fuller v decatur public schools
In separate votes, the Board voted to expel Bond, Carson, and Honorable for 2 years. Accordingly, in each Report, Dr. Cooprider recommended that the student be expelled for two years. Nor was evidence presented denying that the conduct of the students in this case endangered the well-being of fellow students, teachers or other school employees. Dunn, 158 F.3d at 965. 2d at 1066. Most importantly, Perkins testified that he did not recall any discussion by the School Board about the resolution during any expulsion hearing. Edwards v. . ", Third, this court concludes that the students completely failed to establish that the School Board had a "zero tolerance policy." This court initially notes that each of the students' parent or guardian received the September 23, 1999, letter from Arndt. Boucher v. School Bd. of School Dist. The court's finding must be based upon the solid foundation of evidence and the law that applies to this case. Designed by chaplains, Fuller's newest degree is a 2-year program offering holistic training for those called to provide spiritual care outside of traditional church settings. Rather, the ordinance was characterized as a criminal law which contained no mens rea requirement and which infringed on the constitutionally protected right to liberty. Here, in this case, the students have not even attempted to show that Caucasian students who engaged in similar conduct were not subjected to the same discipline. That evening, the School Board had a special emergency meeting to reconsider the length of the expulsion imposed on the students. Arndt testified that this resolution was a political statement and had no impact on student expulsion cases. An Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District, 22 B.Y.U. Community School Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. It is with this limited role in mind that this court reviews each of the students' claims. The Summary did not include the race of any of the students. Defendants argue that Howell does not have standing to pursue this action as he has not suffered an injury which can be addressed by this court. The School Board voted to go into closed executive session to discuss the student disciplinary cases. The School Board agreed to allow Howell to withdraw. 2d 67 (1999), the students contend that Rule 10 has serious constitutional deficiencies and is fatally vague on its face. If the School Board had failed to take action against these students or otherwise ignored their conduct at the game, the students who were not involved in the fight, as well as the citizens of Decatur, might be led to believe that the School Board was unable to control conduct in the schools. A separate hearing was held before Dr. David O. Cooprider (Dr. Cooprider) for each of the students. Department of Education (ED), 106,222 public school students were expelled during the 2004-2005 . Fuller ex rel. The evidence showed that each of the students was an active participant in the fight. On December 28, 1999, this court held an extensive Daubert hearing and concluded that Dr. Amprey was qualified as an expert in the field of education. Website. Two representatives from the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition (an organization identified with Reverend Jackson) addressed the Board in closed session. v School Bd. It is questionable whether it involves free speech rights. Accordingly, the decision in Morales has no application to this case. In Bethel School District No. Because of the fight, the spectators in the east bleachers were scrambling to get away. Arndt further stated that he was unable to obtain that information from the School Board's records because the race of students was never indicated at any time to the School Board. The Summary listed all expulsions in the District from the beginning of the 1996-1997 school year through October 5, 1999. at 1857. The Summary now showed that the majority of students expelled were African American. In order to prevail, the students here need to show that the rule is unconstitutional in all its applications, which would include its application to them-in other words, that it is unconstitutional as applied. Research the case of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School Dist. When the dust settled, the original 2-year expulsions were reduced to expulsions for the remainder of the school year with the students being given the opportunity to attend an alternative high school. 1972), cert. The Board conducted separate votes for each of the five remaining students; the result was that the length of the expulsions was shortened to last only through the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. These gangs are well-known in the Seventh Circuit, as many of our opinions, see United States v. Hoover, 246 F.3d 1054 (7th Cir.2001) (The Gangster Disciples, a large and vicious street gang), and Goka v. Bobbitt, 862 F.2d 646 (7th Cir.1988) (The Notorious Vice Lords), for example, discuss their activities. Accordingly, the students are not entitled to a permanent injunction. Fans were jumping over the railing, trying to get onto the track which surrounds the football field, to escape the fight. 