The Commonwealth Court’s analysis of the School Code provisions in its May 1, 2017 decision (S.A. by H.O. v. Pittsburgh Public Sch. Dist.) will guide schools in identifying the basis for student discipline in future matters.
Facts In The Case
On May 9, 2016, S.A., a 10th grade student in a Pittsburgh school, was involved in a peer altercation. One peer threw a cap to a cologne bottle at S.A. Another peer, the owner of the bottle, asked S.A. to return the cap. S.A. refused. In response to repeated requests for the bottle cap, S.A. threatened, and then stabbed the peer in the neck with a sharpened pencil. The school nurse treated the peer’s injuries and the peer left school for the day.
The school district charged S.A. with violating Rule 6 of its Code of Conduct, which prohibits the possession of a weapon on school grounds. Rule 6 is almost identical to Section 1317.2 of the School Code, and defines a weapon as follows:
…shall include but shall not be limited to any knife, cutting instrument, cutting tool, explosive, mace, nunchaku, firearm, shotgun, rifle and any other tool, instrument or implement capable of inflicting serious bodily injury….
Following a formal hearing, the Board found that S.A. had violated Rule 6 and voted to expel the student for one year. S.A. appealed and the trial court reversed the Board’s decision. The school district then appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The Decision
The school district argued that the pencil was a weapon because it was, in fact, used to inflict an injury. The Court roundly rejected this argument. The Court applied several legal principles to analyze the definition in Rule 6 at great length.
Ultimately, these principles led the Court to conclude that the operative phrase is not that an item is “capable of inflicting serious bodily injury.” If so, then nearly any object could be construed as a weapon.
Instead, the Court reaffirmed the analysis set forth in previous decisions. Specifically, it is the nature of the item, and not the intent or actions of the user, that establishes whether the item is a weapon.
Previous case law established, for example, that an air pellet gun is a weapon. In that case no injury occurred. Nonetheless, an air pellet gun is a weapon because it is designed and intended to shoot a pellet a high velocity, rendering it inherently capable of causing serious bodily injury. In contrast, a pencil is neither designed nor intended to be used to cause injury of any kind. The definition of a weapon in Rule 6 and the School Code relies on the nature of the object, and not the manner in which it is used.
Bottom Line for Schools
Reclassification of these non-obvious weapon-like objects as “not weapons” may have a significant impact on the number of expulsions schools experience under the zero-tolerance policies that have been in vogue in the last decade.
Based on the Court’s analysis in S.A., schools may have to rethink the feasibility of treating non-obvious objects as “weapons” for school code and discipline purposes. S.A.’s analysis, which renders a pencil only a pencil for purposes of charging a student with possession, may equally apply to scissors, letter openers, tools,and a variety of other objects previously charged as weapons.
Appropriate discipline for student behavior is an important function for school staff. The purpose of disciplinary processes is to ensure a safe learning environment for all students as well as staff. This decision highlights the need for careful construction of school codes of conduct, as well as sound understanding and implementation of the disciplinary process.
Schools should not hesitate to contact counsel for assistance in handling student disciplinary matters to ensure safety and consistency in enforcement procedures.
School Law Bullets are a publication of KingSpry’s Education Law Practice Group. They are meant to be informational and do not constitute legal advice. John E. Freund, III, is our editor.
