 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Complaint Brief - Suit for DamagesIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
PAULA WILLIAMS-PIAZZESE and LOUIS PIAZZESE, as parents and next friends of KARA WILLIAMS a minor,
Plaintiffs,
No. CIV
STEPHANIE BELMORE, Vice Principal of Rio Rancho High School, GARY TRIPP, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Principal, Rio Rancho High School, SUE CLEVELAND, Superintendent of RIO RANCHO PUBLIC SCHOOLS, all in their individual and official capacities, and RIO RANCHO PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, Paula Williams-Piazzese and Louis Piazzese, as parents and next friends of Kara Williams, a minor, by undersigned Counsel, for their Complaint, state: 1. This is a civil action for injunctive relief and monetary damages, arising from Defendants' wrongful long-term suspension of Plaintiff Kara Williams from Rio Rancho High School under its unwritten "zero tolerance" policy for "possession of firearms or other weapons" because Kara had a small penknife on her key ring. 2. Plaintiffs' federal constitutional claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and under the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and1342, and venue in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Supplemental jurisdiction over the State law claims are proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1357. All of the parties reside or do business in New Mexico and the acts complained of occurred exclusively within Sandoval County, New Mexico. PARTIES 4. The minor Plaintiff, Kara Williams ["Kara"], was at all relevant times and is currently a student in a school within the Defendant Rio Rancho Public School system ["RRPS"]. Paula Williams-Piazzese is Kara's mother, and Louis Piazzese her step-father. 5. Defendant Stephanie Belmore ["Belmore"] was at all relevant times and is currently the vice-principal of Rio Rancho High School ["RRHS"], and is currently an employee of RRPS. On information and belief, Belmore is a resident of the State of New Mexico. 6. Defendant Gary Tripp ["Tripp"] was at all relevant times and is currently the principal of RRHS, and is currently an employee of RRPS. On information and belief, Tripp is a resident of the State of New Mexico. 7. Defendant Sue Cleveland ["Cleveland"] was at all relevant times and is currently the Superintendent of RRPS. On information and belief, Cleveland is a resident of the State of New Mexico. 1. 8. Defendant Rio Rancho Public Schools Board of Education ["Defendant Board" or "RRPS Board"] is a governmental entity created pursuant to § 22-5-1 et seq., NMSA 1978, and is charged with, among other things, the duty to formally promulgate written student discipline policies with specific prohibited acts detailed, and to supervise and control activities conducted at public schools within its district. 9. At all relevant times, the individual Defendants acted under color of state law and in the course and scope of their employment with RRPS, and are sued in their individual and official capacities for damages and for injunctive relief; Defendant RRPS is sued for injunctive relief only. FACTS 10. Kara is a ninth-grade student at RRHS, whose only prior disciplinary history consists of two tardies. 11. Kara has no history of violent behavior of any kind. 12. Pursuant to § 2254.3, NMSA, the Defendant Board is responsible for establishing written school discipline policies which must be developed with the involvement of parents and students and filed with the state department of education, and which must "detail specific prohibited acts and activities and enumerate possible disciplinary sanctions." 13. At the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year, RRHS provided to each student, including Kara, the RRHS 2000-2001 Student Handbook ["Handbook"]. 14. The Handbook contains the school discipline code, the "Code of Conduct." 15. Each student is required to read the Handbook, and to read and sign an acknowledgment form that is contained in the Handbook, entitled Statement of Conduct and Discipline Student Acknowledgment Form ["Acknowledgment Form"] Kara read the Handbook, and read and signed the Acknowledgment Form. 16. The Acknowledgment Form briefly describes the importance of student "rights and responsibilities," and stresses the importance of student compliance with "the school discipline code." 1. 17. The Acknowledgment Form states, in part: The faculty and administration of RRHS have chosen to redefine the school discipline code in order to meet the changing needs of this high school. The rules and standards outlined in this handbook have been developed to protect the rights of everyone, . . . and to assure that our school operates in a safe and orderly manner. . . . Your signature [on the Acknowledgment Form] acknowledges that you have read the 2000-01 Discipline Code of Rio Rancho High School, understand your responsibilities as a student, and agree to follow all of the guidelines listed within this handbook. 18. The Code of Conduct provides, in part: These [school rules] represent the recommended guidelines in the disposition of discipline . . . Therefore, depending on the circumstances of the behavior. . . , and the prior history or lack thereof, responses may vary from situation to situation at the administrators' discretion. 19. Among the twenty-seven listed "behaviors" prohibited in the Code of Conduct is "Possession of Weapons," the sanction for which is "10 days [out-of-school suspension] pending hearing and [Rio Rancho Department of Public Safety] referral." 20. The word "weapon" is not defined or explained in the Handbook, or in any other document that is distributed to RRPS students and their parents. 21. RRPS personnel, including the individual defendants, have asserted that RRPS has a "zero-tolerance" policy with regard to possession of weapons on school grounds. 22. The so-called "zero-tolerance" policy is not written, defined, or described in any document within RRPS, including the Defendant Board's RRPS Board of Education Policies and Procedures ["Board Policies"]. 23. The Board Policies address a wide range of issues pertaining to the administration of Board powers or duties. 1. 24. The Board Policies are not distributed, in part or in whole, to RRPS students or to their parents. 25. Board Policy No. 347-1 is entitled "Weapons in School," and is set forth on one-and-one-half pages. The purpose of Board Policy No. 347-1 is stated within the policy as follows: The Board of Education recognizes that the presence of weapons in school not only creates unacceptable risks of injury or death, but also creates a climate that undermines the educational purposes of the schools. Accordingly, it is the policy of the Board of Education to forbid the possession, custody, and use of weapons by unauthorized persons in or around school property.
