Natomas Unified Sch. Dist. v. Sacramento Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

86 Cal.App.5th 1013

302 Cal.Rptr.3d 771

NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant and Appellant;

I.O., a Minor, etc., Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

C093475

Court of Appeal, Third District, California.

Filed December 22, 2022

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing January 17, 2023

Teresa Stinson, Elizabeth Linton; Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation and Brendan J. Begley, Sacramento, for Defendant and Appellant.

DLA Piper US, Stanley J. Panikowski, Gaspard Rappoport, Los Angeles, and Amanda McCaffrey, San Francisco, for Former School District Superintendents as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael L. Newman, Assistant Attorney General, Srividya Panchalam, Benjamin T. Conway, Carly J. Munson and Alexis M. Piazza, Deputy Attorneys General for the Attorney General of California as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendant and Appellant.

C. Athena Roussos, Sacramento; Mary M. Sechser for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Abigail Trillin, San Francisco, William S. Koski; Cynthia L. Rice, Oakland, Reina Canale, Phyllis Shafton Katz, Watsonville; Nedra Shawler and Joyeta Basu for Youth & Education Law Project Stanford Law School, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., and Legal Services for Children as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Alexandra Santa Ana, Mona Tawatao, Pacoima; Stephanie Horwitz, Michael Harris ; Victor Leung ; Linnea Nelson, Brandon Greene; Jonathan Markovitz and Bardis Vakili, San Diego, for Equal Justice Society, National Center for Youth Law, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Southern California, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California and ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Mary Louise Frampton, Berkeley, as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Party in Interest and Appellant.

Orbach Huff & Henderson and Sarah L.W. Sutherland, San Diego, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BOULWARE EURIE, J.

California law requires school districts to expel a student in a limited set of circumstances, including, for instance, when the student furnishes a firearm, brandishes a knife at another person, or possesses an explosive. State law also grants school districts discretion to expel a student if they make two findings. First, the school district must find the student committed one of several statutorily enumerated acts, including, as relevant here, that the student possessed a dangerous object or an imitation firearm. Second, the school district must find either (1) "[o]ther means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct" or (2) "[d]ue to the nature of the act [or violation], the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others." ( Ed. Code,¹ § 48915, subd. (b) ; see id. , subd. (e).)

In this case, Natomas Unified School District (the District) expelled a student, I.O., under its discretionary authority. At an expulsion hearing, the District heard evidence that I.O. brought two unloaded BB guns and a sealed bag of plastic BBs to his middle school, showed the guns to two friends, and fired one of the unloaded guns at the ground. The District also heard evidence that one of the friends who saw the guns feared testifying at the expulsion hearing because I.O. and his mother had asked the student's family to speak about I.O.’s character. Based on this evidence, the District found I.O. unlawfully intimidated a witness. It further found he should be expelled. It reasoned that he committed an expellable offense in possessing the BB guns and posed a continuing danger to himself or others—a conclusion it reached after preventing I.O. from presenting character witnesses and excluding his evidence tending to show his classmates did not believe he posed a danger.

On I.O.’s appeal from the trial court's judgment in the District's favor, we reverse for two reasons. First, we find the District's "continuing danger" finding was flawed. In the District's view, it could consider only I.O.’s immediate misconduct when evaluating whether he posed a continuing danger to himself or others. But under the relevant standard, the District should have considered all the relevant facts, including evidence of I.O.’s general character. Because the District misunderstood the appropriate inquiry, it improperly limited I.O.’s ability to present a defense and excluded relevant evidence. Second, we find the District's witness intimidation finding was flawed. To support a claim of witness intimidation in a school disciplinary proceeding, the evidence must show the student either intended to prevent another student from testifying or to retaliate against another student for testifying. But no evidence in this case shows I.O. had any improper intent. For these reasons, we reverse.