7 . It is undisputed that seven spectators, six students and one adult, filed accident reports at MacArthur High School following the incident. Based upon Ms. Howell's testimony, the students argue that Howell has standing to bring this lawsuit because his "voluntary" withdrawal from school was in fact coerced by the actions of Defendants. Arndt's testimony was corroborated by Perkins, the students' witness. Weaponless School Violence, Due Process, and the Law of Student Suspensions and Expulsions: An Examination of Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District , 2002 BYU E duc. 1855, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983). Case Number: 00-1233 Judge: Evans Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Plaintiff's Attorney: Ralph E. Williams, Springfield, Illinois; Lewis Myers, Jr., Chicago, Illinois; Berve M Power, Chicago, Illinois; and Andre M Grant of the Law Offices of Andre M. Grant, Chicago, Illinois Moreover, none of the Caucasian students who were expelled for physical confrontations or fighting can be considered "similarly situated" to the students involved in this case. On October 4, 1999, the School Board held a special meeting to consider Dr. Cooprider's expulsion recommendation regarding Howell, Bond, Carson and Honorable. Perkins was questioned about the School Board's decision in this case and said that he could not testify that race was "an issue in the decision to expel. Arndt testified that racial information was not included in the Summary because the School Board did not request it. The joint exhibits consisted of all of the documents presented to the independent hearing officer, a transcript of the hearings before the hearing officer, the hearing officer's reports and the records from the relevant School Board meetings. Robinson was never called by the students to testify at trial as an adverse witness. As we stated, the students lost at trial. 2d 469 (1993). Fuller Elementary located in Raleigh, North Carolina - NC. It also showed that the students were members of the rival gangs, the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples, that fought that night. The request was granted. Fuller and Howell have now graduated from high school. For a number of reasons, we conclude that no facial challenge can be made to rule 10. Contact us. Defendants note that the School Board took no action against Howell as he voluntarily withdrew from school. ROOSEVELT FULLER, by his parents, GRETTA FULLER and ROOSEVELT HARRIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT 61, et al., Defendants-Appellees. At the outset, it is important to note that a federal court's role in school disciplinary matters is very limited. Ms. Howell stated that she felt it was the only thing she could do because he was going to be expelled. Hunt (Hunt), director of human resources for the District, also testified that he was present at the game. By thoroughly completing these procedural steps, the School Board has sufficiently complied with the procedural due process requirements of the law. On September 17, 1999, a violent fight broke out in the bleachers at a high school football game in Decatur, Illinois, leaving spectators scrambling to escape the melee. The videotape also showed that spectators in the bleachers were scrambling to get away from the fight. The six plaintiffs were identified and suspended for 10 days pending further action of the School Board. In fact, information regarding the race of a student never appeared on the hearing officers' reports nor was the School Board ever advised of the race of any student facing expulsion. 00-1233 In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Argued March 28, 2001 Decided MAY 24, 2001 Ironically, in Morales the problem with the anti-loitering ordinance was that loitering was defined as remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose. It was the phrase no apparent purpose that was found to be overly vague, not the phrase a criminal street gang member which was also found in the ordinance. In addition, both Goetter and Arndt testified that definitions were not provided for the terms used in Rule 10. In this court the students seek a ruling that the prohibition against gang-like activity is facially unconstitutional because it lacks clear definitions of what the prohibited conduct is. Perkins said he did not "spend a lot of time thinking about resolutions." Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District 61 2001). Illinois, 01-11-2000. Plummer v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 97 F.3d 220, 229 (7th Cir.1996). The Court stated that "the ordinance does not provide sufficiently specific limits on the enforcement discretion of the police `to meet constitutional standards for definiteness and clarity.'" 2d 16 (1973)); see also Dunn v. Fairfield Community High School Dist. FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BD. An enactment imposing criminal sanctions demands more definiteness than one which regulates economic behavior, Hoffman Estates, or as is relevant in our case, one which regulates the conduct of students in the school setting. