In re A.D.

883 N.W.2d 251

In the Matter of the Expulsion of A.D. from United South Central Public Schools No. 2134.

No. A14–1587.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 3, 2016.

Trevor S. Helmers, Elizabeth J. Vieira, Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for appellant Independent School District No. 2134, United South Central.

Andrea J. Jepsen, Amy J. Goetz, School Law Center, LLC, Saint Paul, Minnesota; and Nicole M. Moen, Timothy W. Billion, Fredrikson & Byron, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for respondent A.D.

Neal T. Buethe, Claire V.J. Joseph, Briggs and Morgan, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of School Administrators.

Roger J. Aronson, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals.

Michelle D. Kenney, Knutson, Flynn & Deans, P.A., Mendota Heights, Minnesota, for amicus curiae Minnesota School Boards Association.

Selene Almazan, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Towson, Maryland; and Christopher E. Crutchfield, Saint Paul, Minnesota, for amici curiae Children's Defense Fund, Children's Law Center of Minnesota, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Council on Crime and Justice, ISAIAH, Legal Rights Center, Mid–Minnesota Legal Aid, Professor Jason P. Nance, Saint Paul Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and Southern Minnesota Regional Legal Services.

OPINION

GILDEA, Chief Justice.

The questions presented in this case involve the interpretation of the Pupil Fair Dismissal Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 121A.40 –.575 (2014) (“Act”), and the Act's application to a school district's weapons policy. The Act provides that a school district may dismiss a student for a “willful violation” of a reasonable school policy or for “willful conduct that endangers” the student or others.¹ Minn.Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2(a), (c). Appellant United South Central Independent School District No. 2134 (“District”) expelled student A.D. for 6 weeks after finding a 3–inch pocketknife in a purse in her locker. The Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Education (“Commissioner”) affirmed the expulsion. The court of appeals reversed the Commissioner's decision, holding that A.D. did not willfully violate the District's weapons policy when she unwittingly carried the pocketknife to school, nor did the pocketknife's presence in A.D.'s locker bring the student or others “into danger or peril of probable harm or loss.”

In re Expulsion of A.D., No. A14–1587, 2015 WL 4393395, at *5–6 (Minn.App. July 20, 2015) (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 748 (3d ed.1961)). Because the record does not support the conclusion that A.D. deliberately and intentionally violated the District's weapons policy or endangered herself or others, we affirm.

This case arises from a random search for controlled substances at United South Central High School on Tuesday, April 15, 2014. During the search, the building was put on “lockdown” and the students were required to remain in their classrooms. Officials used a drug-sniffing police dog to conduct the search and the dog alerted on A.D.'s locker. When the school liaison officer searched A.D.'s unlocked locker, he found no controlled substances. He did, however, observe a 3–inch folding pocketknife in the side-pocket of a purse that was hanging in A.D.'s locker. The officer secured the pocketknife and informed the principal.

Approximately 2 hours after the search, the officer and the school principal called A.D. into the principal's office. When asked if she knew why she was called to the principal's office, A.D. admitted that she had brought a pocketknife to school. A.D. explained that she used the pocketknife to cut twine on hay bales at her boyfriend's family farm. She had visited the farm during the previous weekend, and while she typically removes the pocketknife from her purse and places it on a table before leaving her home, on that occasion she had forgotten to do so. A.D. told the principal that she “totally forgot” the pocketknife was in her purse until the school announced the lockdown that morning.²

The District's weapons policy provides that “[n]o student or nonstudent, including adults and visitors, shall possess, use or distribute a weapon when in a school location.” A “weapon” is defined to include all knives and blades. This policy was listed in the school-issued “Agenda Book” and the student handbook, and was discussed during the beginning-of-the-year assembly. Although the record does not reflect how A.D. knew of the weapons policy, A.D. told the principal that she knew it was against school policy to have a pocketknife at school. A.D. did not alert anyone of her possession of the pocketknife until questioned by the principal. The principal told A.D. that, even though she believed A.D. was fully cooperating with the administration and had “told [the] truth” about forgetting the knife's presence in her purse, the District's weapons policy required the principal to suspend A.D. for at least 3 days. The school issued A.D. a “Notice of Suspension,” citing “[w]illful conduct that endangers the student, others, or property of the school,”—namely, “[p]ossession of a knife on school property.”³ Consistent with the District's weapons policy, the principal recommended to the Superintendent that A.D. be expelled for the remainder of the school year.