This policy is enacted to implement the requirements of the federal Gun-Free Schools Act, 20 U.S.C. § 8921 (a)(1), and it is the intention of the Board that it be interpreted to conform to provisions of applicable law.
26. Board Policy No. 347-1 has never been distributed or read to RRPS students or their parents. 27. Board Policy No. 347-1 contains the only written definition of "weapon" that exists within RRPS, which is: For purposes of this policy, a "weapon" is any firearm, knife, explosive, or other object, even if manufactured for a nonviolent purpose, that has a potentially violent use . . . if, under the surrounding circumstances, the purpose of keeping or carrying the object is for use, or threat of use, as a weapon. 28. Under state law, "weapon" is defined as a firearm or "an explosive or incendiary device, bomb, grenade, rocket . . ." Section 22-5-4.7 NMSA 1978. Under The Gun Free Schools Act, 20 U.S.C. § 8921, "weapon" is defined as a firearm. 29. Under The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], for purposes of disciplinary actions against a disabled student with a weapon, the definition of "weapon," which is borrowed from another statute, specifically excludes "a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length." 18 U.S.C. § 930 (g)(2) (adopted by reference in IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(10)(D)). 1. 30. On March 30, 2001, a school security officer came to Kara's classroom, and escorted Kara and another female student, Sarah, to the principal's office. 31. At the office, Defendant vice principal Belmore informed Kara and Sarah that the security officer was going to search them because "there was reason to believe" that they had smoked marijauna in the bathroom the previous day. 32. Kara told Belmore they had not smoked marijuana, and they had not smoked marijuana. 33. Belmore did not ask for Kara or Sarah's consent for the search, and they did not consent to the search. 34. As Belmore later testified under oath, the sole basis for her belief that Kara and Sarah may have smoked marijuana in the bathroom the previous day is as follows: 1. A RRHS teacher, Stacey Salinas, reported to Belmore that on March 29, 2001, two female students, not Kara or Sarah, had returned from a bathroom break smelling like marijuana, and that another student also reported to Ms. Salinas that the same two students had smoked marijuana. 2. One of the students suspected of smoking marijuana told Belmore that she had not smoked marijuana, but that there were two other students in the bathroom while she was there, and that she smelled marijauna in the bathroom. The student did not identify the other students in the bathroom by name or appearance, and did not claim that she saw the students smoking marijuana. 1. 3. Nevertheless, based only on that information provided by the student who was suspected of smoking marijuana, Belmore checked school records to determine the names of all female students who had not been in their classrooms during the entire time that the students whom Ms. Salinas had reported were absent from Ms. Salinas' classroom. 4. Belmore learned that some female students, including Kara and Sarah, had been temporarily absent from their class at the same time as the alleged marijuana smoking incident. Therefore, Belmore instructed the school security officer to bring Kara and Sarah to her office, and to search Kara and Sarah. 35. No one reported to Belmore, or to anyone else, anything that may have indicated that Kara or Sarah, separately or together, had smoked or possessed marijuana on March 29 or on March 30. 36. No one reported that Kara smelled like marijuana, or behaved or appeared in any way as if she were under the influence of or possessed marijuana, either on March 29 or on March 30. 37. The RRHS security officer conducted a pat-down search of Kara, and then searched Kara's backpack. 38. Pursuant to Board Policy 339-1, searches of students "may be conducted on the basis of a reasonable, individualized suspicion that [the student] is in possession of contraband." 39. Neither Belmore nor the RRHS security officer had any reason to believe, much less a reasonable, individualized suspicion, that Kara possessed marijuana or any other prohibited substance or item when they searched Kara. 40. The RRHS security officer found in Kara's backpack an old tobacco cigarette, and in a purse that was in the backpack, a key ring with a house key to Kara's house. On the key ring was a small flashlight and a small swiss-army style penknife. 1. 