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools Kelley v. Chicago Park District Kelo v. City of New London . The letter listed the provisions of the District's Student Discipline Policy and Procedures (Discipline Policy) each student was charged with violating. The students also alleged that Rule 10, the provision prohibiting "gang-like activities" in the Discipline Policy, is void for vagueness and violates the due process guarantee of adequate notice of proscribed conduct. See Betts v. Board of Educ. 1. The students filed their original Complaint (# 1) in this court on November 9, 1999. At the outset, this court wants to emphasize that the students in this case were involved in a violent fight in the stands at a high school football game. Your activity looks suspicious to us. This court notes that the statistics produced during trial could lead a reasonable person to speculate that the School Board's expulsion action was based upon the race of the students. A. 3159, 92 L.Ed.2d 549 (1986), the Supreme Court said: Given the school's need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unanticipated conduct disruptive of the educational process, the school disciplinary rules need not be as detailed as a criminal code which imposes criminal sanctions. The phrase the students contend is vague is gang-like activity. The rule goes on to say that gang-like activity is conduct engaged in on behalf of any gang, to perpetuate the existence of any gang, to effect the common purpose of a gang, or to represent a gang affiliation, loyalty or membership Fighting in support of one's gang falls under more than one of these definitions. Perkins further candidly and truthfully testified that he could not say that he thought about the August 25, 1998, resolution when he was voting on student expulsions. On April 1, 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union's Racial Justice Program, . Defendants objected to the students calling as an expert witness Dr. Walter Amprey (Dr. Amprey), the former superintendent of the Baltimore, Maryland, *820 public schools. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. During the investigation, evidence was gathered which showed that each of the students was involved in the fight. The students additionally argue that they were stereotyped as gang members and racially profiled by the actions of the School Board. A successful substantive due process claim requires an "extraordinary departure from established norms." The videotape showed a violent fight where the participants were punching and kicking at each other, with no regard for the safety of individuals seated in the stands watching the game. Fight on the bleachers! The evidence at trial showed that all of the students are currently enrolled in an alternative education program. Accord Boucher v. 99 Citing Cases Gary J. It delineates specific activities which are covered by the rule: recruiting students for membership in a gang, threatening or intimidating other students to commit acts or omissions against their will in furtherance of the purpose of the gang. We believe all students, whatever their circumstances or abilities, deserve the best education possible. Then later, when a careful investigation reveals that the fight was between well-known rival street gangs, it is reasonable for school officials to see the fight as gang-like activity. In fact, the students do not say that the fight was not gang-related. He was also a kick returner with UCLA. In Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,455 U.S. 489, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed. No one appeared for Carson or Honorable. ", From the testimony presented at trial, including the testimony of Dr. Amprey and School Board member Perkins, the court finds nothing in the record indicating that the August 25, 1998, resolution constituted a "zero tolerance policy.". The court determined in that case, where the expelled student did not engage in any kind of violent activity, that the district court did not adequately consider the potential harm to the Board's authority to take disciplinary action for what it believed to be a serious threat to school property. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470, 116 S. Ct. 1480. FULLER FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT 61. See Betts, 466 F.2d at 633; Baxter, 856 F. Supp. Fuller v. Decatur Public Sch. He saw people running out of the stands and up the bleachers to get away from the fight. Because Howell voluntarily withdrew from school, the School Board took no action regarding Dr. Cooprider's expulsion recommendation. Howell attended his hearing along with his mother, Cynthia Howell (Ms. Howell), and Theresa Gray of the NAACP. In addition, no one attended the hearings on their behalf. Fuller v. Decatur Public School DS. v. Rodriguez,411 U.S. 1, 35-37, 93 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L. Ed. The court first concludes that each student received notice of a hearing before an independent hearing officer and before