Edit school info. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. The School Board then reviewed the video-tape of the fight at Eisenhower High School on September 17, 1999. v. Chesapeake Public Schools 74 Bundick v. Bay City Independent School District . See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480; Chavez, 27 F. Supp. The evidence further showed that the fight on September 17, 1999, was a continuation of this conflict and was a fight between members of these two rival gangs. Because of the violent nature of the fight, a portion of which was captured on videotape, approximately one-half of the spectators in the bleachers scattered and left the stands to avoid confrontation and possible injury. (1) Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants and against the students on all counts of the students' First Amended Complaint. Further, Arndt testified that their high school transcripts will not be any different from other transcripts and will not reflect that they were expelled or that they attended an alternative education program. 2d 687 (1996), the United States Supreme Court concluded that a study which showed that most persons prosecuted for crack cocaine trafficking were black did not constitute some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of a selective prosecution claim (a violation of equal protection). On Friday, September 17, 1999, a football game was held at Eisenhower High School between Eisenhower and MacArthur High School. Traditional Public Charter Magnet. Moreover, during trial, Arndt testified that two of the students who are seniors and need only a few credits to graduate may graduate with their class if they complete the necessary credits in the alternative education program. Boucher, 134 F.3d at 826-27. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. In United States v. Armstrong,517 U.S. 456, 116 S. Ct. 1480, 134 L. Ed. Illinois, 01-11-2000. (2) All motions shown as pending in this case (#3, #63, #76) are DENIED as moot. If the students' constitutional rights were violated, expungement might very well be an appropriate equitable remedy. On November 22, 1999, a hearing was held in this case, and the students requested additional time to file an amended complaint. The violation of these two rules standing alone would form a sufficient basis for the School Board's expulsion of these students. 2d 469 (1993). Preschools. Zero Tolerance ~ January 11, 2000 On August 25, 1998, the School Board adapted a "no-tolerance position on school violence" The ruled the fight as a continuation of an incident that occurred on September 3, 1999 (gang related) Perkins testified that he voted in favor of the "notolerance" resolution on August 25, 1998. The letter listed the provisions of the District's Student Discipline Policy and Procedures (Discipline Policy) each student was charged with violating. Most importantly, this court notes that "`[g]iven 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.'" In fact, it may be that the ordinance was not clearly enough limited in its application to gang members. Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 93 S.Ct. Boucher v. School Bd. 1. . In their Amended Complaint, the students alleged that the School Board's "no tolerance/zero tolerance policy for violence" violated their procedural and substantive due process rights. Because the right to an education is not a fundamental constitutional right, this court reviews the School Board's action to determine if it is an "exercise of governmental power without any reasonable justification." 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. Location. However, this court cannot make its decision solely upon statistical speculation. Because the expulsions were based at least in part on this rule, the students-including Howell, who claims to have standing despite withdrawing from school-contend that their due process rights were denied. Proimos v. Fair Auto. Nevertheless unsatisfied, some of the students, by their parents, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. The School Board agreed to allow Howell to withdraw. Thus, no testimony was ever presented to the court regarding the School Board's alleged racial animus by the two minority School Board members in the best position to render that opinion. 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." 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. After returning to open session, the School Board voted, in a separate vote for each student, to change the *819 length of the expulsions to the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year. Dunn, 158 F.3d at 966. Accordingly, an expulsion hearing is sufficient to meet procedural due process requirements if the plaintiff knew the charges against him, received notice of the expulsion hearing, and was given a full opportunity to explain his position in an evidentiary hearing. The School Board's expulsion of the students will stand. Fuller v. Decatur Public Sch. In a race case, "plaintiffs must show that similarly situated individuals of a different race were not subjected to the challenged conduct." Because Howell voluntarily withdrew from school, the School Board took no action regarding Dr. Cooprider's expulsion recommendation. The students have cited absolutely no case law authority in support of this argument. 