Wake County Department of Justice complaint 2014
Content
Legal Aid of North Carolina, Inc.
Advocates for Children’s Services
Mailing Address: PO Box 2101, Durham, NC 27702
Physical Address: 201 West Main Street, Suite 400, Durham, NC 27701
919.226.0052/0053 www.legalaidnc.org/acs
Lewis Pitts
Managing Attorney
Jason Langberg
Supervising Attorney
Peggy Nicholson
Staff Attorney
Jennifer Story
Push Out Prevention
Project Fellow
Angela Nikolitch
Paralegal
Julia Nieves
Community
Outreach Director
“The test of the morality of a society is what it does for its children.” -Dietrich Bonhoeffer
LEGAL AID NC
A United Way Agency
January 22, 2014
Via U.S. mail and electronic mail ([email protected])
Jonathan M. Smith, Chief
Special Litigation Section
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Via U.S. mail and electronic mail ([email protected])
Anurima Bhargava, Chief
Educational Opportunities Section
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
Re: Complaint against the Wake County Sheriff’s Department, Apex Police Department,
Cary Police Department, Fuquay-Varina Police Department, Garner Police Department,
Holly Springs Police Department, Knightdale Police Department, Raleigh Police
Department, Wake Forest Police Department, and Wake County Public School System
alleging violations of rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, Titles IV and VI
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Dear Mr. Smith and Ms. Bhargava:
The Wake County Public School System's over-reliance on unregulated school policing
practices, often in response to minor infractions of school rules, results in the routine violation of
students’ educational and constitutional rights. Specifically, evidence suggests that the rights of
students with disabilities and African-American students in the Wake County Public School
System are routinely violated. Further, the harms caused by these unconstitutional and
discriminatory policies and practices are particularly profound because North Carolina is the
only state that treats all 16- and 17-year-olds, in every circumstance, as adults when charged with
criminal offenses, and then denies them the possibility of returning to the juvenile system
regardless of the nature of the offense.
1
1
N.C. Gen. Stat § 7B-1501(7)(2011); Tamar R. Birckhead, North Carolina, Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and the
Resistance to Reform, 86 N.C. L. REV. 1443, 1445 (2008).
January 22, 2014 Page 2 of 74
This Complaint is filed on behalf of eight individual students and all other similarly-
situated students who are subjected to ongoing school policing policies and practices in the Wake
County Public School System (“WCPSS” or “the district”) that unnecessarily and unlawfully
punish and criminalize minor misbehaviors and disproportionately harm African-American
students and students with disabilities in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Titles IV and VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This Complaint is submitted by Advocates for
Children’s Services of Legal Aid of North Carolina, the University of North Carolina School of
Law’s Juvenile Justice Clinic, Duke University School of Law’s Children’s Law Clinic, North
Carolina Justice Center, North Carolina Central University’s Juvenile Law Clinic, Center for
Civil Rights Remedies of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, Coalition of Concerned Citizens for
African-American Children, Education Justice Alliance, Justice Served NC, Inc., North Carolina
Heroes Emerging Among Teens, Advancement Project, American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation, Dignity in
Schools Campaign, North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Raleigh-Apex Branch of
the NAACP, University of North Carolina's Center for Civil Rights, and Wendell-Wake County
Branch of the NAACP.
The Complaint is structured as follows:
I. Section I provides an introduction to and overview of the issues related to school
policing in Wake County.
II. Section II describes the individual experiences of eight WCPSS students whose
rights have been violated by the pattern and practice of unlawful policing in Wake
County, and whose experiences are representative of what similarly-situated
students across the district routinely experience.
III. Section III provides an overview of the school policing and security infrastructure
in the WCPSS, including the district’s Security Department’s staff, contract
security guards, school-based law enforcement officers, and non-school-based law
enforcement officers.
IV. Section IV describes the inadequate policies and regulations that enable law
enforcement officers and WCPSS staff to collaborate in a pattern of using of law
enforcement officers to address minor student misbehavior, resulting in
inappropriate referrals to court, unreasonable and excessive use of force against
students, and unlawful interrogations and searches of students.
V. Section V outlines evidence of the unlawful discriminatory impact on African-
American students and students with disabilities that results from the unregulated
use of law enforcement officers to address minor student misbehavior.
VI. Section VI establishes that the current school policing policies and practices are
not educationally necessary, and then outlines less discriminatory, more effective
alternatives to current policies and practices that could be implemented in order to
remedy the ongoing violations and discrimination.
VII. Finally, section VII describes previous unsuccessful attempts over the course of
the past four years to work collaboratively and proactively with law enforcement
officers and the district to remedy the rampant and ongoing discrimination and
violations of students’ rights.
January 22, 2014 Page 3 of 74
I. Introduction
All Complainants value the importance of a safe and productive learning environment for
all children. However, as set forth below, this complaint alleges that the WCPSS and local law
enforcement agencies that deploy school resource officers (“SROs”) and dispatch non-SRO
officers to schools are operating in a manner that harms countless WCPSS students, rather than
ensuring their safety. Specifically, employees of the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies are
collaborating in a harmful pattern and practice of utilizing largely unregulated law enforcement
officers to address minor student misbehavior that is often non-criminal in nature. This results in
students being subjected to unconstitutional and unlawful treatment, including unreasonable and
excessive uses of force, unlawful searches, interrogations, arrests, and harassment. All of these
patterns and practices have a disproportionately adverse impact on African-American students
and students with disabilities ("SWD").
The WCPSS has, by written agreement, contracted with the Wake County Sheriff’s
Department and the Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Holly Springs, Knightdale, Raleigh,
and Wake Forest police departments (collectively “law enforcement agencies” or “the agencies”)
to provide law enforcement officers – known as “school resource officers” or “SROs” – to patrol
schools on a full-time basis.
2
SROs have the same powers as sworn, patrol officers, including
the ability to arrest students and file criminal or delinquency complaints against them for
misbehavior that occurs at school. In addition, WCPSS staff members often call local patrol
officers from municipal law enforcement agencies (i.e., non-SROs) to school campuses and
request or permit them to search, interrogate, and arrest students, often for minor and non-
criminal behavior. Further, the WCPSS Security Department (an entity of the district) oversees
the SRO program and contracts with a private company, AlliedBarton, for the provision of
security guards to patrol schools and work closely with law enforcement officers and security
guards in matters involving student misbehavior. As a result, too much of the responsibility for
disciplining students in a lawful and educationally sound manner is delegated from the WCPSS
to law enforcement and private security officials.
Even though SROs patrol schools on a daily basis and can have significant, life-changing
impacts on the lives of students they police, there are no comprehensive regulations in place that
clearly define the roles and limitation of law enforcement officers in addressing student behavior.
Instead, existing agreements speak primarily to financial and organizational arrangements, and
fail to adequately define what constitutes developmentally-normative adolescent behavior that
should be regarded as “normal” rather than “criminal,” and dealt with by educators who provide
educationally sound disciplinary responses rather than police intervention and criminal charges.
The broad discretion given to SROs in criminalizing student behavior is even more concerning in
light of the fact that current agreements fail to ensure even minimum training requirements in
important areas such as adolescent development, mental health issues, or positive behavior
2
In May 2013, the district and law enforcement agencies proposed adding an officer from the Rolesville Police
Department to the SRO program. Complainants have not been able to confirm whether or not that agency is now
operating in Wake County schools under the same common Memorandum of Understanding that governs the SRO
program in the WCPSS, and requests that DOJ investigate that agency’s participation further. JOINT MEETING
AGENDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS & BOARD OF EDUCATION 25 (May 16, 2013), available at
http://www.wakegov.com/budget/bonds/2013/Joint%20Meeting%20Materials/May%2016%202013%20Combined
%20Packet.pdf.
January 22, 2014 Page 4 of 74
management, or to establish the supervision and accountability mechanisms necessary to ensure
that all WCPSS students are protected from discrimination, criminalization, and mistreatment by
law enforcement officers.
As a result of these inadequate and inappropriate policies, the line between school
discipline matters and criminal matters is often blurred in Wake County, with WCPSS staff and
law enforcement officers routinely collaborating in the perpetuation of a school-to-prison
pipeline, whereby students are pushed out of school and into the juvenile and criminal systems at
alarming rates. Over the course of the past five years, the unregulated use of law enforcement
officers to address school discipline matters has resulted in thousands of WCPSS students,
predominately African-American students and SWD, being deprived of their educational rights
and sent to juvenile or criminal court as a result of minor misbehavior that occurs at school.
While schools may be justified in permitting law enforcement involvement in response to the
most serious and unlawful student misbehaviors, the overwhelming majority of the referrals to
court for school-based behavior in Wake County have been triggered by minor student
misbehavior. In state fiscal year 2011-12, the most recent year for which this data is available,
90% of the 763 school-based delinquency complaints, all of which were filed against students
age 15 and younger, were for allegations of misdemeanor activity.
3
Within this subset of
misdemeanor offenses, it has been the experience of the Complainants that the alleged “crimes”
for which WCPSS students are routinely being pushed into the juvenile and criminal systems are
exceedingly minor and include offenses such as throwing water balloons,
4
stealing paper from a
recycling bin,
5
and play-fighting with a friend.
6
An educational environment that treats water-balloon-throwing as seriously as a crime
does not teach discipline or self-discipline; rather, it engenders distrust and hopelessness. Once
referred to court, young students face a prosecution process that is demeaning, demoralizing, and
destructive. Court referrals often derail students’ education, triggering school exclusion and
leading to academic failure.
7
In North Carolina, the repercussions of being sent into the court
system for minor misbehavior at school are uniquely sinister for high school students because
North Carolina is the only state that automatically treats all 16- and 17-year olds as adults with
no option for return to the juvenile justice system.
8
Instead, North Carolina teens are prosecuted
3
Public Records from DJJ (May 23, 2013)(see Appendix). School-based delinquency complaint data is currently
maintained in the Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice of the Department of Public Safety, formerly the
Division of Juvenile Justice, and before that, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. For
purposes of the Complaint, we will hereinafter use the acronym “DJJ” to encompass all iterations of past and current
divisions of juvenile justice that have supplied school-based delinquency complaint data.
4
Raleigh News and Observer, Seven Enloe students arrested in balloon-tossing prank, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (May
17, 2013), http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/17/2897565/enloe-students-arrested-after.html; T. Keung Hui,
Enloe Students Say Water-Balloon Charges Should be Dropped, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (May 30, 2013),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/30/2928310/enloe-students-say-water-balloon.html; Barry Saunders,
Saunders: In Enloe water-balloon case, does punishment fit the crime?, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (May 20, 2013),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/20/2905804/saunders-in-enloe-water-balloon.html.
5
Interview with ACS client (2011).
6
See infra J.H.
7
JASON LANGBERG, BARBARA FEDDERS, & DREW KUKOROWSKI, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN WAKE COUNTY
SCHOOLS: THE HUMAN, EDUCATIONAL, AND FINANCIAL COSTS 5-6 (2011), available at
http://www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/SRO%20Report.pdf.
8
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-1501 (2011) (“Delinquent juvenile. – Any juvenile who, while less than 16 years of age but at
least 6 years of age, commits a crime or infraction under State law or under an ordinance of local government.”).
January 22, 2014 Page 5 of 74
and incarcerated alongside hardened adult criminals. Youth prosecuted in the adult system must
often bear lifelong, crippling consequences of criminal convictions.
9
Referrals to court and
subsequent adjudication or conviction can make a young person ineligible for higher education
loans, cause a reduction in future employment opportunities, and lead to a family’s eviction from
public housing.
10
Even in the event that a frivolous, school-based criminal charge is later
dismissed for a lack of merit, students age 16 and older must still bear permanent, negative
repercussions as the result of having an adult criminal arrest record that will resurface anytime a
criminal background check is run.
