds could legally smoke.

[DSYoungEsq]

Two things to note:

First, as I noted, it made sense to wait for some more information before spouting. All the posters who have asserted that the school can set any restrictions it wants must now be a bit red-faced that the judge has made a preliminary finding that the school district cannot do any such thing. Of course, not that actual facts have ever been the main focus of posting in GQ. :rolleyes:

Second, public school districts are required to follow the dictates of the Fourteenth Amendment the same as any other governmental subdivision of a state. This means that students are entitled to due process, just as adults are. The only difference is that minors are often considered to have a somewhat lesser expectation of the extent of their rights, a natural conclusion based on how our society treats minors. But, at a minimum, any policy of the district is going to have to address a legitimate concern of the school district in a rational fashion.

Given that the person in question is 18, and legally entitled to smoke, the difficulty the district would have with its policy is establishing what legitimate purpose is being forwarded by a blanket application of a no-smoking policy to those who are legally entitled to smoke. In the case of athletes, one could assert that the interest of the school is maximizing the athletic prowess of the student, thought to be affected by smoking. But it is hard to assert that the district has a legitimate interest in seeing that its 18 year old students are not smoking, and use the punishment of inability to attend extra-curricular events to enforce such an interest.

The district might still prevail at trial, though if the report of the attorney's comments is accurate, the district may be about to find out that it needs to modify the policy. Certainly the judge thought that the girl had a good chance of prevailing on the merits, or the injunction wouldn't have issued.

[susie426]

VERY good points, DSYoungEsq! You must know public school law well.