Board of Education Expels Student For Sale of Prescription Drugs
by
Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 26, 2017
Other Education Criminal Civil & Human Rights Civil Rights
Summary: Blog post about a student who was expelled for selling prescription drugs to classmates and was unable to sue to have the expulsion overturned.
If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .
In the case of Riordan v. South Windsor Board of Education, a student was expelled from high school for one year for keeping prescription drugs in school and providing another student with prescription drugs. The student’s mother brought this action in an attempt to obtain an injunction to restrain or reverse the expulsion. In law, an injunction is a court order that keeps a person or organization from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the rights of another. An injunction can also be used to compel a party to carry out a specific action.
The student was expelled for admittedly giving two hydrocodone pills to another student on December 16, 2002. The board of education determined that she had violated the school board’s policy with respect to keeping prescription drugs in school and providing another student with prescription medication, and expelled her for one calendar year. In this same decision, the student was provided the opportunity to attend alternative education, where she would be provided with an opportunity to return to high school at the beginning of the next year if her performance and behavior were successful. The mother of the student argued that the expulsion was improper, and should be reversed because (1) the decision was based on a finding that she possessed a narcotic drug, although the notice of the hearing contended that the student sold a prescription drug, (2) the hearing improperly limited the student’s cross-examination of the school’s witness, and (3) the school’s failure to provide transportation for the alternative education mandate.
In order for a party to obtain an injunction must show that she is likely to prevail on the merits of her argument. The court found no basis that would otherwise indicate any likelihood of success for the mother’s argument. The student’s conduct was a clear violation of school policy, and was initiated with due notice and hearing for the student. In the respect, the court saw no reason to interfere with the board of education’s actions.
If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.
Source: Riordan v. S. Windsor Bd. Of Educ., 2003 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1308 (Conn. Super. Ct. April 22, 2003)
