Context is important. You may recall that the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut occurred on a Friday. Here’s what happened in Egg Harbor, New Jersey the next Monday:
Three days after Sandy Hook, one of K.J. Jr.’s teachers saw a drawing in K.J.’s sketchbook that concerned her. When school officials reviewed K.J.’s other drawings they found a drawing of what appeared to be a weapon, which prompted them to detain K.J. and call the police. The police searched K.J.’s home and found parts that might have been used to make the weapon depicted in the drawing. Shortly thereafter, K.J. was arrested and placed in a juvenile detention facility, where he remained for over two weeks. Upon his release, he was placed under house arrest and forced to wear an ankle monitor until, several months later, the judge presiding over his trial dismissed one of the charges entirely and found K.J. not guilty on the remaining counts.
This sequence of events prompted a 103-page lawsuit alleging 25 causes of action against the district and 17 individual defendants. The plaintiff alleged that K.J. lost at least 14 months of education and was subjected to multiple constitutional and state law violations. Among other things, the suit alleges what while in juvie the boy was strip searched and “cavity searched.” That does not refer to dental work.
You have to wonder: would any of that have happened if the school was not on heightened alert due to Sandy Hook? We will never know. But of course the court applies legal principles to the situation regardless of context. As it turned out, the court tossed out most of the 25 causes of action. Of particular interest to us in Texas is how the court addressed the constitutional issues.
The court dismissed the claims that were based on an allegedly illegal search of the student’s sketchpad. The court cited the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case for the proposition that school officials only need a “reasonable suspicion” of wrongdoing to justify a search. The teacher saw a drawing that concerned her. Thus there was an “individualized suspicion” that was reasonable. Moreover, the court made note of the important fact that the vice principal conducted a minimally intrusive search. He looked at the sketchpad—not at any of the student’s personal belongings.
However, the court held that the suit alleged facts that could support a legitimate 1st Amendment claim against the superintendent, the principal and the vice principal. The student’s drawings were a form of “expression” protected by the 1st Amendment. The student was suspended because of the content of his drawings. To justify this infringement on 1st Amendment rights, the school has to convince the court that it could reasonably foresee a material disruption of school. At this stage of the game, the court was not convinced. The fact that this happened three days after the worst school shooting incident in U.S. history did not alter that analysis.
DAWG BONE: STUDENTS HAVE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, EVEN THREE DAYS AFTER SANDY HOOK.