School Suspends Student For Off Campus Drug Possession

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Doe v. Cortright, a mother obtained a temporary injunction against government officials to prevent the suspension of her 16-year-old son from high school. In law, an injunction is a court order that keeps a person or organization from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the rights of another. An injunction can also be used to compel a party to carry out a specific action. In the case at hand, the mother requested the temporary injunction to keep the school administration from suspending her son for his arrest and charge of marijuana possession. The school administration argued that the mother’s request for a permanent injunction should be denied, and her temporary injunction should be dismissed.

The son was stopped by a police officer in Meriden, Connecticut, shortly before midnight on February 5, 2008. The son was arrested and charged for possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana with intent to sell, all within 1,500 feet of a school. Allegedly, the son was found with two ‘plastic baggies’ of marijuana in the driver’s area, as well as 2.2 ounces of marijuana, two digital scales and ninety-eight baggies in the trunk of the car. Upon discovery of this arrest, the school administration met the son at the school entrance and escorted him to the vice-principles office, where he was confronted with the facts of his arrest. The son was asked to explain himself, to which he made various admissions to the charges. Following the meeting, the school administration decided to suspend the son from school for ten days.

The court found in favor of the school administration. As set forth in Connecticut state law, a school need not conduct a formal hearing in order to initiate a suspension. Overall, the school did not act in violation of any state statute. The student was allowed the student an opportunity to explain the situation to the administration. While arguments were made that the student was not aware that these statement could later be used against him, the court found that the statute did not require the disclosure of any Miranda-like warnings in a school environment. “As courts have observed with respect to other [state laws]” said the court, “perhaps the legislature would be wise to review and reconsider [Connecticut’s law on suspension of students.]”

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Doe v. Cortright, 2008 Conn. Super. LEXIS 827 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 2, 2008)