• In New Mexico, the Court of Appeals held that a school district and a school resource officer did not violate the rights of special needs student who was handcuffed after refusing to do his classwork, taking off his shoes and throwing them at staff members and administrators, running and hiding in the school, eating food off the cafeteria floor, and locking himself in the bathroom. The court ruled that school officials did not have a duty to enact a policy expressly prohibiting the use of handcuffs on special education students nor did the SRO commit battery on the student whose conduct was outside the scope of his Behavioral Improvement Program. (J.V. and M.Q. v. Winston Brooks)
• In California, the Court of Appeal held that the state law prohibiting the making of criminal threats does not require an intent to actually carry out the threatened crime. The court upheld the adjudication of a student who told another student, “I’m going to shoot up the school tomorrow.” The court ruled that instead, the speaker must intend for the victim to receive and understand the threat, and the threat must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety. (In re A.N.)
• In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court upheld the suspension and expulsion of a student under a school policy that requires a drug test when a student is suspected to be under the influence of drugs and that deems refusals to submit to a drug test as a positive drug test. The court ruled that there is no fundamental right to a public education and that a student’s property interests in education are protected by procedural due process even though the interest is derived from state law rather than the Constitution. (Cole v. Central Greene School District).
• In North Carolina, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina dismissed a parent’s lawsuit claiming that repeated bullying and harassment denied her children their right to an education. The parent claimed that despite two-years of complaints, school officials’ response was that school discipline policies would “take time” to work. The court held that the North Carolina Constitution that provides that, “the people have a right to the privilege of education,” was “strictly confined to the intellectual function of academics,” and did not created a private right of action for abuse and injury claims. (Deminski v. State Board of Education)