11
Despite the grave consequences that result for 16- or 17-year-olds from receiving
criminal charges for minor school-based behavior, neither the district nor the law enforcement
agencies maintain or publish any data regarding how many WCPSS students are pushed directly
into the adult criminal court system from school each year. This lack of data collection makes it
impossible to track the full extent of the harm being perpetrated against students as a result of the
conduct of the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies. Further, when compounded with the
dearth of policy and regulatory guidance governing law enforcement's interaction with students,
the failure to collect data exacerbates the already glaring lack of accountability for the actions of
district and law enforcement officials with respect to school policing.
The impacts of school policing for students extend beyond just court referrals. As a
result of the inadequate policies that fail to limit the scope of law enforcement authority or
ensure supervision and accountability for misconduct, WCPSS students routinely face excessive
and unreasonable uses of force, unlawful searches and interrogations, and harassment at the
hands of law enforcement officials. Student mistreatment by law enforcement officers has been
well-documented by student and media accounts that depict an alarming pattern of law
enforcement officers being used to address minor misbehavior at school via unlawful policing
practices that include: students being handcuffed in crowded cafeterias and hallways; students
being pepper-sprayed in the eyes or TASERed in the chest; students being violently tackled to
the ground or pushed into walls, windows, or tables; students suffering persistent and damaging
verbal harassment; and students’ rights regarding searches and custodial interrogations routinely
being violated. Finally, not only are schools delegating minor school disciplinary matters to
police officers, but law enforcement agencies also use schools, and students’ trust of school
administrators, as a setting to interrogate students about off-campus conduct that has no direct or
immediate effect on school safety.
Tamar R. Birckhead, North Carolina, Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and the Resistance to Reform, 86 N.C. L. REV.
1443, 1445 (2008) (noting that North Carolina “is the only state in the United States that treats all sixteen-and
seventeen-year-olds as adults when they are charged with criminal offenses and then denies them the ability to
appeal for return to the juvenile system”).
9
Emily Buss, Rethinking the Connection Between Developmental Science and Juvenile Justice, 76 U. CHI. L. REV.
493, 514 (2009) (reviewing Elizabeth S. Scott & Laurence Steinberg, Rethinking Juvenile Justice (2008).
10
JASON LANGBERG, BARBARA FEDDERS, & DREW KUKOROWSKI, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN WAKE COUNTY
SCHOOLS: THE HUMAN, EDUCATIONAL, AND FINANCIAL COSTS 5-6 (2011), available at
http://www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/SRO%20Report.pdf.
11
N.C. Gen Stat. § 15A-146 (2012). See also Emery P. Dalesio, N.C. Expanding rules for erasing criminal records,
CHARLOTTEOBSERVER.COM (Aug. 13, 2013), available at
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/08/25/4263657/nc-expanding-rules-for-erasing.html#.Us2D3tGA3IV.
January 22, 2014 Page 6 of 74
While the rampant criminalization of minor, normative child and adolescent behavior in
the WCPSS is disturbing and unlawful in and of itself, particularly alarming disparities exist in
the impact that these policies and practices have on African-American students as compared to
their White peers.
12
For at least the last five state fiscal years, African-American students have
been disproportionately subjected to school-based delinquency complaints in the WCPSS.
African-American students have represented approximately a quarter of the total student
population over the past five years,
13
but have received as high as 74% of the school-based
delinquency complaints.
14
By comparison, White students have made up about half of the total
student population,
15
but have only received between 17% and 23% of the school-based
delinquency complaints in the WCPSS.
16
The WCPSS and law enforcement agencies also routinely violate the rights of SWD
through the unregulated use of law enforcement officers to address behavior that is often a
manifestation of a student’s disability. Specifically, WCPSS officials routinely request and
permit law enforcement officers, who are not trained to recognize and appropriately deescalate
disability-related conduct, to manage the behaviors of SWD through the use of excessive and
unreasonable force (including physical force, handcuffs, pepper spray, and TASERs) and to
arrest and file charges against SWD. These harmful policing practices inflict more serious
damage on students with emotional and cognitive disabilities than their non-disabled peers, yet
law enforcement officers and school staff often make no efforts to accommodate those students’
disabilities. Finally, the Complainants allege that SWD are harmed by the ongoing pattern of
unlawful policing practices at disproportionate rates as compared to their non-disabled peers.
These unlawful practices and resulting disparities persist in the WCPSS, despite the fact
that the unregulated use of law enforcement officers to address minor student behavior is not
educationally necessary, and that there are less discriminatory alternatives to current policies and
practices available that could be readily implemented by the WCPSS and law enforcement
agencies to better ensure the safety of all WCPSS students. Over the course of the past four
years, attorneys for the Complainants and local advocacy organizations, including Coalition of
12
Though this Complaint deals primarily with the school policing component of the school-to-prison pipeline, the
discriminatory use of excessive out-of-school suspensions in the WCPSS is an equally alarming factor contributing
to the unnecessary criminalization of students. See e.g. JASON LANGBERG & JENNIFER STORY, THE STATE OF THE
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE IN WAKE COUNTY (2013), available at http://www.legalaidnc.org/stateofpipeline.pdf
(detailing disparities in out-of-school suspensions, including the fact that, in 2011-12, African-American students
were 6.4 times more likely than White students to receive a suspension and, though they were only 24.7% of the
total student population, African-American students received 60.2% of suspensions and were 55.9% of students who
received at least one suspension). Suspension disparities remain alarmingly high in the district: In 2012-13, African-
American students were 24.4% of the total student population but received 60.9% of short-term suspensions and
57.3% of long-term suspensions. The suspension rate among African-American middle and high school students
was 6.7 times greater than the rate among White middle and high school students. See Public Records from the
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (Oct. 31, 2013)(on file with ACS).
13
Wake Cnty. Pub. Sch. Sys., Demographic Reports, WCPSS.NET http://www.wcpss.net/about-us/our-
students/demographics/reports.html (last visited January 5, 2013).
14
Public Records from DJJ (Nov. 4, 2013)(May 23, 2013)(July 16, 2012)(Jan. 31, 2012)(Sep. 22, 2010)(see
Appendix).
15
Wake Cnty. Pub. Sch. Sys., Demographic Reports, WCPSS.NET http://www.wcpss.net/about-us/our-
students/demographics/reports.html (last visited January 5, 2013).
16
Public Records from DJJ (Nov. 4, 2013)(May 23, 2013)(July 16, 2012)(Jan. 31, 2012)(Sep. 22, 2010)(see
Appendix).
January 22, 2014 Page 7 of 74
Concerned Citizens for African-American Children ('CCCAAC"), Education Justice Alliance
("EJA"), Justice Served NC, Inc., and North Carolina Heroes Emerging Among Teens ("NC
HEAT"), have repeatedly raised concerns with district leaders and law enforcement agencies
regarding the unnecessary and discriminatory criminalization of WCPSS students, and have
advocated for the use of alternative, less-discriminatory policies and practices. However, no
meaningful steps have been taken to stem the tide of students being pushed out of school and
into juvenile and criminal court systems. To the contrary, students are being increasingly
criminalized in WCPSS schools. While there are undoubtedly individual SROs and WCPSS
staff members who are deeply committed to embracing alternatives and keeping students in
school and out of the juvenile and criminal court systems, the larger system of school policing in
the district unfortunately enables the ongoing, harmful practice of routinely criminalizing and
pushing out the most vulnerable WCPSS students. Accordingly, comprehensive reform of
school policing policies and practices in the WCPSS is desperately needed in order to prevent
further discrimination and unnecessary criminalization of students.
Based on the facts described herein, Complainants allege that existing school discipline
and policing policies and practices in the WCPSS are in violation of provisions of the United
States Constitution, Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title IV”), Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”),
and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”),
17
and respectfully request
that the Educational Opportunities Section of the Civil Rights Division of the United States
Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigate the actions of the WCPSS and its contractors, and that
the Special Litigation Section, pursuant to its authority under the Violent Crime and Control Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, investigate all local law enforcement agencies that deploy officers to
patrol schools or otherwise conduct official police business in schools. In order to remedy these
ongoing violations, Complainants request that the district, its contract security guards, and law
enforcement agencies be ordered to adopt new, non-discriminatory policies and practices related
to students and schools, including, but not limited to: a new memorandum of understanding that
includes detailed guidelines regarding law enforcement officers’ and school staff’s scope of
authority; school board policies that set forth clear guidelines for staff regarding school
discipline and policing; uniform law enforcement agency policies that set forth appropriate
guidelines and expectations for officers working with youth; positive and productive alternatives
to school-based referrals to court; more targeted qualifications for SROs and security guards;
comprehensive, ongoing training for WCPSS staff, security guards, and SROs; comprehensive,
annual data collection and publication; community involvement and oversight; and well-
publicized complaint procedures whereby law enforcement officers, private security guards,
WCPSS Security Department staff, and school staff are held accountable for misconduct related
to school policing.
II. Student Complainants
This Complaint is filed on behalf of eight individual students, all of whom are African-
American and seven of whom are SWD. The experiences of the eight students described below
17
20 U.S.C. § 1400, et. seq (2004); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 115C-106 (2012); Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Board Policy
6220: Assurance of Appropriate Services for Students with Disabilities, WCPSS.NET (April 8, 2008),
http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/6220-bp.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 8 of 74
are presented as being representative of the violations that similarly-situated students across the
district routinely face in the WCPSS. Advocates for Children’s Services (“ACS”) represents two
current WCPSS students, J.K. and L.H., and the parent of one former WCPSS student, T.W.,
and, with consent from J.K.’s and L.H.’s parents and T.W.’s mother, submits this Complaint on
their behalves. The North Carolina Justice Center and ACS jointly represent one WCPSS
student, T.S., and, with consent from his parent, submit this Complaint on his behalf. The North
Carolina Central University (“NCCU”) Juvenile Law Clinic represents one WCPSS student,
K.H., and, with consent from his parent, submits this Complaint on his behalf. The Duke
Children’s Law Clinic submits this Complaint on behalf of two WCPSS students, J.H. and S.P.,
with consent from their parents. The University of North Carolina (“UNC”) School of Law
Juvenile Justice Clinic represents one WCPSS student, P.D., and, with consent from his parent,
submits this Complaint on his behalf. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights
Project at UCLA (“CCRR”), CCCAAC, EJA, NC HEAT, Justice Served NC, Inc., Advancement
Project, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (“ACLU”), ACLU of North Carolina Legal
Foundation (“ACLU-NC”), Dignity in Schools Campaign, UNC Center for Civil Rights, North
Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Raleigh-Apex Branch of the NAACP, and Wendell-
Wake County Branch of the NAACP join as co-Complainants to allege systemic violations of the
rights of other similarly-situated WCPSS students.
The experiences of the eight student Complainants described below provide examples of
the scope of violations that WCPSS students routinely face as law enforcement officers and
school officials collaborate in a poorly regulated system of school policing. All eight of the
students were arrested at a WCPSS school. Seven of the students were arrested and sent to court
as the result minor misbehavior that occurred on school campus, and could have been more
appropriately addressed using school-based consequences. In addition to facing arrests, all eight
of the students experienced unlawful interrogation practices, many of which were jointly
orchestrated by school and law enforcement officials. Finally, six of the eight students
experienced excessive and unreasonable force, as well as unlawful searches, at the hands of law
enforcement officers. In addition to demonstrating the legal violations apparent in current
policing practices, these students’ stories further shed light on the depth of the educational,
psychological, and emotional collateral harms that students suffer as a direct result of the
unregulated and discriminatory policing practices in the WCPSS.