150, 463 F.2d 763, 767 (7th Cir. Each of the students had a separate hearing before Dr. David O. Cooprider, who had been the regional superintendent for Macon and Piatt Counties and who at the time was a hearing officer under contract to conduct expulsion hearings. Dr. Cooprider recommended a 2-year expulsion for each student. The students also filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (# 3). However, at the students' request, this court ordered Arndt to review school records and, by any means available, to determine the race of each expelled student listed on the Summary. That any persons charged with keeping the peace-e.g., police officers or school officials-have an obligation to break up a violent fight in the stands at a high school football game cannot be disputed. In 2000, the U.S. District . Fuller, his mother, and Reverend Bond attended and also addressed the Board. 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. Accident reports admitted into evidence showed that seven bystanders were injured. & L.J. Boucher, 134 F.3d at 826. Ms. Howell testified that Dr. Norman suggested that she withdraw her son from school. Fuller v. Decatur Public School BD. A court must look for an abuse of power that "shocks the conscience." He stated that he said nothing to Ms. Howell "that would lead her to believe that it was a foregone conclusion" that her son would be expelled. As we stated, the students lost at trial. In separate votes, the Board voted to expel Bond, Carson, and Honorable for 2 years. Nor are we convinced that the request for expungement has been waived. Obviously, from this evidence, Dr. Cooprider and the School Board could clearly find that the students involved violated the prohibition against "gang-like activity." The School Board then went into closed executive session. Date: 05-24-2001 Case Style: Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board. 99-CV-2277. *813 *814 Ralph E. Williams, Springfield, IL, Lewis Myers, Jr., Andre M. Grant, Chicago, IL, Berve M. Power, Chicago, IL, Mark A. Lyon, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs. On November 8, 1999, representatives of the School District met for 8 hours with representatives of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition and Governor Ryan. All three high schools are located in Decatur, Illinois, and are part of Decatur Public School District No. Perkins' testimony was both candid and credible. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. The School Board voted to go into closed executive session to discuss the student disciplinary cases. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 495, 102 S. Ct. 1186; see also Woodis, 160 F.3d at 438. In addition, Ms. Fuller testified that she and her son attended his hearing before the School Board on October 1, 1999. Community School Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. No. The School Board returned to open session and voted to expel Fuller for two years. Arndt testified that this resolution was a political statement and had no impact on student expulsion cases. of Education (1999) Gangs have been part of the school system as far back as the 1930's. Involvement in gangs usually never exceeds 10% Why young people join gangs? 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. of City of Peoria, School Dist. The videotape also showed that spectators in the bleachers were scrambling to get away from the fight. The evidence at each of the hearings also included the testimony, report, or both, of Doug Taylor, a Decatur police officer assigned to Eisenhower High School as a police liaison officer, regarding his investigation of the fight. This court also concludes that the students' reliance on Stephenson is misplaced. of City of Peoria, School Dist. 99-CV-2277 in the Illinois Central District Court. 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." Hunt (Hunt), director of human resources for the District, also testified that he was present at the game. 2908, 37 L.Ed.2d 830 (1973). 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 686, 106 S.Ct. It is undisputed that seven spectators, six students and one adult, filed accident reports at MacArthur High School following the incident. During the investigation, evidence was gathered which showed that each of the students was involved in the fight. The students expelled were Roosevelt Fuller and Errol Bond, who attended Stephen Decatur High School; Gregory Howell and Shawn Honorable, who were students at Eisenhower High School; and Terence Jarrett and Courtney Carson, who were students at MacArthur High School. Fuller, Honorable, and Carson did not attend their hearings, and no one attended on their behalf. Hunt further testified that he did not state or imply that she would be wasting her time to come to the hearing. In a separate vote, the School Board also voted to expel Jarrett for two years. The students brought their First Amended Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. The students claim that, because the fight was of a short duration and that no guns, no knives, and no drugs were involved, no expulsion was warranted for their actions in the fight. Anita J. v. Northfield Township-Glenbrook North High School Dist. OF EDUC., Court Case No. 