Newsletters: School District Articles

Failure to follow drug policy results in expulsion being overturned

Legal Insights for School Districts (Fall 2003)

by Liz Wiebking

The expulsion for one year of a high school student for involvement with marijuana during a school function was overturned by the Third District Appellate Court in Camlin v. Beecher Community Unit School District, 339 Ill.App.3d 1013, 791 N.E.2d 127, 274 Ill.Dec. 331 (3rd Dist. 2003). Camlin was one of three students who were punished for possession and use of marijuana in a bathroom at a school function at a bowling alley. Camlin denied smoking the marijuana, but did admit that he knew the other students who were smoking the marijuana. Following further investigation by the dean, a second student involved in the incident struck a deal with school administrators. The deal specified that this student would avoid expulsion if he implicated Camlin in the marijuana smoking incident. After this additional information surfaced, Camlin was suspended for 10 days and given an expulsion hearing. Camlin was not informed about the facts involved in any further investigation prior to the expulsion hearing.

The school district claimed that Camlin had violated a broad drug rule within the parent-student handbook which stated, "Students who sell, distribute, use, have, or are under the influence of illegal drugs, look-a-like drugs, controlled substances, associated paraphernalia, or alcoholic beverages are subject to disciplinary action, including in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, or expulsion." Furthermore the policy stated, "Should a student choose to violate this policy, [the school] highly encourages him/her to participate in an educational experience involving the student and his/her parents. Therefore, a first-time violator will be given the option of participating in the NEXT STEP PROGRAM sponsored by [a local counseling program] or he/she will be suspended from school as outlined in the student handbook if the NEXT STEP PROGRAM is not considered by the student and parent."

The parents requested that Camlin be allowed to enter the NEXT STEP PROGRAM, but the administration denied this request. At the expulsion hearing, the guidance counselor acted as the hearing officer. The second student testified that Camlin had supplied the drugs. Camlin's parents did not present any evidence, but they did maintain that the school district should adhere to the drug policy stated in the parent-student handbook. The hearing officer issued a three-page report, which did not make any findings of fact or determinations of the credibility of the witnesses. Following the hearing, the school board voted to expel Camlin.

Camlin appealed this decision in the circuit court by seeking to enjoin the expulsion and compel his admission into the NEXT STEP PROGRAM. The circuit court denied the motion for an injunction. The parents appealed to the appellate court of Illinois. Camlin argued that his due process rights were violated at the expulsion hearing and by the school district's refusal to follow the stated policy concerning first-time drug offenders.

The appellate court agreed that the hearing process was faulty because the hearing officer did not make findings of fact or judge the credibility of the witnesses, and because there was no meaningful opportunity for Camlin to cross-examine the witness against him. The court used the reasoning from Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42 L.Ed. 2d 725 (1975), where the United States Supreme Court ruled that students who were suspended for 10 days were entitled to notice of the pending suspension and to some kind of hearing. The Goss court also noted that in cases involving suspensions longer than 10 days, or expulsions, more formal proceedings are required. Students must be given timely notice of an expulsion hearing and a statement of charges against them. In Camlin, the school district failed to inform Camlin of the specific charge against him, denied any information about the identity of his accuser, and failed to share any new evidence with him or his parents to allow them to properly defend him in the expulsion hearing. Given these facts, the appellate court concluded that Camlin was denied procedural due process.

In addition, the appellate court agreed that the school district failed to follow its own drug policy. The school's policy states that a first-time offender has the option of electing a treatment program, and if it is not exercised, the student will be subject to suspension. The school board, by promulgating this policy, created an entitlement and a right to certain procedures on which a student may expect to rely. A school board may not refuse to apply the rules it has created. Although the school district was not required to allow first-time drug offenders the option to enter a drug treatment program, the school district had to follow its own rules, once they were placed in the parent-student handbook.

This case should serve as a reminder that students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door. More formal proceedings are required in cases of longer suspensions or expulsions. Because students have a property interest in their education, due process must be followed in all school discipline proceedings. When a school district passes rules which students are expected to follow, the school district administrators themselves must follow the rules which have been passed. If a rule is changed, the change must be effectively communicated to students and parents.


Liz Wiebking is a law clerk for Ottosen Trevarthen Britz Kelly & Cooper, Ltd. She is a third year student at DePaul University College of Law, as well as a science teacher in Wheaton.

- return to top of page -