A. T.S.
T.S. is a 16-year old, African-American SWD in the WCPSS. He is a soft-spoken, mild-
mannered young man who mostly keeps to himself. His teachers describe him as sweet, polite,
and introverted. He is charming and well-liked. His mother describes him as independent and
self-sufficient – someone who does not readily follow the crowd. T.S. has a diagnosis of
Oppositional Defiant Disorder (“ODD”), and has an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”).
He has worked with counselors to achieve great success in improving his social skills.
T.S.’ first incident involving an SRO occurred during the fall of 2011. T.S. was in the
school cafeteria when his friend in the lunch line invited him to get in line with him. As T.S
accepted the offer, he got in front of about 10 to 15 other students who were already in line. An
administrator told T.S. to go to the back of the line. T.S. complied by stepping aside, letting 10
January 22, 2014 Page 9 of 74
to 15 people pass him, and then got back in line where he would have been had he not stepped in
line with his friend. The administrator told him again to go to the end of the line, but this time,
T.S. ignored him, proceeding in his current place in line and getting his lunch.
As soon as T.S. got his food and started to walk away, the SRO grabbed his arm. Afraid,
T.S. attempted to pull his arm free of the SRO’s harsh grasp, at which point the SRO pulled T.S.’
arm behind his back, pushed him over a four-foot dividing wall in the cafeteria, and handcuffed
him. T.S.’ tray crashed to the ground. A cafeteria full of students looked on as T.S. was
restrained and then led out of the cafeteria in handcuffs. The administrator did nothing to stop
the SRO. Instead, he merely watched as T.S. was handcuffed for cutting in the lunch line.
T.S. was led to the main office and forced to sit in handcuffs for 15 to 20 minutes.
Deeply frustrated about being handcuffed for being accused of cutting the lunch line, T.S.
repeatedly asked the administrator why this was happening. T.S. was suspended out-of-school
for three days under the offense of “class/activity disturbance.” T.S. was released from
handcuffs just before his mom arrived. Neither the administrator nor the SRO notified her that
T.S. had been handcuffed in a crowded cafeteria, and the suspension write-up indicated only that
he had been “restrained.”
Just a few days later, when T.S. returned to school, he was walking to the bus at dismissal
with another friend when a group of students assaulted them. A student struck T.S., he fell to the
ground, and at least two other students jumped on top of him. Then, the SRO reached down and
began spraying pepper spray directly into T.S.’ face. The SRO handcuffed T.S. and forced him
to sit on the curb. Meanwhile, T.S.’ eyes and nose were running profusely and his whole face
was burning, yet he was incapacitated by the handcuffs and could not wipe his face. Other
students and staff looked on as T.S. was suffering. After asking for assistance repeatedly, T.S.
was finally brought tissues by an administrator. However, he was still forced to remain in
handcuffs and no one assisted him in washing his face or eyes. The spray caused him to have
limited vision and severe pain all over his face for several hours.
By the time his mother arrived to pick him up, T.S. had been sitting in handcuffs with a
burning face for over an hour. When he was released to her, school officials failed to tell her that
the SRO had discharged pepper spray directly onto T.S.’ face. It was not until she realized that
he could not see and he told her what happened that she learned about the pepper spray. T.S.
maintains, and the scope of his injuries support, that the officer sprayed him directly in the face
at very close range while he was already incapacitated on the ground with two other students
attacking him.
As a result of this incident, T.S. had to appear in juvenile court and was put on probation
for nine months. He also went through counseling after the incident and being subjected to a
delinquency complaint. Though the current academic year has been better for T.S., his
experiences have put him on the defensive and, whenever possible, he tries to avoid any and all
contact with the SRO at his school.
B. P.D.
January 22, 2014 Page 10 of 74
P.D. is a 20-year-old African-American SWD in the WCPSS. He works at a part-time
job and loves to draw. He is determined to graduate high school so he can pursue higher
education and become a mechanical engineer. P.D. was diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) in
third grade. P.D.’s IEP includes a Behavioral Intervention
Plan (“BIP”) that recognizes that when he is angry or upset, he may need time and space to
refocus. His BIP states that he is to have access to Behavioral Support Staff at any time he feels
he needs it. Despite difficulties due to his disability, P.D. started off this school year optimistic
that he would be able to graduate. However, his recent experience with school policing has
threatened his hopes for the future.
In September 2013, during a transition between classes, P.D. had a verbal disagreement
with another male student. After the bell rang, the two students remained in the hallway where
the argument continued. P.D. displayed no physical aggression. Two coaches were standing
across the hall, and one told P.D., “Don’t threaten him.” This unfair accusation upset P.D., who
was then told by the coach that P.D. had to go to the office.
As the coaches walked with P.D. to the office, P.D. impulsively decided that he wanted to
attend class instead. He turned to go through a door that would take him to English class. One
of the coaches grabbed him from behind. In fear, P.D. tried to get away from the situation so
that things wouldn’t escalate, but the coach held him in a bear-hug before slamming him against
a wall; the second coach slammed into them both to pin him further. P.D. did not fight back.
Rather than calling in support from administrators or from members of P.D.’s IEP Team, who
would have been familiar with his disabilities and equipped to properly implement the required
supports under his IEP, the coaches called for the SRO. The SRO, who was not present when
the incident occurred and who knew nothing about P.D.’s disability or BIP, arrived and
handcuffed P.D.
P.D. was then escorted through the hallways in handcuffs. After witnessing this, one of
P.D.’s teachers contacted P.D.’s mother on her own initiative, something the school
administration failed to do until after the officers had removed him from the school grounds.
The officer took him to the school’s SRO office where a second SRO was waiting. P.D.
describes how he felt: “I was in a police officer’s office. I had a feeling I was going to jail from
the beginning based on how they handled me. It was like they had made up in their minds what
they were going to do.” In fact, the SROs accused P.D. of elbowing and assaulting a gym
teacher without informing him of his Miranda rights or involving his IEP Team. P.D. knew that
he did not assault the gym teacher. So, he asked that they view the surveillance tape to see that
he was innocent. The SROs watched the video and, according to P.D., agreed aloud that it did
not show P.D. assaulting the coach. Still, the officers told him, “It’s the teacher’s word against
yours.” He was arrested but never told about his Miranda rights. No one from the school
administration contacted his mother until after P.D. had been taken to the Wake County
detention center.
P.D.’s mother went to the jail to bring him home. P.D. was not a flight risk; his whole
life had been spent in Wake County, where he has a part-time job, a loving family, friends, and a
sincere desire to graduate from high school. [Nevertheless, his bond was set at $5,000, well
beyond what his mother would be able to scrape together to free him. ] Accordingly, he spent
January 22, 2014 Page 11 of 74
three nights in jail for an alleged assault that could have been avoided had his IEP supports been
implemented.
P.D. was eventually allowed to go home under house arrest, an arrangement that cost his
family an initial fee of $175, and continues to cost $150 per month. Because he has consistently
maintained his innocence and has no interest in pleading guilty to the charge, his family must
continue to accrue this expense while his public defender prepares the case for trial. Although
the principal of P.D.’s school recommended that P.D. be long-term suspended for the remainder
of the school year, approximately four months, P.D. was able to get the principal’s
recommendation overturned because of the school’s recognition that the incident occurred
because of his disability. He has also obtained placement in an evening alternative education
program. However, his criminal case is still pending.
This experience has crushed P.D.’s confidence – he feels unwanted by the school and is
afraid to be around the SROs who handcuffed him and sent him to jail, despite exculpatory video
evidence.
C. J.H.
J.H. is a 15-year-old, African-American student in the WCPSS. He exudes a friendly and
warm energy. People in his community hold J.H. in high regard and use him as a positive
example for their kids. He is a good student, achieving mostly A’s and B’s and securing
placement in ninth grade honors classes. He is also athletically gifted and a member of the
Garner Road Junior Achievers, an academic and community service program for youth designed
to prepare them for college. J.H. has big dreams and incredible potential, which are now in
jeopardy due to the actions of WCPSS officials and SROs.
Last spring, J.H. was pulled out of class by the principal and taken to the main office
without explanation. His phone was confiscated and he waited 45 minutes in one room until
someone came to take him to another room where he waited another 15 minutes. During this
time he asked to call his mom but his request was denied.
Eventually, J.H. was taken to the assistant principal’s office where he met with the
assistant principal, a school security guard, an SRO, and a WCPSS Security Department security
administrator. Again he asked to call his mom, and again he was told he could not – at least not
until he answered their questions. The school administrator and security personnel intensely
interrogated J.H. about an incident that had occurred three months earlier. Specifically, a cell
phone had been found in the boys’ locker room by the school. Instead of putting the phone in the
lost and found, the SRO took the SIM card out of the phone, put it in his own cell phone, and
perused its contents. The SRO eventually came across a three-month old video in which J.H.
was “slap boxing” with his childhood friend. During J.H.’s interrogation, the SRO threatened
him with charges related to the video. J.H. explained that he and his friend were just horse
playing for the camera, and that they had never actually fought. J.H.’s childhood friend
confirmed J.H.’s account, making a statement in which the friend used the phrase “play fight” to
describe the incident.
January 22, 2014 Page 12 of 74
The team also accused J.H. of being in a gang – a baseless allegation. The SRO taunted
J.H., saying, for example, “Ain’t nothing funny now, right?”, and “If you were 16, I’d take you
to jail.” J.H. was not informed of his Miranda rights, even though he was prohibited from
leaving the room. His bag was searched and nothing was found. He was again denied his
request to call his mom and told that after they were done questioning him “the school will call
her for you.” He was only able to speak to his parents over three hours after he had been pulled
out of class.
J.H. was suspended out-of-school for 10 days with a recommendation for a long-term
suspension for alleged “gang affiliation.” J.H. appealed this suspension and won before a
hearing panel. By the time he received the decision overturning his suspension, J.H. had already
been suspended out-of-school for 10 school days. This resulted in him missing a substantial
amount of classwork.
18
On J.H.’s first day back in school after his suspension was overturned, a group of football
players approached J.H. asking him questions aggressively. A crowd gathered and the star
football player put his hands up ready to fight J.H. The school security guard and SRO
approached the crowd of students. The security guard grabbed J.H. and the SRO grabbed the
football player. J.H. immediately told the security guard that he did not want to fight and that the
football player had instigated the incident that caused the crowd to gather. J.H. recalls the SRO
saying to him, “J.H., back again I see. You couldn’t even last one day. I swear if you were 16,
I’d take you down.”
J.H. was taken to the office, where he called his father as he had been instructed to do by
his parents. While talking to his dad, the SRO entered the room aggressively demanding that
J.H. get off the phone. J.H. said, “I’m talking to my dad.” The officer lunged at J.H., yelling,
“Get off the phone!”. The SRO grabbed J.H.’s arm, twisted it behind his back, and pushed J.H.
into a table. Nothing like this had ever happened to J.H. before and J.H. was terrified of what the
SRO might do to him in a closed room; so, he tried to get out of the room. He got to the hallway
when the SRO grabbed him again, twisted his arms behind his back, slammed him against a wall,
and handcuffed him. J.H. told the SRO that his hands hurt because the handcuffs were too tight,
but the SRO ignored him. Both the football coach and the athletic director witnessed this
excessive force but neither intervened.
J.H. and his family thought the matter was resolved until they received a notice in the
mail a couple of weeks later. The SRO had filed a delinquency complaint alleging two counts of
simple affray and one count of resisting a public officer. J.H. was compelled to go through a
delinquency intake and meet with a juvenile court counselor (i.e., juvenile probation officer)
who, after meeting him, declined to go forward with the charges (i.e., file a petition), and instead
placed J.H. in an alternative program.
19
18
J.H.’s high school is on a modified calendar. What this means is that J.H. missed more school than he would have
at an average school where class periods last for 45 minutes. At his high school, J.H. has four, 90-minute class
periods. As a result, J.H. missed more instruction time than would be indicated by a 10-day suspension.
