Plaintiffs filed claims against the principal and school board for racial discrimination; violation of their son’s right not to be apprehended or taken into custody; violation of his right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures; and violation of his right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The school board and principal asserted that there are no disputed facts and trial is not necessary. The principal also asserted that she is entitled to qualified immunity, protection from liability and trial.

Regarding the principal, the court found that a trial was necessary. The principal is not entitled to qualified immunity because the rights she may have violated were clearly established and she had actual notice of the standards pertaining to school searches. Additionally, a jury could find that the principal violated the student’s constitutional rights by conducting a search without reasonable suspicion or carrying out a search that was unreasonable in scope

Regarding the school board, the court found that a trial was not necessary because the plaintiffs could not present any evidence to show that the school board acted with deliberate indifference to the rights of the student. The board properly trained the principal and all other employees on proper school search procedures by providing a detailed pamphlet explaining the current laws regarding school searches. The assistant superintendent also reviewed the school’s rules on searches with the principal.

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

For the second time, the PAC has told public bodies they cannot discuss budgetary matters even when they directly or indirectly affect employees during a closed meeting pursuant to Section 2(c)(1) of OMA.

To the extent that a public body is required to discuss the relative merits of individual employees as a result of its fiscal decision, such discussion may properly be closed to the public under section 2(c)(1) of OMA. But, the underlying budgetary discussions leading to those decisions may not be closed to the public. (Emphasis added). See PAO 12-011. The bottom line here is that public bodies may not use an OMA exemption to get at underlying budget issues.

This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

Bradley has filed a petition to appeal this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first legal issue in this case is whether all child protective services workers in the United States are subject to the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment if they interview a child without parent or guardian consent. The second legal issue is whether the Department of Children and Families’ policies violated the petitioner's fundamental liberty interest in the “integrity of the family” with the use of a picture mobile phone.

While this case applies to child protective services workers, constitutional challenges involving child protective services and school personnel are becoming prevalent in courts. For example, see Ohio v. Clark, 135 S. Ct. 2173 (2015).

Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

An individual challenged a ruling that his prior conviction for forgery made him ineligible to hold the office of a school board member because it is an “infamous crime.” Illinois prohibits school board members who have been convicted of infamous crimes from holding office.

Interestingly, while this case was being decided, the school board member’s forgery conviction was expunged. However, because that fact did not exist while the case was being appealed, the court held that it was not relevant to its review. This fact leaves the question open as to whether this individual will now be eligible to hold the office of school board member.

An individual challenged a ruling that his prior conviction for forgery made him ineligible to hold the office of a school board member because it is an “infamous crime.” Illinois prohibits school board members who have been convicted of infamous crimes from holding office.

Interestingly, while this case was being decided, the school board member’s forgery conviction was expunged. However, because that fact did not exist while the case was being appealed, the court held that it was not relevant to its review. This fact leaves the question open as to whether this individual will now be eligible to hold the office of school board member.