41. The swiss-army style penknife contains a small blade, just over an inch long; a plastic toothpick; a pair of tweezers; a nail file, and a pair of scissors. The penknife on the keyring was closed. 42. The penknife was given out by Kara's mother's employer as a promotional item. Kara's step-father, Louis Piazzese, had recently given Kara the key ring after she lost her house key. 43. Kara had never opened, used, or displayed the penknife at RRHS, had never considered doing so, and did not plan to do so. 44. Further, Kara had no intent, plan or thought of using the penknife in any threatening or harmful manner, either when she put the key ring into her backpack before she came to school, or at any other time. 45. Neither Kara nor her parents understood the prohibition in the Student Handbook of "possession of weapons" to include a small penknife on a key chain. 46. Neither Kara nor her parents knew that the penknife was prohibited at RRHS. 47. Belmore told Kara, "You know this is a no-tolerant school," and announced that she was suspended, and would be suspended long-term. A long-term suspension is more than 10 days. 48. Later, when Belmore talked to Kara's mother by telephone, Belmore told Ms. Williams-Piazzese that, "That's policy and I can't do anything about it." 49. The following Monday, April 2, 2001, Ms. Williams-Piazzese and Mr. Piazzese met with Defendant principal Tripp. Tripp referred to the school's so-called "zero tolerance" policy, and stated that he could do nothing about the suspension or proposed long-term suspension. 50. On or about April 5, 2001, Belmore prepared a Notice of Hearing, proposing that Kara be placed on long-term suspension for the violation of RRPS Policies 336-3.A.1.a.(10)(b) (possession of firearms or other weapons) and 336-3.A.1.a.(11) (possession of tobacco products). The Notice of Hearing does not indicate what "weapon" Kara allegedly possessed. 1. 51. RRPS Policy 336-A.1.a prohibits "criminal and delinquent acts." 52. Several times, Plaintiffs asked Defendants to reinstate Kara, but Defendants refused. 53. Plaintiffs' attorney also demanded through the attorney for the Defendant Board that Kara be reinstated' the Board, through its attorney, refused. 54. Kara's suspension hearing was held on April 18, 2001, within ten (10) school days of her suspension. 55. The first time Kara or her parents ever saw the one-and-one-half page RRPS Policy No. 347-1, "Weapons Policy," was at the suspension hearing. 56. At the suspension hearing, Belmore testified under oath that she had no reason to believe that Kara possessed marijuana or a weapon at the inception of the search. 57. Belmore also testified that the purpose of the so-called zero-tolerance policy is to ensure safety at the school, and that she had no reason to believe that Kara presented a threat of any kind to the safety of the school. 58. Both Belmore and Tripp testified that the so-called zero-tolerance policy prohibits consideration by any school official or administrator of any circumstances regarding a student's possession of a "weapon," and that under the so-called zero-tolerance policy, possession of a swiss-army style knife, no matter how small and no matter what the circumstances, mandated long-term suspension with no allowance of discretion by any school official or administrator. 1. 59. Accordingly, Belmore and Tripp both testified that they did not, could not, and would not consider any circumstances regarding Kara's possession of the penknife, including that she had no violent history; that she had never threatened anyone with the penknife or otherwise; that she had never displayed the penknife; or that she had not presented any risk or threat to the safety of the students or staff at RRHS by virtue of having the penknife on her key ring. 60. During the suspension hearing, Defendant Tripp showed a video, in which he discussed the so-called zero-tolerance policy regarding weapons. The video was shown in all classrooms at the beginning of the 2000-2001 school year, over eight months before. 61. Kara did not believe or know that the keychain penknife was a prohibited weapon. 62. Prior to the suspension hearing, Kara did not recall seeing any video about RRHS weapons policy. However, upon seeing the video during the suspension hearing, she recalled seeing it at the beginning of the school year, as she truthfully acknowledged without hesitation. 63. On April 19, 2001, the Hearing Officer issued the Decision of Hearing Officer ["Decision"]. The Decision states in part: The Hearing Officer finds that the conduct of Kara violated Board Policy 336-3A.1.a.(10)(b) and the Rio Rancho High School [Student] Handbook relating to the Weapons Policy.