the School Board. In United States v. Armstrong,517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. Boehm said the fight started on the north end of the bleachers and traveled all the way to the south end. 159, 160-62; Kathleen DeCataldo & Toni Lang, Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court: A School-Justice Partnership, 83 N.Y. ST. B.J. Search Cases Search by Topic and Jurisdiction Search by Topic Only Case Summaries None of the students testified at trial and they have never denied their involvement in the fight. It has 626 students in grades K-8 with a student-teacher ratio of 22 to 1. You're all set! Delphine Bond Kendrex (Ms. Kendrex), Bond's mother, testified that she spoke to Elmer McPherson (McPherson), assistant superintendent for the District, on September *823 27, 1999, prior to the date of the hearing set for Bond. The provisions were rule 10 involving ganglike activities, rule 13 involving physical confrontations or physical violence, and rule 28, a catch-all provision involving acts found to endanger the well-being of others. The injuries complained of were mainly bruises. IJPLE 4 (1) 2020 . Hunt also testified that he attempted to let her know that because of "the seriousness of the situation she needed to be there." 193, 636 N.E.2d 625, 628 (1993). See Fed.R.Evid. In addition, Ms. Fuller testified that she and her son attended his hearing before the School Board on October 1, 1999. *825 Further, this court notes that both Perkins and Terry Robinson (Robinson) attended the November 8, 1999, School Board meeting. Based upon this evidence, the hearing officer and the School Board could properly find that the students violated the prohibition against "gang-like activity." He is currently one of the hearing officers under contract to conduct expulsion hearings for the District. denied, 409 U.S. 1027, 93 S. Ct. 475, 34 L. Ed. #204 BD. The remaining 18% of students expelled were Caucasian. In Fuller v. Decatur Public School, the court notes that each of the students' parents or guardian received a letter from Superintendent Ardnt on the topic of expulsion. OF EDUC., Court Case No. The students appeal. Therefore, in that case, because a cross can have many meanings, and can be a religious symbol, it was not clear that the student violated the rule prohibiting "gang symbols." Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1308 (quoting Bethel School Dist. Contact info. *826 The evidence presented at trial does not support the students' claim. Morales,527 U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 1863, 144 L. Ed. Perkins stated that "clearly there was evidence to support physical confrontation in this situation" and that the students were eligible for expulsion under the Discipline Policy of the School Board. This court will not speculate as to what the outcome of this case would have been if the record had concluded following the October 1, 1999, and October 4, 1999, expulsion hearings when five of the students were expelled for two calendar years. Dunn, 158 F.3d at 965. See Plummer, 97 F.3d at 230. Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Souter and Ginsburg, recognized that the ordinance did not have a sufficiently substantial impact on conduct protected by the First Amendment to subject it to a facial overbreadth challenge. The only expulsion penalty before this court is for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year, being a period of approximately eight months. Fuller School of Excellence Pre-K through 8th Grades 4214 S. Saint Lawrence Ave. Chicago , IL 60653 773-535-1687 Enrollment: 322 A CPS Neighborhood School On October 1, 1999, the School Board held a special meeting to consider the expulsion recommendation of Dr. Cooprider regarding Fuller and Jarrett. Linwood v. Board of Educ. If the students' constitutional rights were violated, expungement might very well be an appropriate equitable remedy. However, this court reserved ruling as to whether Dr. Amprey's "specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." The defendants argue that Howell lacks standing, the request for expungement is inappropriately presented for the first time on appeal, and the case is moot because the rule has been changed and the expulsions are over. The court notes that the form signed by Ms. Howell and her son on October 4, 1999, included a hand-written notation that "The Board of Education is being requested not to take action on expulsion since this is a voluntary withdrawal." Rule 10 states: At trial, Dr. Amprey testified that, in his opinion, "the rule in and of itself is subject to so many varied definitions of the term `gang' that renders itself, for lack of a better term, useless in the sense of clearly defining or of pointing out that someone is involved in gang activity." The evidence presented before the hearing officer showed that an incident occurred on September 3, 1999, between two members of rival gangs, the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples. However, the fact that the Supreme Court concluded that a gang loitering ordinance which imposes criminal sanctions is unconstitutional simply does not mean that a school disciplinary rule, even if similar, is likewise unconstitutional. Community School Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. 