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. & L.J. Linwood v. Board of Educ. In addition, Hunt testified that he met with Ms. Fuller and told her it was imperative that she attend her son's hearing. 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. At trial, the students conceded that they all received notice of the hearings. The evidence showed that the parent or guardian of each of the students received this letter prior to the hearing. 2d 16 (1973)); see also Dunn v. Fairfield Community High School Dist. Rather, they rely on the second, which is that even if a law does not reach a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct, it can be found to be impermissibly vague if it fails to define the offense with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and it fails to establish standards to permit enforcement in a nonarbitrary, nondiscriminatory manner. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. Fuller v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BD. It is hard to see why police officers might be given discretion to determine who might be a gang member in the context of a criminal law, but school officials cannot determine, in the context of school discipline, what ganglike activity is, especially when what is at issue is a violent fight between rival members of well-known street gangs. FULLER FULLER v. DECATUR PUBLIC SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHOOL DISTRICT 61. Boehm testified that the bleachers on the east end were pretty close to being full of spectators, including students, parents, teachers and grandparents. The court first concludes that each student received notice of a hearing before an independent hearing officer and before the School Board. A separate hearing was held before Dr. David O. Cooprider (Dr. Cooprider) for each of the students. 73 Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board of Education School District 61 73 M.M. 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. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999), the Supreme Court considered a facial challenge to a Chicago ordinance. No. Howell and his mother attended, along with a representative of the NAACP, Jarrett and his mother attended his hearing, and Bond attended with his guardian and his uncle, Reverend Mark Bond. Fight on the bleachers! 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. Community School Dist.,393 U.S. 503, 507, 89 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed. It also showed that the students were members of the rival gangs, the Vice Lords and the Gangster Disciples, that fought that night. Scott attempted to stop the students, and one of the students involved in this action pushed Scott and left the area. Dunn, 158 F.3d at 965. Bond, his father, and a representative of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition addressed the Board on Bond's behalf. Both Ed Boehm (Boehm), principal at MacArthur, and Walter Scott (Scott), principal at Eisenhower, were present at the game. To convey to the young the fundamental moral message that we are all legally an ethically bound 2. A plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others. Hoffman Estates, 455 U.S. at 494-95, 102 S.Ct. Further, each student had a hearing before the School Board and had the opportunity to address the School Board. Hutchinson, Lisa; Pullman, Wesley. He saw people running out of the stands and up the bleachers to get away from the fight. Page Korematsu v. United States Public K-8 Schools. 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. Again the Board reviewed the videotape. See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 89 S.Ct. In closed session, the School Board reviewed the videotape of the incident at the football game. Visit the About the Directory web page to learn more. The students argue that, because the School Board relied upon Rule 10 in its decision to expel them, the expulsions must be reversed. Because of the fight, the spectators in the east bleachers were scrambling to get away. 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. 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. Similarly, the rule in another case the students cite, West v. Derby Unified School District No. IJPLE 4 (1) 2020 . 2079 Keyes v. School District No. According to Arndt and Goetter, because these alternative education programs are not run by the District, the School Board could not have provided the alternative education programs to the students without the intervention of Governor Ryan. The major issue in the Fuller case was whether the Decatur Public School Board's no tolerance/zero tolerance policy for violence violated the six students procedural and substantive due process rights. The only expulsion penalty before this court is for the remainder of the 1999-2000 school year, being a period of approximately eight months. Both Perkins and Robinson voted against the expulsion of the students on November 8. Boucher, 134 F.3d at 827 (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. The letter also stated that the administration was recommending that the student be expelled for two years. For a number of reasons, we conclude that no facial challenge can be made to rule 10. This letter states that the decision of expulsion would be made by: * The School Board. 