19
CHOICES is a decision-making workshop that empowers teens to achieve academic success in pursuit of their
career and life aspirations.
January 22, 2014 Page 13 of 74
Combined, these incidents made it impossible for J.H. to continue at his school, despite
his dream to graduate high school along with his friends. The violence, intimidation, and
taunting exhibited by the SRO caused J.H. to fear for his safety at that school. J.H. became
extremely cautious and fearful at school. He felt like he was constantly being watched and
would be singled out and found at fault, no matter what happened. The SRO’s conduct breached
the trust that J.H. previously had for law enforcement officers. Further, the school official's
acquiescence to the SRO’s treatment of him led J.H. to believe that he was no longer safe at
school. J.H. left the school for another high school. Being uprooted from his community and his
school due to the extreme actions of the SRO has been difficult on J.H. and his family. J.H.’s
new school is a 30-minute drive away; much further away than his previous school. His mother
must drive two hours transporting J.H. to and from school each day. Unfortunately, when faced
with the reality of an education filled with fear and harassment, this was a sacrifice that J.H.
ultimately had no choice but to make.
D. J.K.
J.K. is a 15-year-old, African-American SWD in the WCPSS. He has had a very difficult
life and has risen above many challenges. Evaluations in his education records describe J.K. as
“a friendly enthusiastic child”, “a cute, active little boy”, “a friendly little boy who enjoys a
variety of activities,” “a loving, affectionate child,” “such a sweet, well-motivated child,” and “a
very funny, likeably young man.” J.K. is currently repeating ninth grade. He had an IEP from
May 2002 until November 2012, with a diagnosis of ADHD. Despite documented evidence of
his need for mental health services, J.K. never received any school-based mental health services.
J.K. was improperly exited from special education in November 2012, despite the fact that he
was doing worse than ever before in school.
Earlier this year, J.K. punched another student after the student called him a “Nigger” and
hit him. J.K. then left school property to avoid further conflict. The next school day, the
assistant principal took J.K. to the front office where he was forced to empty his pockets and
interrogated by the SRO in a room with the door closed. Miranda warnings were never given.
J.K. asked to call his grandmother, his guardian, but was denied the opportunity to do so. The
assistant principal sat silently in the room while the law enforcement officer questioned J.K.
J.K., who had not been suspended out-of-school in over five and a half school years, was
recommended for long-term suspension. The school did not consider any mitigating factors,
such as the facts that the other student used a racial slur and threw the first punch, his disability,
or history of trauma. Additionally, a delinquency complaint was filed against J.K.
Ultimately, J.K. was placed in Second Chance Online Resource for Education (SCORE),
an alternative education program that does not provide in-person teachers or support staff, free
and reduced price lunch, extracurricular activities, elective classes, or group work. As a
struggling student with ADHD and failing grades, J.K. did the computer-based program at home
for approximately four months. J.K. also had to go to juvenile court in October. He agreed to a
plea “deal” that resulted in six months of probation, 24 hours of community service, and a
juvenile delinquency record.
January 22, 2014 Page 14 of 74
E. L.H.
L.H. is a 16-year-old, African-American SWD in the WCPSS. He is playful and close
with his family. L.H. has severe emotional and cognitive disabilities, with an IQ that places him
at an elementary school level even though he is currently in high school. Accordingly, school
has always been a difficult place for L.H., both academically and due to bullying from peers and,
at times, school staff.
School officials have consistently noted that redirecting L.H. by using positive, non-
aggressive measures is crucial to keeping him on track and deescalating potential crises.
Likewise, his IEP Team determined that the “crisis plan” for staff to use if L.H. walked out of his
classroom and through the hallways would be simply to walk with him, talk calmly to him, and
try to get him re-focused and returned to class. Coping with bullying and what he perceives to
be unfair treatment has been a significant struggle for L.H. Accordingly, preventing and/or
deescalating such situations has been a central component of his educational and behavioral
plans.
Unfortunately, the SRO at L.H’s school has consistently ignored all of the interventions
from L.H.’s IEP Team. Earlier this year, rather than letting administrators or other staff
implement behavior plan interventions when L.H. became agitated, the SRO approached L.H.
and told him to calm down. When L.H. did not immediately calm down, the SRO handcuffed
him to make him calm down. The SRO then made L.H. sit on the ground, with his hands
shackled behind him, as other students walked through the hallway. No one from the school
contacted L.H.’s parents, who only learned of this incident weeks later when it was referenced at
an IEP Team meeting by a Team member. When pressed for details, no one from the school
admitted knowledge that L.H. had been handcuffed at school. When asked whether there would
be a record of such an incident had it occurred, an administrator replied “not necessarily.”
A few weeks later, while other students were boarding a bus to go on a field trip, L.H.
and another student playfully ran up to the bus and pretended they were going to board it as well.
The SRO yelled at them to come back. L.H. and the other student immediately turned around
and walked toward the SRO. Then, the officer grabbed L.H. by the back of his neck, squeezed
firmly, scratched his neck, and pushed him to his knees. His mother reports that when L.H.
called her, he was crying hysterically and really angry, telling her over and over that the police
officer scratched him. His mother then tried to speak to someone at the school to find out what
had happened, but no one would give her any information.
At dismissal a few hours later, L.H. was still agitated about what had happened earlier
that day with the police officer. He had a brief altercation with a student who was taunting him.
Although the SRO had not seen the alleged incident, upon a report from a teacher that L.H. had
been in a minor altercation with another student, and without asking L.H. any questions, the SRO
put him in handcuffs. He did not permit L.H. to call his parents. Instead, he placed L.H. in his
patrol car and made him sit in the back of the car for about 10 to 15 minutes, in plain view of
other students, before transporting him to jail.
January 22, 2014 Page 15 of 74
No one at the school ever contacted L.H.’s parents to let them know L.H. had been
arrested. Prior to being handcuffed, L.H. managed to call his sister and tell her he was being
arrested. His parents then repeatedly called the school, terrified of what was going on and trying
to get information. However, no one at the school would tell them what was going on. Hours
later, around 6:00 p.m., the SRO called L.H.’s parents to tell them that he had arrested L.H., that
L.H. was in jail, and that they needed to track down money to bail him out.
Because L.H. was 16-years-old, he was processed as an adult offender and forced to stay
in a holding cell with about 10 other people, mostly adults who were significantly older than
him, until after 11:00 pm. He was held on a $1,000 bond, and his low-income parents had to
find someone who could loan them money to get him out. Meanwhile, L.H. kept calling home,
begging his parents to come pick him up.
L.H. is just a 16-year-old boy, yet he faces a criminal charges and the serious, life-long
repercussions that come with a criminal record.
F. K.H.
K.H. is a 16-year-old African-American SWD in the WCPSS. K.H. has been a
passionate football player since the age of six and was on the varsity football team at his high
school. He also ran track for the school, in addition to working at Wendy’s at least 20 hours per
week to help with his family’s finances. He is one of five children in a single-parent household,
and helps his mother care for his three younger siblings, one of whom was born in the fall of
2013 and required extensive hospitalization.
K.H. has been diagnosed with ADHD and struggles academically. He has a 504 plan
through which he receives accommodations for his disability, and is undergoing the evaluation
process to receive an IEP. When he finally received a 504 plan last school year, K.H.’s grades
improved immediately, and he made the honor roll.
Earlier this year, K.H. was asked to leave class by an administrator at his school. The
previous evening, a Raleigh Police Department officer went to the school to tell school
administrators that K.H. allegedly fought with another student off campus after school hours.
The police officer who reported to the scene of the alleged assault obtained an arrest warrant
sometime on Thursday. At the school Thursday evening, the police officer told the
administrators that a police report detailing the incident would soon be released.
On Friday morning, before he got K.H. out of class, an assistant principal received and
read parts of the police report, which he asked the SRO to send him via email. The assistant
principal did not mention to K.H. why he was pulling him out of class, and as they walked down
the hall he talked to K.H. about his academics and some grades that he needed to improve. The
assistant principal did not call K.H.’s mother.
When the assistant principal brought K.H. into an office an SRO was there. The assistant
principal questioned K.H. about the alleged assault with the door closed and in the SRO’s
presence. K.H. tried to talk about his academics instead. K.H felt “nervous and scared about
January 22, 2014 Page 16 of 74
getting in trouble.” The assistant principal continued to question K.H. about the incident and
asked K.H. to make a written statement. In his written statement, and in his answers to the
principal, K.H. never referred to the alleged assault. Neither the principal nor anyone else at the
school called K.H.’s mother at this time. K.H. was not read his Miranda rights.
After K.H. wrote his statement, the SRO handcuffed K.H., told him he was under arrest,
and led him to a police car. According to K.H., many students saw him being put into the car.
He was embarrassed. Following his arrest, K.H. was brought to the police station, where he was
fingerprinted, searched, and made to change clothes. He does not want to talk about what else
happened at the police station. At around this time, his mother was finally informed about
K.H.’s detainment and went to get him out.
K.H. has been suspended from school since his arrest. Despite the fact that K.H. was led
immediately from the assistant principal’s questioning into the back of a police car, the assistant
principal maintained that his questioning of K.H. was not related to the police investigation, but
instead was related to K.H.’s suspension from school.
K.H. now faces criminal charges in adult court and is still suspended from school. He
will not play football again this season and is taking his classes through an online program,
SCORE, that he is currently attending via his cell phone, as the family does not have internet
access and as he does not have reliable transportation to a SCORE computer lab site.
G. S.P.
S.P. is a 17-year-old, African-American SWD in the WCPSS. Since childhood, S.P. has
been passionate about music. He sang in the boys’ choir at his church, traveling to concerts
across the country. He also learned to play the keyboard and the drums. S.P. plays the keyboard
at his church and has earned a position on the varsity drum line. He has also pursued his passion
academically: as a junior, he completed AP Music Theory. When S.P. describes these
experiences and his interest in music, his eyes smile. He hoped to attend music school on
scholarship after graduating from high school. But S.P.’s dream now seems farfetched due to
unwarranted treatment by district and law enforcement officials.
S.P. has received special education services since middle school. He has been diagnosed
with ADHD, Impulse Control Disorder, and a learning disability. Among other challenges, S.P.
has difficulty following directions and often becomes distracted. Yelling at him or berating him
with additional directions, however, is ineffective. His IEP notes that S.P. responds poorly when
teachers or administrators shout at him. The school has created a BIP that specifically directs
teachers and administrators to allow S.P. to leave the room when he is upset and to seek out a
member of the school’s behavioral support team to help him to decompress and return to the
classroom without escalation.
Toward the end of last school year, S.P. attended his first-period class. After class, there
was an announcement that the atrium between the two main buildings of the high school would
be closed. Administrators had heard about a planned water-balloon fight; so, they closed down
the area where most likely would occur. As a result, hundreds of students were forced through a
January 22, 2014 Page 17 of 74
narrow breezeway that ran between the buildings. S.P. and a few other students decided to wait
for crowd to disperse. They stepped out onto the grass between the school and the main parking
lot. Once the crammed breezeway opened up, S.P. began to walk back toward the building.
Before he reached the breezeway, S.P. turned toward the towering, uniformed figure
approaching and calling his name. S.P. recognized the SRO, who had been an officer at S.P.’s
school for several years. S.P. reached out to shake his hand and asked how he was doing. The
SRO struck S.P. in the chest and demanded to know where he had been. S.P. explained he had
been waiting in the grassy area until the crowds subsided. Thinking that was a sufficient
explanation, S.P. began to walk away. The SRO then jerked S.P. around to face him and
grabbed his neck. Afraid, S.P. impulsively struck back at the SRO in an attempt to break free
from his painful grip. The SRO then further restrained S.P. and threw him over a nearby railing.