64. By the Decision, Kara was suspended for the rest of the school year, and cannot attend RRHS until the fall semester. The Decision recommended that Kara be permitted to attend the "Credit Recovery Program," which had been proposed by the time of the suspension hearing, and which has since been established for certain suspended students. 65. Kara has enrolled in the Credit Recovery Program, which allows her to obtain credit for only two of her four classes for the Spring, 2001 semester. She attends the classes in the evenings with one other student. 66. Kara will lose credit for her two other classes that are not part of the Credit Recovery Program. 1. 67. Additionally, if Kara misses two Credit Recovery Program classes, whether excused or not, she may not complete the Program, and will also lose credit for the two classes that are part of the Credit Recovery Program. 68. During her suspension, Kara cannot be on school property or attend any school functions. She has already missed a field trip that relates to an important project for one of her required classes, and has missed and will miss school social and athletic functions. 69. The school year ends on or about Mary 24, 2001. 70. In local media coverage, RRPS officials, including Defendant Cleveland, have defended Kara's suspension and the so-called zero tolerance policy. 71. In one television news story regarding Kara's suspension and the so-called zero-tolerance policy, Associate Superintendent Dr. James King was quoted as saying that starting next year RRPS will make up a handout and hand it out to all the students so that they know what weapons entail what punishments. 72. As a direct and proximate result of the acts of Defendants, Kara has suffered and will continue to suffer injuries and damages, including but not limited to deprivation of education and educational opportunities, emotional distress, and costs and attorneys' fees. 73. The unconstitutional actions of the individual Defendants were intentional, willful, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights, warranting punitive damages to be decided by the trier of fact. COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - DUE PROCESS 74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein. 75. Plaintiff Kara Williams had and has a clearly-established property interest in the right to attend public school, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 1. 76. As applied to Plaintiff Kara Williams, the prohibition in the Student Handbook of "possession of weapons" is void for vagueness in that it fails to provide adequate notice that possession of a penknife on a key chain, without intent, plan, or thought of using the penknife in a threatening, or violent matter, is prohibited, in violation of Kara's well-established rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 77. Defendants' refusal to consider facts as to whether the offense with which she was charged warranted disciplinary action deprived Plaintiff Kara Williams of the opportunity to a fair hearing, in violation of her well-established procedural rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 78. Defendants' punishment of Kara has no rational relationship to any legitimate state interest, in violation of Kara's well-established substantive rights and liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. 79. Defendants' unwritten so-called zero-tolerance policy exceeds any statutorily-granted authority and is ultra vires, and therefore is void. COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT - LIBERTY INTEREST
80. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as if fully set forth herein. 81. Plaintiff Kara Williams had and has a clearly-established liberty interest in her reputation with the right to attend school, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which Defendants have violated. 1. COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT - UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
82. Each and every allegation above is incorporated by reference. 83. Plaintiff Kara Williams had and has a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and under Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, to be free of unreasonable search and seizure. 84. Defendant Belmore deprived Plaintiff Kara Williams of her right to be free of unreasonable search by causing a pat-down search of her person and a search of her backpack without her consent, and without reasonable suspicion to believe that she possessed any illegal or otherwise prohibited substance or object. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Paula Williams-Piazzese and Louis Piazzese, as parents and next friends of Kara Williams, respectfully seek the following relief against Defendants: A. That the Court issue an injunction requiring Defendant RRPS to allow Kara to return to Rio Rancho High School and to provide her the opportunity to complete any school assignments or exams missed so that she may obtain credit for all of her Spring semester courses; B. That the Court declare that Defendants violated Plaintiff Kara William's rights under the Fourteenth and Fourth Amendments to the United States Constitution; C. That the Court award Plaintiff Kara William compensatory and punitive damages against the individual Defendants in their individual capacities, as determined by the trier of fact; E. That the Court award attorneys' fees, expenses, costs, pre-judgment interest and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and F. That the Court award such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________ Jane Gagne
Cooperating Attorney for New Mexico Civil Liberties Foundation
Maureen A. Sanders, Co-Legal Director Of Counsel |
|
|
|
© Copyright 2003 All Rights Reserved. |
