<-- return to SP&F Recent Developments Archive Index

Middle school officials in Mount Juliet, Tennessee probably didn’t expect that the cell phone confiscated from a student was worth $800,000, or that they would have to defend their actions in a federal courtroom. A student’s cell phone began ringing during class. Consistent with district policy, the phone was seized and held for 30 days in the school’s office and the student served a oneday in-school suspension. Two weeks later, the District was a defendant in a federal lawsuit where the student’s parents were seeking $500,000 in compensatory damages and $300,000 in punitive damages. They alleged violations of the student’s due process and liberty rights under the federal constitution.

The federal trial court dismissed all of the claims related to seizure and retention of the phone. It refused to dismiss the allegation that the in-school suspension was a violation of due process because the student was not provided notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to serving the suspension. In August 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that the student was not denied procedural due process prior to serving the one-day, in-school suspension. Laney v. Farley, et al., (6TH Cir. 2007).

The Court of Appeals, relying on the analysis in Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975), and provisions of Tennessee law that require students serving in-school suspensions to remain in the school setting and complete their regular academic requirements, determined that those students are not deprived or denied educational opportunities. Even without the specific statutory provisions, however, the 6th Circuit probably would have reached the same conclusion, as it cited approvingly to other federal decisions where no violation of due process was found for relatively short suspensions. Additionally, the Court did not find that the student’s “reputation” was seriously impugned by the in-school suspension, negating the claimed liberty interest violation. Finally, the court found any deprivation of the property interest of the student occasioned by the on-day in-school suspension to be “de minimus.” Consequently, the one-day inschool suspension did not implicate the student’s property interest in public education, and no constitutional rights had been denied.

In this instance, the District avoided an $800,000 phone “bill” by having a clear written policy governing student use of personal communication devices on school grounds. If help is needed in drafting a policy or an existing policy needs review, call us at 660-2555.