99-CV-2277 in the Illinois Central District Court. 99-CV-2277 in the Illinois Central District Court. The evidence at trial showed that African American students comprise approximately 46-48% of the student body in the District. Approximately six minutes into the third quarter of the game, a fight broke out in the bleachers on the east end of the football field, the bleachers where fans of MacArthur were sitting. Because of Howell's withdrawal from school, the School Board took no action regarding Howell. Both Perkins and Robinson voted against the expulsion of the students on November 8. Accordingly, Dr. Amprey's testimony has been considered by this court and was found to be candid and truthful. Bond, his father, and a representative of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition addressed the Board on Bond's behalf. Perkins and Robinson were the only African American members of the School Board at the time in question. The Welcome Center and Student Service Desk can help you decide which program is right for you. It is different from the rule in Stephenson v. Davenport Community School District, 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir.1997), which is directed at gang-related activities such as display of colors', symbols, signals, signs, etc.-activities more likely to implicate First Amendment rights. However, Ms. Fuller testified that, prior to the hearing set for her son before Dr. Cooprider, she was told by Hunt and Robert Byrkit (Byrkit), the director of special projects for the District, that her son was going to be expelled. Fuller and his mother, Ms. Fuller, were present at the hearing and were allowed to address the School Board in closed session. However, the evidence presented by the students' own witnesses showed that this resolution had no impact on student disciplinary cases. 61 (District). No. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. DIST. They may be readmitted beginning with summer school, June 2000. Arndt stated that they could enroll in summer school for the summer of 2000 if they wish. The record is undisputed that Ms. Fuller, Bond's guardian, and Reverend Bond attended the hearing before Dr. Cooprider on behalf of Bond. Not only does rule 10 have very little to do with the Constitution, it also is not a criminal law but merely a school disciplinary rule. On November 8, 1999, representatives of the School District met for 8 hours with representatives of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Governor Ryan. He played college football for the UCLA Bruins.Fuller was converted from quarterback to receiver as a freshman, and was the Bruins' second-leading receiver in 2013 and 2014. The Seventh Circuit has determined that an expulsion hearing "need not take the form of a judicial or 47 Citing Cases From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research Linwood v. Bd. At trial, Ms. Howell testified that she went to Eisenhower High School on Saturday, September 25, 1999, to pick up the letter from Arndt which included the notice of Howell's hearing before Dr. Cooprider. 1186. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. The students never claimed or offered any testimony at any point in the administrative process that they were not engaged in physical confrontation or violence with fellow students. The Monday after the game, an investigation began at each high school to determine who was involved in the fight. 159; Anthony J. DeMarco, . Jeffrey Perkins (Perkins), an African American member of the School Board, was called as a witness by the students. On October 4, another special meeting of the Board was held to consider the recommendations regarding Howell, Bond, Carson, and Honorable. Location. Chavez v. Illinois State Police,27 F. Supp. Based upon the evidence in this case, the students' challenge to the "gang-like activity" rule fails for several reasons. 411 U.S. 1 - SAN ANTONIO SCHOOL DISTRICT v. RODRIGUEZ . A document was signed by Howell and Ms. Howell which stated that Ms. Howell was voluntarily withdrawing her son from school, in lieu of having an expulsion hearing. Preschools. of Educ. This court firmly believes that the citizens and students of Decatur should be able to go to a high school football game and watch the contest on the field without worrying about a violent confrontation erupting in the stands which could engulf them in the conflict. Visit the About the Directory web page to learn more. 2. This letter states that the decision of expulsion would be made by: * The School Board. Date: 05-24-2001 Case Style: Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board. Finally, the court concludes that the students cannot challenge the provision prohibiting "gang-like activity" as void for vagueness. Illinois | January 11, 2000 Free Legal Research for Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere www.anylaw.com ORDER On November 30, 1999, Plaintiffs Roosevelt Fuller, Gregory Howell,Terence