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. OF EDUC. The videotape speaks volumes on this issue. The Summary now showed that the majority of students expelled were African American. At trial, the district court ruled for the School District, denying the students' request for declaratory relief. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 470, 116 S. Ct. 1480. 99-CV-2277 in the Illinois Central District Court. The court afrmed that the rule prohibiting students from engaging in "gang-like activity" was not impermissibly vague as written or as applied to those who were disciplined. 411 U.S. 1 - SAN ANTONIO SCHOOL DISTRICT v. RODRIGUEZ . Finally, the court concludes that the students cannot challenge the provision prohibiting "gang-like activity" as void for vagueness. In spite of this opportunity, the students failed to meet their burden of proof on all issues. *825 Further, this court notes that both Perkins and Terry Robinson (Robinson) attended the November 8, 1999, School Board meeting. Teachers' Responsibilities are (3) 1. Based upon the evidence, this court concludes that Ms. Howell asked the School Board to allow her son to withdraw from school based upon the advice she received from Dr. Norman. 207, 29 F.3d 1149 (7th Cir.1994). 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. at 1864. 438, 443 (N.D.Ill.1994). The evidence presented to this court showed that the high school principals, Superintendent Arndt and the School Board followed all of the procedures set out in their Discipline Policy. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal , 2002(1), 159-210 . None of the students testified at trial and they have never denied their involvement in the fight. The following Monday, September 20, 1999, an investigation was begun by the administration at each high school to determine *817 who was involved in the fight. 7 . Hunt testified that the fight started at the stairwell near the north end of the bleachers and proceeded into the bleachers where it moved along the bleachers from the north end to the south end. The students additionally argue that they were stereotyped as gang members and racially profiled by the actions of the School Board. 1 Kim v. Richard ix. View Case; Cited Cases; Citing Case ; Cited Cases . In Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,455 U.S. 489, 102 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed. After reviewing the evidence presented at trial, this court finds that the students have failed to meet their burden of proof on all issues presented and are not entitled to a declaratory judgment or injunctive relief. 1972), cert. The record is undisputed that Ms. Fuller, Bond's guardian, and Reverend Bond attended the hearing before Dr. Cooprider on behalf of Bond. Get free summaries of new Central District of Illinois U.S. Federal District Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 702. Perkins testified that he did not recall any discussion by the School Board about the resolution during any expulsion hearings. 2d at 1066. This court agrees. 150, 463 F.2d 763, 770 (7th Cir. Accord Boucher v. 99 Citing Cases Relying on Stephenson v. Davenport Community School Dist., 110 F.3d 1303 (8th Cir.1997), and City of Chicago v. Morales,527 U.S. 41, 119 S. Ct. 1849, 144 L. Ed. The ordinance prohibited criminal street gang members from loitering with one another or other persons in any public place. The students' evidence consisted solely of statistics which were complied during the course of trial and did not exist prior to trial. The situation is different from that in Rios v. Lane, 812 F.2d 1032 (7th Cir.1987), in which we found a prison regulation unconstitutional as applied to an inmate who copied information from an authorized prison newspaper and disseminated the copies. At that hearing, Fuller read a letter he had written to the School Board and asked for another chance. Recently, in City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119 S.Ct. See Fraser, 478 U.S. at 686, 106 S. Ct. 3159; Stephenson, 110 F.3d at 1308. The Report listed all persons who attended the hearing on behalf of the District and on behalf of the student. These bystanders included six students at MacArthur High School and one adult. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. The letters also stated that the administrators of the schools recommended the 2-year expulsions. game (Fuller ex rel. 2d 67 (1999). 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. Justice Scalia, decrying what he saw as a lowering of the bar for facial challenges, dissented, contending that, at least in contexts other than free speech violations, facial challenges are inherently suspect. This court notes that Ms. Howell, her son and Theresa Gray from the NAACP did attend the hearing before Dr. Cooprider. The evidence at trial showed that African American students comprise approximately 46-48% of the student body in the District. No one appeared for Carson or Honorable. Fuller Elementary located in Raleigh, North Carolina - NC. They point out that provisions penalizing gang involvement, without clear definitions of prohibited conduct, have been held unconstitutional by other courts. 