S.P.’s glasses flew off when he made impact with the railing. The SRO then put him in
handcuffs.
Throughout the altercation, at least five administrators passively stood nearby. Some of
them – including the principal and assistant principal – had signed off on S.P.’s most recent IEP
and knew what interventions were required per his BIP. Instead of following his BIP, these
school officials turned their backs as S.P. was restrained, thrown over a railing, and handcuffed.
The SRO then led S.P. to his office and closed the door. No one else was present. The
SRO removed the handcuffs and shoved him down into a chair. S.P. felt helpless, and in
frustration elbowed the wall and kicked, leading the SRO to reapply the handcuffs. He then
searched S.P.’s backpack. He neither asked for S.P.’s consent nor did he have reasonable
suspicion for the search. After finding nothing suspicious, he asked S.P. if he had anything else
on him. S.P. answered “yes,” realizing that he still had in the pocket of his cargo pants a small,
three-inch pocketknife that his mother had given him over the weekend. He had put the knife in
his pocket after he finished carving his name in a tree in his yard, and had forgotten all about it
until he was already at school that morning. S.P. willingly gave the SRO the pocketknife.
Instead of contacting school administrators to handle a violation of school policy, the
SRO called in other non-SRO police officers who were on campus that day. The officers
arrested S.P. and took him to jail in a squad car, along with other students, all of whom were
arrested for throwing water balloons.
20
They did not read S.P. his Miranda rights and refused to
contact his mother. By the time the school notified his mother and she arrived at the jail, S.P.
was hysterical. She had never seen him so upset. She had to take him to his psychologist before
he would calm down.
S.P. was criminally charged with possessing a weapon on educational property. In
addition, the school suspended S.P. for 10 school days with a recommendation for a long-term
suspension for carrying the pocketknife. The suspension notice stated that the SRO stopped S.P.
because he was returning to school after being off campus. S.P.’s first-period teacher has since
confirmed, however, that he was in class all morning.
20
See generally, T. Keung Hui, Enloe Students Say Water-Balloon Charges Should Be Dropped, RALEIGH NEWS &
OBSERVER (May 30, 2013), available at http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/30/2928310/enloe-students-say-
water-balloon.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 18 of 74
School officials suspended S.P. until January 2014, despite a letter from S.P.’s
psychologist confirming that outbursts like what he experienced with the SRO are manifestations
of his ADHD and Impulsivity Control Disorder. His mother retained counsel for an appeal, at
which point the school offered to allow S.P. to return to school if his mother dropped her appeal,
but she declined. She said she had seen enough of the way S.P. and other African-American
students at S.P.’s school were being treated. The school then offered to transfer S.P. to the
school of his choice. Hoping to put S.P. in a better environment, his mother agreed. S.P. is now
a senior at another high school.
S.P. has continued to work toward graduating on time and following his passion for
music. He is in the marching band at his school and involved with the music program at his
church. But the incident at his previous school has left its mark. S.P. now has a disciplinary
record and is facing criminal charges for inadvertently possessing a small pocket knife on school
property. A scholarship to a music school is likely out of reach due to his arrest record that will
permanently follow him. S.P. has also become deeply skeptical of law enforcement and school
administrators. He avoids them whenever possible. He says they are unpredictable. He is afraid
something similar will happen again.
H. T.W.
At the time of the incidents described below, T.W. was an African-American SWD in the
WCPSS. T.W. had a serious emotional disability (“SED”) and a learning disability (“LD”).
Accordingly, he began receiving special education services via an IEP as early as 2008. T.W.
also took medication for depression.
T.W.’s incident involving SROs occurred in the fall of 2011. T.W. arrived at school on
the very first day of his eleventh grade year, eager to have a positive and productive school year.
He introduced himself to the new principal and then went straight to the office to pick up his
schedule. T.W. took his place in the line of 10 to 15 students who were also waiting to receive
their schedules. He was where he was supposed to be, doing what he was supposed to be doing.
While T.W. was in line, an SRO asked T.W. if he attended that high school. T.W. told
the SRO that he did in fact attend the school. The SRO then demanded that T.W. accompany
him to the office to verify his status as a student. T.W. was stunned and did not understand why
he was being singled out, and so remained in line. A female student who was passing by
confirmed that T.W. was a student at the school.
The SRO demanded that T.W. tell him his name. T.W. responded, yet the SRO became
outraged at T.W. Clearly, he did not know T.W. well enough to know that, according to T.W.‘s
IEP, “when faced with stressful situations, T.W. often responds by avoidance.” The SRO said
something to the effect of, “Are you trying to play me in front of your boys?” At no point was
T.W. a threat to the order and safety of the school environment. Yet, the SRO grabbed T.W.’s
arm violently, and eventually put his arm behind his back.
January 22, 2014 Page 19 of 74
Then, a second law enforcement officer approached him and grabbed T.W.’s other arm.
The law enforcement officers teamed up to throw T.W. up against a window and slap handcuffs
on him, even though T.W. was not resisting. A teacher approached the officers and confirmed
that T.W. was in fact a student at that high school. Other students and staff were looking on in
shock and amazement.
T.W. was then taken to the principal’s office where the SRO searched T.W. and said
something to the effect of, “I love to find drugs.” Other than that flippant comment, the SRO
offered no information regarding how he had reasonable suspicion to suspect T.W. had drugs in
his possession. Nonetheless, the SRO continued the search, making T.W. take off his shoes and
hand over his wallet, and then patted him down. The SRO then interrogated T.W. At no point
was T.W. read his Miranda rights. Instead, the SRO continuously made statements to T.W.,
such as: “If you help me, I can help you;” “If you give a tip that leads to arrest, you can get
paid;” “When you come to school your rights are forfeited.” During the course of the illegal
search, the SRO found a lighter in T.W.’s pocket. The principal suspended T.W. out-of-school
for two school days and the SRO finished his attack against T.W. with a citation to adult criminal
court for interfering with a police investigation.
T.W.’s mother filed a grievance with the school regarding the SRO’s mistreatment of her
son. However, she realized that her efforts to convince the principal to remedy the situation were
futile as he asserted that he had no control over SROs. So, that afternoon she went to the Raleigh
Police Department and filed an Internal Affairs complaint against the SRO. Months later she
received a form letter with no individualized findings, stating only that the department viewed
the SROs actions to be “proper conduct” consistent with Department policies and training.
After the grievances were filed, the SRO continued to harass T.W. A few weeks after the
incident, T.W. missed the school bus. While T.W. was walking to school the SRO pulled up
beside him in his patrol car. He pointed a video camera at T.W. and asked T.W. why he was late
for school. T.W. explained that he had missed the bus. The SRO said something to the effect of,
“You better not have cigarettes or you’ll get in trouble, and you get rid of that lighter.” T.W.
said about the incident:
I proceeded on, and actually did not want to go to school after that. I stopped;
talked to myself for a little while, but I proceeded on and went about the day and
even stayed after school that day. At this point I am feeling uncomfortable going
to my own school that I have been attending for four years. I wish the SRO
would leave me alone.
Ultimately, T.W. and his mother had to appear in court at least four times as a result of
the initial incident at school. Each time, his mother had to take time off of work and T.W. had to
miss school. At one of the court appearances, the SRO testified that the reason he approached
T.W. while he was in line to get his schedule was because he looked older than the other kids.
The judge responded, “That’s just like walking on the sidewalk while being black.” All charges
were subsequently dropped, and the case was dismissed. However, unfortunately, T.W. never
finished high school, in part due to the trauma caused by school policing policies and practices in
Wake County.
January 22, 2014 Page 20 of 74
III. School Security Personnel in the WCPSS
All aspects of campus security and policing in the district are overseen by the WCPSS
Security Department. Within the purview of the Security Department are: contract security
officers employed by AlliedBarton, a private security company; SROs employed by local law
enforcement agencies; part-time, off-duty law enforcement officers who patrol board meetings
and other events after regular school hours; and other law enforcement officers who are
dispatched to schools to conduct official police business.
21
The WCPSS Security Department itself is comprised of nine employees: a senior
director, a senior administrator, a secretary, five security administrators (“SAs”), and one
emergency management coordinator (“EMC”).
22
Key functions of the WCPSS Security
Department include:
Assisting school administrators with student investigations;
Conducting preliminary investigations for all crimes committed on school property;
Determining whether threats of violence are spontaneous utterances by angry students or
are substantive; and
Coordinating with law enforcement when students commit criminal acts.
23
Security Department SAs are stationed at individual schools and assigned to cover
geographic regions of elementary, middle, and high schools. SAs are required to have five or
more years of experience in law enforcement, investigations, or other security services, as well
as a bachelor’s degree or equivalent vocational/technical training in criminal justice or law
enforcement.
24
Their primary duties include investigating incidents, providing presentations on
school security-related topics, providing written security risk assessments of school system sites,
and assisting schools with coordinating and executing emergency action drills.
25
Their other
duties, which closely resemble traditional law enforcement officer activities, also include:
Maintaining “internal intelligence;”
Developing “suspect pools;”
Interrogating students and taking written statements;
Searching students, vehicles, lockers, and facilities;
Planning, coordinating, and participating in periodic canine searches;
Photographing seized evidence and turning it over to law enforcement;
Inspecting surveillance equipment;
Testing students for drugs and alcohol;
21
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
22
The total cost for salary and benefits for the five SAs and one EMC was $386,433.11 during 2011-12 – an average
of $64,405.52 per person. Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012) (see Appendix).
23
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012) (see Appendix).
24
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012) (see Appendix).
25
Russ Smith, Senior Dir. WCPSS Sec. Dep’t, Address to the WCPSS Task Force for Creating Safer Schools (Mar.
13, 2013).
January 22, 2014 Page 21 of 74
Preparing reports for and testifying at juvenile court proceedings and suspension
hearings;
Coordinating activities that involve both sworn law enforcement and private security
personnel; and
Issuing trespass letters.
26
Once hired, SAs are required to undergo training relevant to the WCPSS infrastructure
and the student code of conduct. However, SAs are not required to receive training specific to
working with students with disabilities, conflict de-escalation strategies, students’ rights, or any
other topic related to child well-being. SAs report directly to the Senior Director of Security.
No
data is made publicly available regarding SA investigations that involve SROs and subsequent
interrogations, searches, uses of force, arrests, or court referrals for WCPSS students.
27
To the
knowledge of the Complainants, the Security Department has never been formally evaluated.
In addition to overseeing Security Department staff, the Senior Director also oversees a
contract with a private company, AlliedBarton, that deploys security guards to WCPSS schools.
AlliedBarton security guards in the WCPSS are charged with, among other duties, issuing
parking citations, performing sweeps of buildings and grounds, and assisting with lunch, carpool,
and behavior management. The requirements to become a security officer are minimal and do
not specify any previous experience or training in security, or any experience working with
youth or in schools. Instead, applicants to AlliedBarton are required only to manifest such
generalized characteristics as “good moral character,” as evidenced, in part, by “areas of
residence/neighborhood.”
28
The district does not require subsequent training for security guards
on important topics such as working with students with disabilities, conflict de-escalation, or
students’ rights.
29
During the 2012-13 school year, AlliedBarton deployed 61 security officers to
24 high schools, three middle schools, seven elementary schools, and three administrative sites.
30
Notably, most of the elementary schools with security guards were located in predominantly
lower-income, African-American communities in Raleigh.
During the 2011-12 school year, the WCPSS paid AlliedBarton $1,334,642 to provide
security and bike patrol officers to elementary, middle, and high schools throughout the district.
31
Despite this massive financial investment, the district does not maintain data regarding activities
undertaken by the security guards. Accordingly, the full extent to which these guards contribute
26
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
27
Id.
28
Id.
29
Id.
30
Russ Smith, Senior Dir. WCPSS Sec. Dep’t, Address to the WCPSS Task Force for Creating Safer Schools (Mar.