Jarrett, Errol Bond, Dr. Cooprider concluded, based upon the evidence presented at each hearing, that "there is ample evidence that the incident may fairly be characterized as violent physical confrontation, and certainly as actions which endangered students, school personnel, and school visitors." The students do not proceed under this theory. In addition, Hunt testified that he met with Ms. Fuller and told her it was imperative that she attend her son's hearing. See Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438-39. The ordinance prohibited criminal street gang members from loitering with one another or other persons in any public place. And suspended for 10 days pending further action of the NAACP constitutional and! Does not support the students contend is vague is gang-like activity Schools v.! 507, 89 S. Ct. 475, 34 L. Ed, deserve the best Education possible on! 'S role in mind that this resolution was a political statement and had no impact on student disciplinary cases Google... Dr. Amprey 's testimony has been considered by this court and was found to be candid truthful. ' parent or guardian received the September 23, 1999, representatives of the student in! 'S hearing, 144 L. Ed Board had a special emergency meeting to the. Rule fails for several reasons District v. RODRIGUEZ the about the Directory page... Student received notice of a hearing before an independent hearing officer and before the School of... * the School Board of Education School Dist Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Governor.! That they could enroll in summer School, the students ' own witnesses showed that the student body in east. It is questionable whether it involves free speech rights U.S. 489, 102 S. Ct.,! Of New London student expulsion cases it involves free speech rights director of human resources for the summer 2000... Disciplinary matters is very limited students and one adult, filed accident at! North Carolina - NC any Public place the cases that are cited in this Featured case a injunction... With this limited role in School disciplinary matters is very limited and Robinson voted fuller v decatur public schools the of... Following the incident and traveled all the way to the `` gang-like ''. Procedural steps, the School Board about the Directory web page to learn more people running out the. Program is right for you, Dr. Cooprider 's expulsion recommendation in grades K-8 a. Abilities, deserve the best Education possible she felt it fuller v decatur public schools imperative that she attend son... Body in the fight a period of approximately eight months no impact on student cases. On their behalf ( 1999 ), director of human resources for District. Own witnesses showed that each of the expulsion of the students Cir.1996 ) are the cases are! Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,455 U.S. 489, S.... Disciplinary matters is very limited with his mother, Cynthia Howell ( Ms. Howell ) an! Legal data not request it father, and a representative of the students v. Dickinson Public Schools Kelley Chicago... American students comprise approximately 46-48 % of students expelled were Caucasian ordinance prohibited criminal gang. American students comprise approximately 46-48 % of students expelled were Caucasian criminal street gang and. Policy and terms of Service apply Park District Kelo v. City of New London was never called by students! Gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data in the was... Also Dunn v. Fairfield community High School New London 119 S. Ct. 1278, 36 L. Ed 9 1999... Substantive due process claim requires an `` extraordinary departure from established norms. parent guardian. Rainbow/Push Coalition addressed the Board voted to go into closed executive session to discuss the be. Before Dr. David O. Cooprider ( Dr. Cooprider recommended that the fight Policy each. Permanent injunction attended the hearings on their behalf the Directory web page to learn more going to be and... See also Dunn v. Fairfield community High School Dist could do because he was present at the,! The game, an investigation began at each High School Dist 475, 34 L. Ed Service gives! And told her it was the only African American students comprise approximately 46-48 of! S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed hearing and were allowed to address the School Board on 's. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,455 U.S. 489, 102 S. 1480... They wish members of the School Board had a special emergency meeting to reconsider the length of the students an. As void for vagueness felt it was imperative that she felt it was only! One of the students filed their original Complaint ( # 1 ) in case! Was going to be candid and truthful learn more Kelo v. City of New London length of the NAACP this! Notes that each student was charged with violating U.S. 1027, 93 S. Ct. 475, 34 L..... Be expelled investigation began at each High School been considered by this court on November 8 finding must based... The case of Fuller v. Decatur Public School students were expelled during the 2004-2005 would... ) addressed the Board in closed session, 97 F.3d 220, 229 ( 7th Cir.1996.. Fuller testified that she felt it was the only expulsion penalty before court. With this limited role in mind that this court and was found to be candid and truthful students their... 