On April 21, 2014, A.D. and her parents received a “Notice of Proposed Expulsion” from the District, listing all three grounds for expulsion under the Act: (1) a “willful violation of any reasonable school [policy],” (2) “willful conduct that significantly disrupts the rights of others to an education,” and (3) “willful conduct that endangers the pupil or other pupils.” Minn.Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2(a)–(c). A.D. requested a hearing under Minn.Stat. § 121A.47, subd. 1, and an expulsion hearing was held on April 24 before the District's school board (“Board”). Following the hearing, the Board issued its findings of fact and conclusions, and expelled A.D. for 6 weeks based on her “willful violation of reasonable School Board regulations, and willful conduct that endangered the Student, other pupils, and surrounding persons.”

A.D. appealed the Board's decision to the Commissioner of Education. See Minn.Stat. § 121A.49 (allowing for the appeal of an expulsion decision to the Commissioner of Education). A.D. argued that the Board's decision was unlawful because A.D. did not willfully violate the District's weapons policy, and that the search of A.D.'s locker and purse violated A.D.'s constitutional rights. The Commissioner rejected A.D.'s arguments, ruling that the Board's finding of a willful violation of school policy was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, the Commissioner determined that A.D. “placed the knife in her purse and brought it to school” and that A.D. “had actual knowledge that having a knife in her purse in her school locker was a violation of the District's weapons policy.” The Commissioner also rejected A.D.'s constitutional arguments. After remanding the matter to the Board for further explanation as to the length of the expulsion, the Commissioner affirmed A.D.'s 6–week expulsion on the “willful violation” statutory ground. Minn.Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2(a).⁴

A.D. then filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the court of appeals. See Minn.Stat. § 14.63 (2014). The court of appeals addressed both the “willful violation” and endangerment grounds that the Board relied on to expel A.D., Minn.Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2(a), (c). In re Expulsion of A.D., 2015 WL 4393395, at *1. Citing to our decision in Garrity v. Kemper Motor Sales, 280 Minn. 202, 207, 159 N.W.2d 103, 107 (1968), the court of appeals held that a “willful violation,” as the term is used in the Act, “requires not just that a student violates a school policy but also that the student is aware of the policy and makes a ‘deliberate, conscious, and intentional choice’ to violate the policy.” 2015 WL 4393395, at *5 (quoting Garrity, 280 Minn. at 207, 159 N.W.2d at 107 ). The court of appeals also held that the language and structure of Minn.Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2(c), “requires something more than conduct that creates the mere possibility of harm” to constitute endangerment. 2015 WL 4393395, at *6. Because the Board's findings were not sufficient to support the conclusion that A.D. willfully violated the District policy or willfully conducted herself in a manner that endangered herself or others, the court of appeals reversed the decisions of both the Board and the Commissioner. Id. at *7. We granted the District's petition for review.

On appeal, the District first contends that the court of appeals erred in interpreting the Act's “willful violation” provision, Minn.Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2(a), to require that a student make a deliberate, conscious, and intentional choice to violate a policy. The District further argues that the court of appeals erred in concluding that a student must have actual knowledge of a policy to allow dismissal under the provision. The District also argues that the court of appeals improperly held that the endangerment provision of the Act, Minn.Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2(c), requires a finding of “probable harm or loss.” As to both statutory grounds, the District maintains that there was substantial evidence to warrant A.D.'s expulsion. We consider each statutory basis in turn.

I.

We first address the “willful violation” provision. This provision grants school districts the authority to suspend or expel a student upon finding a “willful violation of any reasonable school board regulation.” Minn.Stat. § 121A.45, subd. 2(a). The provision further provides that “[s]uch regulation must be clear and definite to provide notice to pupils that they must conform their conduct to its requirements.” Id. At issue is whether, as the court of appeals held, a student must make a “deliberate, conscious, and...