13, 2013). Following the tragedy in Sandy Hook, the Board of Education made a rash proposal to hire 105 new
security guards to patrol WCPSS elementary schools. The proposal met significant opposition from community
members. Parents and student advocates argued that using school funds for security guards rather than for academic
and intervention supports for students would be detrimental to students and would create an unnecessary police-state
atmosphere. On the other side of the spectrum, conservative board members and county commissioners opposed the
proposal because they believed any new guards should be armed. T. Keung Hui, Criticism greets unarmed security-
guard proposal, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (Jan. 24, 2013), http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/24/2625089/wake-to-
delay-school-security.html.
31
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
January 22, 2014 Page 22 of 74
to the school-to-prison pipeline in the WCPSS is currently unknown.
32
Students report that
security guards work in tandem with WCPSS staff and SROs in police-related matters, often
calling SROs to become involved in student behavior incidents.
33
Students also report that most
security guards carry and are empowered to use handcuffs, TASERs, and pepper-spray against
students.
34
However, the WCPSS does not publish, nor presumably maintain, data regarding
how often security guards use force against students or are otherwise involved in policing-related
matters. Instead, though the WCPSS pays the full salaries of all security guards and permits them
to patrol WCPSS campuses on a daily basis, all supervision and data-collection duties are
delegated to AlliedBarton.
35
The WCPSS Security Department is also responsible for facilitating the WCPSS SRO
Program.
36
The SRO program is a “joint cooperative effort” between the WCPSS and the Wake
County Sheriff’s Department and the Apex, Cary, Fuquay-Varina, Garner, Holly Springs,
Knightdale, Raleigh, and Wake Forest police departments for the provision of law enforcement
officers – known as SROs – to patrol schools on a full-time basis.
37
These SROs have the same
authority and powers as sworn patrol officers, including the ability to arrest students and file
delinquency or criminal complaints against students for behavior that occurs at school.
Over the course of the past five years, the number of full-time SROs patrolling WCPSS
schools has steadily increased from 54 SROs in the 2009-10 school year to 64 SROs in the 2012-
13 school year. During the 2011-12 school year, 60 SROs were assigned to 29 middle schools
and 23 high schools in the WCPSS. During the 2012-13 school year, 64 SROs were assigned
across 23 high schools, 32 middle schools, and one elementary school.
38
The relationship between the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies is formalized by
contracts with each of the law enforcement agencies, as well as a memorandum of understanding
(“MOU”) that exists among the WCPSS and all of the law enforcement agencies. Under the
contracts, the costs for the SROs are shared by the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies.
During 2011-12, the WCPSS paid a portion of 26 SROs’ salaries, for a total of $893,355. The
district also paid $2,077 toward cell phone charges for SROs employed by the Raleigh Police
32
See U.S. DEP’T OF EDUCATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL CLIMATE AND
DISCIPLINE, (January 2014) (highlighting school security guards’ role in perpetuating the school-to-prison pipeline),
available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline.
33
Interview with Justice Served NC, Inc students (December 16, 2013)
34
Id.
35
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
36
Russ Smith, Senior Dir. WCPSS Sec. Dep’t, Address to the WCPSS Task Force for Creating Safer Schools (Mar.
13, 2013).
37
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) (July 1, 2009). It has also
been proposed that the Rolesville Police Department provide SROs to WCPSS schools. See JOINT MEETING
AGENDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS & BOARD OF EDUCATION, supra note 3. However, Complainants have not been
able to confirm whether this has occurred and, if so, whether Rolesville PD is likewise bound by the same MOU.
38
Russ Smith, Senior Dir. WCPSS Sec. Dep’t, Address to the WCPSS Task Force for Creating Safer Schools (Mar.
13, 2013). Complainants do not have complete information regarding the staffing patterns of SROs in the WCPSS
for the 2013-14 school year.
January 22, 2014 Page 23 of 74
Department.
39
For 2013-14, the WCPSS’ investment in the SRO Program increased to over
$940,000.
40
Though the WCPSS invests heavily in the SRO program and SROs are housed at district
schools, day-to-day supervision of SROs is delegated to officials at an SRO’s respective law
enforcement agency.
41
All training requirements are likewise delegated to the individual law
enforcement agencies, with no minimum standards set by the WCPSS.
42
No data is made
publicly available regarding SRO interactions with students, and there has never been a formal,
comprehensive evaluation of the WCPSS SRO program.
43
In practice, the SROs and WCPSS Security Department staff collaboratively carry out the
central duties related to school policing. Training materials for SAs describe the relationship as
follows: “The WCPSS Area Security Administrator is only part of the overall investigative and
security staff of a school. . . . In many instances the school administrator, Area Security
Administrator and the SRO function as the ‘investigative team’ for school based incidents.”
44
Accordingly, in addition to paying a large portion of the SRO salaries, the WCPSS utilizes its
own security staff to jointly carry out policing duties with SROs.
Finally, in addition to facilitating the presence of SROs on campus, the district regularly
permits and often calls off-campus law enforcement officers (i.e., non-SROs) to school campuses
in order to conduct “official business,” such as searching, interrogating, and arresting students.
The roles and limitations of these officers are not dictated by the existing MOU, and there is no
available data regarding how frequently, in what manner, and to what effect these officers
interact with WCPSS students.
45
39
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
40
JOINT MEETING AGENDA BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS & BOARD OF EDUCATION (May 16, 2013), available at
http://www.wakegov.com/budget/bonds/2013/Joint%20Meeting%20Materials/May%2016%202013%20Combined
%20Packet.pdf. According to this budget document, a request was pending for the hiring of an additional SRO, the
full cost of which would be borne by the WCPSS. This addition would push the district’s investment in the SRO
program well over $1 M.
41
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
42
Id.
43
Following a June 2011 directive from the WCPSS Board of Education to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of
the SRO program, the head of the WCPSS Security Department conducted a wholly inadequate “study” comprised
of five leading, "agree" or "disagree" questions that were sent to Middle and High School Principals. No actual data
was gathered or analyzed, and no students, parents, teachers, or other school staff were included. See SCHOOL
RESOURCE OFFICERS WHITE PAPER (December 2011), available at
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2012/4/30/SRO%20White%20Paper.pdf.
44
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix)
45
In December 2013, the WCPSS school board approved a new policy that purports to dictate the responsibilities of
principals in the event that a non-SRO officer is called to a school campus for the purpose of interrogating,
searching, or arresting a student. Though preferable to the previous absence of any guidance whatsoever, the new
policy is alarmingly deferential to law enforcement officers, instructing school administrators to essentially
disregard the guidelines and permit law enforcement officers to take whatever actions against students they deem
“necessary, in the discretion of the officers, for the success of a law enforcement investigation.” Wake Cnty. Bd. of
Educ., Board Policy 6605: Investigations and Arrests by Law Enforcement, WCPSS.NET (December 3, 2013),
http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/6605-bp.html. Even these minimal guidelines were met with great
resistance by law enforcement. See e.g. T. Keung Hui, Wake County Schools have busy agenda Tuesday,
NEWSOBSERVER.COM (Dec. 1, 2013), available at http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/12/01/3424894/wake-county-
schools-have-busy.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 24 of 74
IV. Insufficient Policies, Unregulated Practices, Inadequate Accountability, and
Harmful Impacts
46
Despite the seriousness of having armed law enforcement officers patrolling school
campuses on a daily basis, there are no comprehensive policies in place that clearly define the
respective roles, expectations, or limitations of WCPSS staff and police officers in addressing
student behavior. The WCPSS has hundreds of Board Policies;
47
yet none of them address the
relationship between WCPSS staff and SROs. Nor are there uniform policies setting forth
standards for contact between law enforcement officials and WCPSS students, who are children
and adolescents and thus need age-appropriate interactions. Instead, the only official joint
policies that attempt to define the unique relationship between and respective roles of the
WCPSS and law enforcement agencies that deploy SROs to schools are employment contracts
between the WCPSS and each of the law enforcement agencies and an MOU that exists among
the WCPSS and the agencies.
48
Unfortunately, the existing contracts and MOU speak primarily to financial and
supervisory arrangements, and do not outline the specific SRO qualifications, training, scope of
authority, or oversight mechanisms necessary to ensure that all WCPSS students are protected
from discrimination, criminalization, and mistreatment by law enforcement officers.
49
Instead,
these important measures are left to the individual law enforcement agencies.
50
This broad
deference results in inconsistent and inappropriate practices related to the disciplining, arresting,
charging, searching, interrogating, and using of force against students across the district as each
law enforcement agency has its own set of general operating policies and, in many of the
agencies, those policies are intended to govern interactions with adult criminal offenders, not
children. Finally, the WCPSS further exacerbates the ongoing violations of students’ rights as it
empowers and often directs its security staff and administration to collaborate with SROs and
law enforcement officers in a manner that circumvents constitutional protections for students.
Regardless of how well-intentioned the school policing program in the WCPSS purports
to be, opportunities for SRO abuse of discretion and subsequent mistreatment of students
nonetheless are prevalent in the WCPSS due to the limited and vague policies that give
unreasonable deference to law enforcement officers. The following sections examine the
46
This section will primarily address policies and patterns of behavior specific to WCPSS staff members and SROs
because those are the policies most accessible to the Complainants and because SROs arguably have the most direct
and profound impact on violating students’ rights. Nonetheless, Complainants urge DOJ to thoroughly investigate
the policies, patterns, and practices of AlliedBarton security guards and of non-SRO officers who conduct police
business at WCPSS schools.
47
Wake Cnty. Pub. Sch. Sys. Board Policy Table of Contents, WCPSS.NET, http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/ (last
visited Jan. 5, 2014).
48
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
49
In 2011, Wake County school board members agreed a review of the current MOU was necessary in order to
ensure topics such as use of force and referrals to the criminal system were fully appropriately addressed. However,
the board ultimately agreed to continue contracts with the Raleigh and Cary police departments for school resource
officers as is and put off review of the SRO program until a later date. T. Keung Hui, School board agrees to SRO
contracts with Raleigh and Cary, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (June 7, 2011),
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/school-board-agrees-to-sro-contracts-with-raleigh-and-cary.
50
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) (July 1, 2009).
January 22, 2014 Page 25 of 74
inadequacies of existing policies and the pattern of unconstitutional practices that result and
cause lasting educational, emotional, and economic collateral harms for students. Section A
describes some of the foundational issues with existing policies, including: inadequate minimum
qualification and training requirements for SROs, as well as insufficient supervision and
accountability mechanisms to correct and prevent misconduct. Subsequent sections outline in
greater detail specific policies and provisions that enable SROs and school officials to routinely
collaborate in violating students’ constitutional rights in schools. Section B discusses how
existing policies lead to increased and often unlawful school-based arrests and court referrals for
minor misbehavior. Section C discusses the role of current policies in enabling the routine
practice of using excessive and unreasonable force against students. Section D discusses the
policies and practices of school officials and SROs in jointly orchestrating custodial
interrogations that violate students’ constitutional rights. Finally, section E discusses the policies
and practices that result in the conduct of unlawful searches and seizures of students.
A. Insufficient Policies Regarding Qualifications, Training, Supervision, and
Accountability for SROs
The existing MOU leaves the door wide open for improper law enforcement conduct in
schools as it fails to set adequate qualifications and training standards for SROs, and provides
insufficient standards for supervision and oversight. First, the current MOU gives sole authority
to the law enforcement agencies in the selection of SROs. Remarkably, even though SROs
patrol schools on a daily basis and have significant, life-changing impacts on the lives of the
students that they police, a WCPSS school has no ability to assist in the selection of the officer(s)
who will become a part of its educational environment. Furthermore, there is no minimum
requirement that officers have relevant prior experience or training in working with children and
youth.