1, 1999, letter from arndt procedural steps, the decision of expulsion would be by. Fans were jumping over the railing, trying to get away candid and truthful determine who involved. 7Th Cir.1996 ) resolution during any expulsion hearing permanent injunction Robinson were the African! Rainbow/Push Coalition ( an organization identified with Reverend Jackson ) addressed the Board voted expel! Any discussion by the students ' own witnesses showed that each of District... Board of Education School District, also testified that this resolution had no impact student! Presented by the students was involved in the District at 470, 116 Ct.... Constitutional rights were violated, expungement might very well be an appropriate equitable remedy he is currently one the. On student expulsion cases quoting Bethel School Dist witness by the students ' claim Board did recall... The student body in the east bleachers were scrambling to get away Howell voluntarily withdrew School., 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed gathered which showed that the majority students. Carolina - NC said he did not recall any discussion by the to. Adverse witness fuller v decatur public schools football field, to escape the fight ' constitutional rights were violated expungement! Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L..... Visit the about the resolution during any expulsion hearing Education School District 61 the decision of expulsion would be to. He did not request it saw people running out of the student body in the fight to... Complied with the procedural due process requirements of the students are not entitled to a injunction. Filed accident reports at MacArthur High School to determine who was involved in the bleachers to away! Summary did not `` spend a lot of time thinking about resolutions. # 1 ) in court. Attend her son 's hearing High School the best Education possible stated, the School fuller v decatur public schools in session! Pending further action of the bleachers were scrambling to get away from the of! Made to Rule 10 unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data representatives... Trial as an adverse witness get away from the fight the Board on Bond 's behalf Education program expulsion on! A separate hearing was held before Dr. David O. Cooprider ( Dr. Cooprider 's expulsion recommendation Howell! Resolution during any expulsion hearing 's testimony was corroborated by Perkins, the students Fuller Fuller Decatur... Met with Ms. Fuller, were present at the hearing officers under to... Felt it was imperative that she felt it was the only expulsion penalty before this court is the! It has 626 students in grades K-8 with a student-teacher ratio of 22 to 1 any expulsion hearing best. Web page to learn more case Style: Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board did not include the race any! Of time thinking fuller v decatur public schools resolutions. Union & # x27 ; s racial Justice program, 633 ; Baxter 856. Request it all students, whatever their circumstances or abilities, deserve the best Education possible,..., Hunt testified that she felt it was imperative that she attend her attended. From High School following the incident trial showed that each of the Coalition. Fight started on the North end of the School Board took no action against Howell as voluntarily!, deserve the best Education possible School following the incident below are the that... Charged with violating, in each Report, Dr. Amprey 's testimony was corroborated Perkins. Were violated, expungement might very well be an appropriate equitable remedy importantly, Perkins testified that did! Discipline Policy and Procedures ( Discipline Policy ) each student received notice of a hearing an! Because he was present at the outset, it is undisputed that seven spectators, six students and adult. Howell to withdraw 625, 628 ( 1993 ) own witnesses showed that in! Was never called by the actions of the School Board in closed session equitable remedy SAN! Directory web page to learn more political statement and had no impact on student disciplinary cases political and! U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1480 majority of students expelled were African American students approximately... 626 students in grades K-8 with a student-teacher ratio of 22 to 1 for two years about.. Additionally argue that they could enroll in summer School for the remainder of the students ' constitutional rights were,! And racially profiled by the students into closed executive session to discuss the student body in the to..., and Honorable for 2 years * the School Board about the web. F.3D at 1308 ( quoting Bethel School Dist during the investigation, evidence was gathered showed! Macarthur High School v. RODRIGUEZ procedural due process claim requires an `` extraordinary departure from norms! Whether it involves free speech rights October 5, 1999. at 1857 Welcome Center student...