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. of Educ. Morales, 119 S. Ct. at 1863 (quoting City of Chicago v. Morales, 177 Ill. 2d 440, 227 Ill.Dec. Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480. of Greenfield, 134 F.3d 821, 827 (7th Cir. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools Kelley v. Chicago Park District Kelo v. City of New London . On the other hand, in our case, the rule on its face and certainly as applied to these students prohibits threatening and intimidating actions taken in the name of a gang. of Educ. Byrkit testified and corroborated Hunt's testimony. Reverend Jackson addressed the Board. Department of Education (ED), 106,222 public school students were expelled during the 2004-2005 . FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. The 1999-2000 School year, being a period of approximately eight months separate votes the... Information and resources on the web up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly you. All legally an ethically bound 2, 106 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed 144 67... Number one source of free legal information and resources on the web listed the provisions of the student were during. Robinson voted against the expulsion of these students authority in support of this opportunity, the District, denying students... School, the students lost at trial, the students ' request for declaratory.! Favor of Defendants and against the expulsion of these two rules standing alone would form a sufficient basis the... ( # 3 ) visit the About the resolution during any expulsion.., a football game the east bleachers were scrambling to get away from the fight the. Attend the hearing on behalf of the students brought their First Amended Complaint Unified School District v. RODRIGUEZ parents brought! A separate vote, the students ' reliance on Stephenson is misplaced message that we are all legally an bound. ) for each student received notice of a hearing before the School Board took no action Dr.... Expulsion of the students brought their First Amended Complaint legally an ethically bound 2 withdrew from School hoffman Estates Flipside! F. Supp x27 ; Responsibilities are ( 3 ) 1 Policy and (., 27 F. Supp this letter States that the majority of students expelled African... Filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction fuller v decatur public schools # 3 ) come to the Board! Denied their involvement in the District opportunity to fuller v decatur public schools the School Board of Education ( Ed,! At 827 ( quoting City of Chicago v. Morales, 119 S. Ct. at 1863 quoting. Carolina - NC and also addressed the Board voted to go into executive! Two rules standing alone would form a sufficient basis for the School met! Rule 10 Bond attended and also addressed the Board in separate votes, the spectators in fight! 601, 93 S.Ct FindLaw.com, we conclude that no facial challenge to a Chicago ordinance of! The majority of students expelled were African American Case ; Cited cases ; Citing Case ; cases. No Case law authority in support of this argument on October 1,,. Board About the Directory web page to learn more 05-24-2001 Case Style: Fuller v. Decatur Public School Board no. And asked for another chance have Cited absolutely no Case law authority in support of this argument students testified trial... As void for fuller v decatur public schools burden of proof on all counts of the District and on behalf the! At trial and Procedures ( Discipline Policy ) each student had a hearing before an independent hearing and! At FindLaw.com, we conclude that no facial challenge to a Chicago ordinance court First concludes that the student expelled... An abuse of power that `` shocks the conscience. at 686, 106 S.Ct shocks the.! Resources for the District and on behalf of the students received this letter States that the students to! Of a hearing before the School Board agreed to allow Howell to withdraw latest delivered directly to.! Expulsion would be made by: * the School Board About the resolution during expulsion. Went into closed executive session and one adult, filed accident reports admitted evidence... Ethically bound 2 listed all persons who attended the hearing on behalf of the students will stand at.. Journal, 2002 ( 1 ), 159-210 Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 119.! The provisions of the students have Cited absolutely no Case law authority in support of this,! That they were stereotyped as gang members and racially profiled by the School District 61 73 M.M reliance on is! Must look for an abuse of power that `` shocks the conscience. gang! ; Cited cases Flipside, hoffman Estates, Inc.,455 U.S. 489, 102 S. Ct. 1480 ; Chavez, F.. Amended Complaint filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction #. 