51
Instead, the only requirement for selection as an SRO is that the candidate meet all
certification requirements for being a police officer or deputy sheriff.
52
Even in the law
enforcement agencies whose policies purport to delineate between SRO qualifications and
general officer qualifications, the only unique qualification required for an SRO is that the
officer “[s]et a good example for students, possess even temperament and possess good oral and
written communication skills.”
53
However, there is no indication of how an officer’s example-
setting ability or temperament are established or evaluated.
Moreover, the agreements fail to set even minimum standards regarding the type of
ongoing training that must be completed by SROs so as to ensure they are equipped to
effectively operate in the school environment. A study of SRO programs across the country
found that “without proper training, SROs can make serious mistakes related to their
relationships with students, school administrators, and parents,” and that, in many cases;
51
T. Keung Hui, Wake schools review resource officers, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (July 5, 2011),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/07/05/v-print/1321137/schools-review/resource/officers.html. School Board
member Keith Sutton acknowledged that “we’re not sure how much training [of school resource officers] there is
working with school-age children, particularly in a school setting.”
52
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) (July 1, 2009)(see
Appendix).
53
Wake County Sheriff’s Office Policy Manual, School Resource Officer Program, Regulation 418 (Sep. 1, 2008)
(See Appendix)(Hereinafter referred to as “Wake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office Pol’y Manual”).
January 22, 2014 Page 26 of 74
“SROs may need help to ‘unlearn’ some of the techniques they learned to use on patrol
duty that are inappropriate in dealing with students (for example, resorting too quickly to
using handcuffs or treating misconduct as part of a person’s criminal make-up when in a
student the behavior may be an example of youthful indiscretion).”
54
An SRO training curriculum should include training in child and adolescent development, mental
health issues, positive behavior management, working with school staff, cultural competency and
bias-free policing, use of force and restraints with children and adolescents, juvenile law for law
enforcement, school law, and special education law, among other topics.
55
However, there are
no provisions in the current MOU that require SROs in Wake County to be trained in these areas.
Instead, all training decisions are left to the discretion of the individual law enforcement
agencies. Though the district and agencies refuse to publicly reveal the specific content of SRO
and security staff training, public records request results have revealed that the WCPSS is a
repeat customer of John E. Reid & Associates, a private firm whose training sessions on
interviewing and interrogation techniques have been roundly criticized by juvenile and child
advocacy experts as inappropriate for and harmful to youth.
56
Furthermore, during the 2007-08
school year, the WCPSS paid for security personnel to attend training programs conducted by
Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation, Inc., a private business firm led by a former Israeli Police
Department polygraph examiner.
57
Given the broad latitude the MOU affords SROs (discussed in greater detail in
subsequent sections), close supervision and strict accountability measures would be crucial to
ensuring that students are not unnecessarily criminalized and mistreated. Unfortunately, the
existing MOU and law enforcement agency policies fail to ensure either of these safeguards.
First, the MOU vaguely delegates all day-to-day supervision duties and administrative control
over SROs to the respective law enforcement agencies.
58
This is the case even though SROs are
housed at the schools. Thus, there is no meaningful way for the day-to-day performance of an
SRO to be monitored. The Sheriff Department’s School Resource Officer Policy delegates some
supervisory duties, including the direction and coordination of operational and program
activities, to the Director of Security for the WCPSS, who is required to be a liaison to the SRO
supervisor and to assist in evaluating an SRO’s work performance with input from the school
principals.
59
However, there is no indication of how often this supervision and evaluation takes
place, nor is there meaningful criteria regarding the terms of the evaluation. Furthermore, the
evaluation results, if actually generated, have never been made publicly available.
54
PETER FINN ET AL., COMPARISON OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED AMONG 19
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) PROGRAMS 50, 48 (2005).
55
See U.S. DEP’T OF EDUCATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL CLIMATE AND
DISCIPLINE, 10 (January 2014)(outlining topics in which SROs should receive rigorous initial and ongoing training),
available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline.
56
Legal scholars have sharply criticized the use of the techniques taught by Reid in interrogating children. See, e.g.,
Tamar Birckhead, The Age of the Child: Interrogating Juveniles after Roper v. Simmons, 65 WASH. & J.H. L. REV.
385, 408-11 (2008).
57
This information was acquired after petitioning WCPSS and local police departments with a Public Records
Request pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §132-1 and § 160A-168 (on file with ACS).
58
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) (July 1, 2009)(see
Appendix).
59
Wake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office Pol’y Manual, Reg. 418 (see Appendix).
January 22, 2014 Page 27 of 74
Moreover existing agreements do not set forth mechanisms through which parents and
students can request SROs be held accountable for misconduct or violations of the law. There is
no meaningful complaint or investigative process for allegations of misconduct by security
personnel. Instead, the law enforcement agencies’ current internal affairs policies and processes
are not publicized to students and, in the experience of the complainants, are an ineffective
means of seeking relief. While the WCPSS has a formal grievance policy and process, it is only
applicable to school district employees, and SROs are considered to be law enforcement agency
employees who cannot be held accountable through the WCPSS grievance process.
60
These inadequate policies leave the door wide open for law enforcement officers to abuse
their authority, and otherwise violate the rights of students and parents with virtually no recourse.
It has been the experience of the Complainants that, in the absence of adequate oversight and
accountability safeguards, SROs and outside law enforcement routinely inflict psychological and
emotional trauma on students through verbal harassment. Both J.H. and T.W experienced
significant harassment at the hands of SROs. In J.H.’s case, the SRO taunted him on multiple
occasions, telling J.H. that he wished he was 16-years-old so that he could “take him
downtown.” This harrassment happened in the hallways in front of peers, as well as in a small
room while J.H. was being interrogated. The harrassment was so pervasive that J.H.’s mother
eventually requested and was allowed to transfer him to another school.
T.W. likewise experienced extreme and undue harrassment from an SRO. In his case, the
SRO approached and began harrassing him for “looking old” as he was waiting in line at the
beginning of the school year to get his schedule. T.W. was then aggressively thrown against a
window and handcuffed by that SRO and an additional officer. During the subsequent search
and interrogation, the SRO continuously taunted T.W. with the following comments: “If you
help, I can help you;” “If you give a tip that leads to arrest, you can get paid;”
61
and “When you
come to school your rights are forfeited.” After the incident, the SRO continued to harass T.W.,
both in school and in the community. All charges against T.W. were ultimately dropped, but the
harassment was so pervasive that T.W. required intensive counseling following the incidents.
All attempts to hold the SRO accountable for his extreme actions proved fruitless. When T.W.’s
mother tried to file a grievance at the school regarding the SRO’s handling of T.W., she was
simply told that the school had no control over the law enforcement officer and that she should
direct her concerns to the law enforcement agency. When she attempted to file an internal affairs
complaint with the law enforcement agency, she waited 10 months for a response, only to receive
a form letter with no individualized information or findings, and stating that the officer’s actions
constituted “Proper Conduct” that was “not inconsistent with Departmental policy or training.”
Other parents have faced great, and sometimes shocking, obstacles in trying to report
misconduct by SROs. After witnessing a police officer violently attacking a student at his
daughter’s high school, a parent of a WCPSS student was intercepted by that same police officer
and subsequently harassed, threatened with a stun gun, and ultimately arrested for second-degree
60
Wake Cnty. Pub. Sch. Sys., Board Policy: Student Grievances, WCPSS.NET http://www.wcpss.net/policy-
files/series/policies/6520-bp.html (last visited Jan. 8, 2014).
61
Justice Served NC, Inc. students report that SROs offering students money to provide “tips” that will lead to the
arrest of other students is a common practice in the district, with at least one local high school SRO posting pay
scales for tips on his office door.
January 22, 2014 Page 28 of 74
trespassing as he attempted to report his concerns to the principal at the school.
62
These
experiences have made parents fearful of challenging SRO actions due to fear of retaliation
against their children or themselves. Parents of the student Complainants in this action
expressed great concern about being retaliated against by the school and by law enforcement
officers as a result of speaking out about the mistreatment their students have experienced.
Finally, in addition to a lack of accountability on the part of individual officers, there is
also a disturbing lack of accountability on the part of the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies
due to the fact that no existing policies set forth any requirements regarding what data must be
collected and made publicly available by the WCPSS or law enforcement agencies regarding
school-based arrests, complaints, searches, interrogations, and uses of force and restraints. This
practice is in direct contradiction with recent guidance from the Department of Education, which
directs schools to undertake “comprehensive data collection on officer activity” in order to
“ensure that the program is meeting school safety goals and does not create any negative
unintended consequences.”
63
Limited information regarding school-based delinquency
complaints (for students age 15 and under) is available via public records requests to the
Division of Adult Correction and Juvenile Justice of the Department of Public Safety (formerly
the Division of Juvenile Justice, and before that, the Department of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention). However, there is no available data regarding school-based
complaints filed against students age 16 and older – students who are pushed directly into the
adult criminal system. Additionally, there is no data whatsoever regarding arrests, searches,
interrogations, or uses of force or restraint.
B. Inappropriate and Unlawful School-Based Arrests and Court Referrals
By failing to adequately define appropriate roles and limitations of SROs and WCPSS
staff, the existing MOU and contractual agreements enable law enforcement officers to arrest and
refer students to court for what should be purely student discipline matters, including instances in
which the underlying behavior is non-criminal, normative youth behavior that is the obligation of
school officials to address. A study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and the
U.S. Department of Justice stressed that “[o]ne of the most frequent and destructive mistakes
many SRO programs make is to fail to define in detail the SROs’ roles and responsibilities
before the officers take up their posts in the schools.”
64
Further clarifying that “the SROs’
62
“The parent who was arrested, Kevin Hines, told WBT News 13 he saw officers acting aggressively as he drove
up to the school. Hines said he tried to enter the school to talk to the principle [sic] about the situation occurring
outside, but police stopped him and threatened him with a stun gun. He was charged with second-degree
trespassing.” Eric W. Dolan, High school students arrested for throwing water balloons at school,
THERAWSTORY.COM (May 19, 2013) http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/05/19/high-school-students-arrested-for-
throwing-water-balloons-at-school/; see also WNCN-TV News, NC high school students charged in water balloon
prank, parents outraged, WBTWNEWS13 (May 17, 2013) http://www.wbtw.com/story/22286425/nc-high-school-
students-charged-in-water-balloon-prank-near-graduation.
63
See U.S. DEP’T OF EDUCATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL CLIMATE AND
DISCIPLINE, 11 (January 2014), available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline.
64
PETER FINN ET AL., COMPARISON OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED AMONG 19
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) PROGRAMS 24 (2005),
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209272.pdf.
January 22, 2014 Page 29 of 74
specific responsibilities may change over time and may vary from school to school,” the study
noted that “it is still essential to define them at the outset.”
65
In Wake County, existing agreements are inadequate, failing to set any meaningful
guidelines regarding when SROs must treat an incident as a school discipline matter and when
they can arrest or file charges against students. The minimal language that exists in the MOU
about the proper role of SROs is too vague and contradictory to be meaningful. The MOU,
which is not made readily available to students, parents or WCPSS staff, states:
SRO’s are first and foremost law enforcement officers. . . . School officials should
ensure that non-criminal student disciplinary matters remain the responsibility of
school staff and not the SRO. Enforcement of the code of student conduct is the
responsibility of teachers and administrators. The SRO shall refrain from being
involved in the enforcement of disciplinary rules that do not constitute violations
of law, except to support staff in maintaining a safe school environment. . . . The
SRO shall intervene when it is necessary to prevent any criminal act or maintain a
safe school environment.