BACKGROUND

ILegal Background

Children in California have a right to a public school education. ( Levi v. O'Connell (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 700, 707, 50 Cal.Rptr.3d 691 ; see also Cal. Const., art IX, § 5 ["The Legislature shall provide for a system of common schools by which a free school shall be kept up and supported in each district ...."].) But this right is not absolute. Section 48900 et seq. describes the grounds and procedures for expelling a student—the most serious form of student discipline. (See § 48925, subd. (b) [" ‘Expulsion’ means removal of a pupil from (1) the immediate supervision and control, or (2) the general supervision, of school personnel ...."].)

Under these provisions, the expulsion process begins with a school's principal or a school district's superintendent recommending expulsion for one of the grounds listed in section 48900 et seq. ( §§ 48900, 48915, subds. (a)(1), (b), (c), (e).) Three of these grounds, two of which are largely identical, are relevant here. First, a principal or superintendent generally must recommend a student's expulsion if the student possessed "any ... dangerous object of no reasonable use to the pupil." ( § 48915, subd. (a)(1)(B).) Second, a principal or superintendent may recommend a student's expulsion if the student "[p]ossessed, sold, or otherwise furnished a ... dangerous object" without school permission. ( § 48900, subd. (b).) And third, a principal or superintendent may recommend a student's expulsion if the student "[p]ossessed an imitation firearm" — meaning, "a replica of a firearm that is so substantially similar in physical properties to an existing firearm as to lead a reasonable person to conclude that the replica is a firearm." (Id. , subd. (m).)

Should a principal or superintendent recommend a student's expulsion, the school district must then schedule a hearing on the proposed expulsion. ( § 48918, subd. (a)(1).) The district must also, at least 10 days before the hearing, notify the student of the time and place of the hearing (id. , subd. (b)(1)), provide a "statement of the specific facts and charges upon which the proposed expulsion is based" (id. , subd. (b)(2)), and, among other things, inform the student of the student's right "to confront and question all witnesses who testify at the hearing, to question all other evidence presented, and to present oral and documentary evidence on the pupil's behalf, including witnesses" (id. , subd. (b)(5)).

Following a hearing on a student's proposed expulsion, the school district's governing board must decide whether to expel the student, with the required findings varying depending on the charges. ( § 48918, subd. (a)(2).) If a principal or superintendent recommends a student's expulsion for possessing a dangerous object ( §§ 48915, subd. (a)(1)(B), 48900, subd. (b) ), the school district's governing board may order expulsion if it makes two findings. First, it must find the student committed the alleged act. Second, it must find "one or both of the following": (1) "[o]ther means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct," or (2) "[d]ue to the nature of the act, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others." ( § 48915, subd. (b).) Similarly, if a principal recommended a student's expulsion for possessing an imitation firearm ( § 48900, subd. (m) ), the school district's governing board may order expulsion if it makes two findings. First, it must find the student committed the alleged act. Second, it must find "either of the following": (1) "[o]ther means of correction are not feasible or have repeatedly failed to bring about proper conduct," or (2) "[d]ue to the nature of the violation, the presence of the pupil causes a continuing danger to the physical safety of the pupil or others." ( § 48915, subd. (e).)

IIFactual Background

A. I.O. Brings Two BB Guns to His School

I.O. formerly attended a middle school in the District. On two consecutive days in 2019, when he was 11 years old, he brought two plastic BB guns and a sealed bag of plastic BBs to his middle school. Both guns were unloaded and had orange tips. I.O. kept the guns in his backpack during school hours and showed them to two friends after school.

On the first day, I.O. told his friends he had a "gun" and revealed part of one of the BB guns while off school property. But after some giggling, he admitted the gun was fake and revealed its orange tip. According to his friends’ unsworn statements, the friends told him not to bring the guns again. The next day, I.O. brought the guns again and again showed them to his friends—this time on school property at one of the school's exits. I.O. then pulled one of the unloaded guns out of his bag, pointed it at the ground, and fired it. A parent noticed and walked over to I.O. The parent seized I.O.’s bag, instructed him to wait, and directed another parent to get the principal, Amy Whitten.

Whitten arrived shortly...