Opinion ID: 1745905
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the Board Act Based on Substantial Evidence?

Text: The Joneses make two separate arguments assailing the sufficiency of the evidence. The first involves evidence that Regina passed valium outside of school hours and off school property. The second involves the evidence that Regina gave Brandon Erwin a valium while at school. Under assigned error III, the Joneses suggest that the evidence that Regina gave valium tablets to Brandon Winstead and Sean Dixon as they stood at the back door of the Joneses' house did not violate any school rule since it occurred entirely off campus and not during school hours. The boys told the board that Regina gave Winstead the pills after school. Though it is not clear in the record, there is some testimony setting out the school district's Drug and Alcohol Possession and Use policy. Basically, the policy applies to any student who's on school property, who is in attendance at school or at a school sponsored activity, who is wearing a school uniform or costume on or off the school property, or whose conduct, at any time or anyplace, interferes with or obstructs the operation of the school district for the safety and welfare of students or employees. Obviously, the Joneses maintain that giving or selling drugs off school property outside of school time to other students does not fall within the policy. This Court in Warren County Board of Education v. Wilkinson, 500 So.2d 455, 460 (Miss. 1986), dealt with a similar claim involving an expulsion of a student who drank some beer before the last day of school. We stated: The beer was consumed in her home. She did not have possession of it on the way to school or use it while traveling to school or on the school grounds or in the buildings. The school board has called our attention to no rule expressly or impliedly prohibiting a student from drinking beer at home  indeed, we doubt a school board would have authority to make any such rule, although the point is not before us today. It is elementary that it is a violation of due process to punish one for conduct that has not been lawfully condemned. Wilkinson, 500 So.2d at 460. Of course, the board's authority is limited by law. Under Miss. Code Ann. § 37-7-301(e), the board has authority To suspend or expel a pupil for misconduct in the school, upon school buses, on the road to and from school, during recess or upon the school playgrounds... Whether, in the light of our opinion in Wilkinson, the school board may discipline Regina based on proof that she distributed valium off campus is a close question, but a question we do not have to reach since we find sufficient evidence to support the allegation that Regina did violate the school drug policy at school. The board had before it sufficient evidence that Regina distributed a valium tablet to Brandon Winstead during school hours in the school building. The evidence might have been conflicting, but the board had sufficient evidence to find this violation. Where procedural safeguards are provided, the sole function of the Court was whether there was sufficient evidence to support the charge against the student. 2 J. Rapp, Education Law § 9.05[3][6] (1984 & Supp. 1986). The Joneses suggest procedural safeguards were not afforded, and we turn to this question.