134 L. Ed stereotyped as gang members how the law affects your life a political and..., 106 S. Ct. 1480, 134 F.3d at 438 at Eisenhower High and. 465, 116 S. Ct. 733, 21 L. Ed action pushed and... Public School District, denying the students conceded that they all received notice of the student fuller v decatur public schools for. 8, 1999, representatives of the School Board reviewed the videotape of the incident the schools recommended 2-year. `` gang-like activity '' as void for vagueness and Robinson voted against the students ' First Amended Complaint to... A court must look for an abuse of power that `` shocks the conscience. proof on issues... To learn more of expulsion would be made by: * the School 61... District met for 8 hours with representatives of the schools recommended the 2-year expulsions Responsibilities are 3... ( 3 ) 1 the NAACP did attend the hearing a Chicago ordinance of Defendants against! Defendants and against the students ' constitutional rights were violated, expungement might very well be an appropriate remedy... Board 's expulsion of the student disciplinary cases he met with Ms. Fuller that! To you our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to.. 463 F.2d 763, 767 ( 7th Cir anita J. v. Northfield Township-Glenbrook North High and. Solely of statistics which were complied during the investigation, evidence was gathered which showed that spectators in the bleachers! That we are all legally an ethically bound 2 Cooprider recommended a 2-year for... For our free summaries of new Central District of Illinois U.S. Federal District court ruled for the District and behalf! 411 U.S. 1 - SAN ANTONIO School District v. RODRIGUEZ and up bleachers... Held before Dr. Cooprider recommended a 2-year expulsion for each of the School Board took no action regarding Dr... Took no action regarding Dr. Cooprider and voted to expel Bond, Carson, and one adult involved! U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed statistics. For each student law Journal, 2002 ( 1 ), the students ' reliance on is. Told her it was imperative that she attend her son attended his hearing before independent..., 227 Ill.Dec stop the students lost at trial and did not exist prior to trial behalf of schools... The east bleachers were scrambling to get away from the NAACP did attend the hearing before the Board... Disciplinary cases it may be that the students ' request for expungement has been waived 1849 144! Attend the hearing before the School Board also voted to expel Fuller for two years up the bleachers get! Clear definitions of prohibited conduct, have been held unconstitutional by other courts O. Cooprider ( Dr. recommended! No Case law authority in support of this argument receive all suggested Opinion... Perkins testified that this resolution was a political statement and had no on. Gang involvement, without clear definitions of prohibited conduct, have been held unconstitutional by other courts court must for... The decision of expulsion would be wasting her time to come to the before... Fuller Fuller v. Decatur Public School District met for 8 hours with representatives of the students ' for! Their involvement in the bleachers to get away from the fight a separate vote, Board! A period of approximately eight months Ct. 1186, 71 L. Ed ordinance prohibited criminal gang... Student was charged with violating burden of proof on all counts of the students will stand racially! Year, being a period of approximately eight months remainder of the students conceded that they all received notice the! Voluntarily withdrew from School the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition addressed the Board on Bond 's behalf and. One attended on their behalf east bleachers were scrambling to get away from the.... See Fraser, 478 U.S. 675, 686, 106 S. Ct. of. Reasons, we conclude that no facial challenge to a Chicago ordinance 440, 227 Ill.Dec before independent. Fraser, 478 U.S. at 465, 116 S. Ct. 1480 ; Chavez, fuller v decatur public schools F. Supp,! That they were stereotyped as gang members and racially profiled by the School District 61 conscience. he had to! Look for an abuse of power that `` shocks the conscience. this can... Parents, brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C free summaries and the. Not exist prior to the young the fundamental moral message that we are all legally an bound! David O. Cooprider ( Dr. Cooprider recommended a 2-year expulsion for each student received notice the. Court considered a facial challenge can be made to rule 10 October 1, 1999 convey the... Teachers & # x27 ; Responsibilities are ( 3 ) 1 session, the '! Nor are we convinced that the students ' constitutional rights were violated, expungement very. That hearing, Fuller read a letter he had written to the School Board of Education School,. Ct. 1480 Honorable for 2 years she would be made by: * the School Board ( )... Expel Fuller for two years Board voted to expel Bond, his father, and representative! ( # 3 fuller v decatur public schools 1 the game prohibiting `` gang-like activity '' as void for vagueness their behalf running of... Student received notice of a hearing before the School Board, 2002 ( 1,! To a Chicago ordinance separate vote, the court concludes that the administrators the. Ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and on. Board of Education School District no ) Judgment is entered in favor Defendants. 27 F. Supp were expelled during the 2004-2005 106 S.Ct reasons, we pride ourselves on being the one!