66
In practice, “disciplinary rules,” are routinely re-defined as “violations of law,” especially when
African-American students or SWD are involved. Moreover, the provisions stating that SROs
can be deployed “to support staff” or may intervene to “prevent any criminal act or maintain a
safe school environment” are open to excessively broad interpretations and have resulted in
schools essentially using SROs for classroom management.
67
For example, T.S. was handcuffed
in a crowded cafeteria after arguing with an administrator over whether or not he had cut in line,
J.H. was charged with simple affray as a result of play-fighting with a friend, and seven students
at a local high school were arrested and criminally charged with disorderly conduct and assault
based on allegations that they participated in a water balloon fight at school.
68
Furthermore, the MOU fails to define how an SRO may “intervene” or become
“involved” in situations involving student behavior. There are no bright line rules regarding
when an intervention can or cannot involve an arrest or referral to court. Instead, full discretion
is given to the SROs to characterize even the most minor student behavior as “criminal” and to
respond by arresting and sending a student to court.
69
Moreover, no guidelines are put into place
65
PETER FINN ET AL., COMPARISON OF PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND LESSONS LEARNED AMONG 19
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) PROGRAMS 24 (2005),
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/209272.pdf.
66
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) (July 1, 2009).
67
In fact, some agency policies explicitly encourage school personnel to seek out SROs for minor incidents on
campus. The Garner Police Department Policy Manual states that a central responsibility of an SRO is “[r]eporting
and investigating criminal acts and responding [to] calls for service occurring on campus. School personnel should
be encouraged to use this resource.” Garner Police Department Policy Manual, Juvenile Operations, Directive
840.5.18 (Apr. 12, 2007)(See Appendix).
68
See WNCN-TV News, NC high school students charged in water balloon prank, parents outraged,
WBTWNEWS13 (May 17, 2013) http://www.wbtw.com/story/22286425/nc-high-school-students-charged-in-water-
balloon-prank-near-graduation.
69
In a March 2010 study of SROs in Massachusetts, experts found that, even for the most qualified and well-
intentioned SROs, major issues of unnecessary and unlawful criminalization of students arose due to the fact that
SROs did not have meaningful oversight for their actions. Specifically, the study found that “too much discretion
January 22, 2014 Page 30 of 74
regarding when WCPSS staff can call upon SROs to address student behavior. These policies
and practices are in direct contradiction with recent federal guidance recommending that schools
“specify that law enforcement approaches (such as arrest, citations, ticketing, or court referrals)
should be used only as a last resort, and never to address instances of non-violent misbehavior
that do not pose a serious and immediate threat to school safety.”
70
One result of the current unguided, unsupervised, and unaccountable approach to
permitting law enforcement officers to address student behavior in the WCPSS is that students
are being pushed out of school and into the juvenile and criminal court systems for minor
misbehavior – a phenomenon known as the school-to-prison pipeline – at alarming rates. Not
coincidentally, the number of complaints being filed against students age 15 and younger has
remained alarmingly high as law enforcement officers have become increasingly entrenched in
WCPSS schools.
71
(See Chart 1) Further, delinquency complaints filed in Wake County are
increasingly school-based. During the 2012-13 state fiscal year (FY), 42% of all delinquency
complaints in Wake County were school-based.
72
This represented a 15 percentage point
increase from 2009-10.
73
(See Chart 2)
Chart 1 Chart 2
ha[d] been built into [the SRO’s] jobs, which raise[d] the very real risk that some SROs w[ould] target certain
students for harsher punishments than others, and w[ould] insist upon a law enforcement solution to what should be
a therapeutic response.” The study further found that similar concerns existed for school officials who, without
proper oversight, could “choose to use SROs inappropriately, to call officers to respond to what should be school
disciplinary issues, and to use law enforcement intervention to ‘push out’ certain students.” In Wake County,
existing policies leave the door wide open for students to be unlawfully targeted for criminalization by both school
staff and law enforcement officers. JOHANNA WALD AND LISA THURAU, FIRST, DO NO HARM: HOW EDUCATORS
AND POLICE CAN WORK TOGETHER MORE EFFECTIVELY TO KEEP SCHOOLS SAFE AND PROTECT VULNERABLE
STUDENTS, (March 2010)
available at http://strategiesforyouth.org/sfysite/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/do-no-harm.pdf.
70
See U.S. DEP’T OF EDUCATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL CLIMATE AND
DISCIPLINE, 10 (January 2014), available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline.
71
Public Records from DJJ (Nov. 4, 2013)(May 23, 2013)(July 16, 2012)(Jan. 31, 2012)(Sep. 22, 2010)(see
Appendix).
72
Public Records from DJJ (Nov. 4, 2013) (see Appendix).
73
Public Records from DJJ supra Note 71
January 22, 2014 Page 31 of 74
Of additional concern is the fact that an overwhelming number of these school-based
complaints are triggered by law enforcement involvement in minor student misbehavior. In
2011-12, the most recent year for which this information is available, 90% of the 763
delinquency complaints were for misdemeanors.
74
Within those complaints for misdemeanor
offenses, there were:
16 for “communicating threats”;
89 for “disorderly conduct”;
108 for “larceny-misdemeanor”;
78 for “simple affray;” and
71 for “simple assault.”
75
Very young students were also subjected to school-based delinquency complaints for these minor
offenses. In 2011-12, 154 complaints were filed against students age 12 and younger.
76
A
complaint was even filed against a seven-year-old student for “simple assault.”
77
Despite the weighty, life-long consequences that accompany referrals to the adult
criminal system, neither the WCPSS, nor local law enforcement agencies, nor any other agency
maintains or publishes any data regarding the number and rates of students age 16 and older who
are referred directly into the adult criminal system from school. Thus, Complainants are unable
to provide such data as part of this complaint. Further, the lack of data impedes efforts to ensure
accountability and to ensure law enforcement officers’ interactions with students are appropriate.
This also means that the WCPSS is unaware of the extent to which their students are being
criminalized and subjected to the criminal justice system. Upon information and belief,
however, Complainants allege that the number of school-based criminal court referrals is
substantial. This allegation is based, in part, on trends in out-of-school suspensions across the
WCPSS. For example, in 2011-12, high school students, most of whom are over the age of 16,
received nearly half (48.1%) of all out-of-school suspensions in the district.
78
This allegation is
also based on the experiences of the student Complainants, five out of eight of whom were sent
into the criminal court system as a result of school-based misbehavior.
The use of criminal labels for conduct that typifies normative child and adolescent
behavior further demonstrates some of the consequences of providing no guidance, training,
supervision, or accountability for officer and school administrator actions related to school
policing. One especially disturbing example of this abuse of authority was experienced by a
WCPSS middle school student with severe cognitive and emotional disabilities, who was
charged with “larceny-misdemeanor” for “stealing” and hoarding school supplies, such as paper,
pencils, and notebook paper, and for “stealing paper from the recycling bin.”
79
Likewise, last
spring, a group of WCPSS students received charges of “disorderly conduct” and “assault” as a
74
Public Records from DJJ (May 23, 2013)(see Appendix).
75
Id.
76
Id.
77
Public Records from DJJ (July 16, 2012)(see Appendix).
78
Public Records from WCPSS (Nov. 16, 2012)(see Appendix).
79
Interview with ACS client (2011).
January 22, 2014 Page 32 of 74
result of throwing water balloons as part of a school-wide student prank tradition.
80
Complainant
J.H. was arrested and received juvenile delinquency charges of “simple affray” as the result of
play-fighting with a close friend.
Furthermore, the lack of clear guidelines regarding when and how SROs are allowed to
become involved in addressing student behavior empowers SROs to interact in unnecessarily
aggressive manners with students, often escalating what would have been minor student
misbehavior into “criminal” or “delinquent” behavior. The individual student Complainants
describe provocative and physically threatening, inappropriate interactions with school police
where it was the police who stimulated an escalation of non-violent behavior into more serious,
chargeable misbehavior. For example, J.H. was charged with “resisting an officer” after trying
to break away from the SRO when he feared for his safety and attempted to escape the room
where the SRO had just slammed him into a table. Prior to the SRO’s violent intervention, J.H.
had been standing calmly in the room alone, trying to contact his parents. Current WCPSS
students who are involved in NC HEAT and Justice Served NC, Inc. (two of the Complainants)
likewise confirm the existence of a pervasive pattern of SROs aggressively approaching students,
often triggering explosive situations and inciting subsequent charges in situations where no
violence was previously evident.
Moreover, Complainants allege that the MOU's failure to limit the ability of school
personnel to refer students to SROs only for situations involving genuine threats to safety results
in unnecessary arrests. School personnel regularly refer to law enforcement students whose
misbehavior they could as easily handle on their own. For example, P.D. was arrested and jailed
for three nights after staff members requested SRO involvement based on an allegation that P.D.
had elbowed a teacher. Despite the fact that the SRO did not witness the incident, had reviewed
video footage that clearly showed the incident did not occur as school staff had alleged, and,
according to P.D., even affirmed aloud that the assault didn’t occur, the SRO nonetheless
arrested P.D., noting, “It’s the teacher’s word against yours.”
Once referred to court, students face a prosecution process that is demeaning and
demoralizing, with judges pronouncing youth to be “juvenile delinquents” if they are adjudicated
or “criminals” if they are convicted.
81
Being branded in this way can lead to lasting harm at a
time of crucial identity development.
82
In addition to the emotional trauma of this
stigmatization, prosecution and adjudication have many serious collateral consequences,
including: triggering school exclusion, reducing students’ connection to school, leading to
academic failure, making a young person ineligible for higher education loans, causing a
80
Raleigh News and Observer, Seven Enloe students arrested in balloon-tossing prank, NEWSOBSERVER (May 17,
2013), http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/17/2897565/enloe-students-arrested-after.html; T. Keung Hui, Enloe
Students Say Water-Balloon Charges Should be Dropped, NEWSOBSERVER (May 30, 2013),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/30/2928310/enloe-students-say-water-balloon.html; Barry Saunders,
Saunders: In Enloe water-balloon case, does punishment fit the crime?, NEWSOBSERVER (May 20, 2013),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/20/2905804/saunders-in-enloe-water-balloon.html.
81
Paul R. Kfoury, Confidentiality and the Juvenile Offender, 17 NEW ENG. J. ON CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 55, 56
(1991).
82
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, TEST, PUNISH, AND PUSH OUT: HOW “ZERO TOLERANCE” AND HIGH STAKES TESTING
FUNNEL YOUTH INTO THE SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE 12 (2010), available at
http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/d05cb2181a4545db07_r2im6caqe.pdf.
January 22, 2014 Page 33 of 74
reduction in future employment opportunities, leading to a family’s eviction from public
housing, and imperiling a young person’s chances at naturalization.
83
Forcing a student to go to court as a result of minor misbehavior at school also has
serious financial and employment-related consequences for parents and guardians. If a student is
not appointed a public defender in criminal court, parents are forced to spend considerable
money paying attorneys. Additionally, because there can be numerous court dates associated
with a delinquency or criminal case, parents are put in the position of missing substantial
amounts of work, forfeiting income, and potentially jeopardizing their employment. These
harmful consequences are particularly troubling in instances where the underlying charges are
ultimately found to be without merit. S.P.’s parent was forced to sell her car and miss multiple
mortgage payments in order to come up with the funds necessary to pay an attorney to defend
her son against charges that were ultimately dropped. T.W.’s charges were likewise dismissed,
but he and his mother had to attend multiple court dates and she had to miss significant amounts
of work before the judge ultimately found no basis for the arrest and dismissed the case.
Criminalizing student behavior has even more serious, long-term direct and collateral
consequences for older students because North Carolina is the only state that treats all 16- and
17-year-olds, in every circumstance, as adults when charged with criminal offenses, and then
denies them the possibility of returning to the juvenile system, regardless of the nature of the
offense.
84
Youth prosecuted in the adult system must bear lifelong consequences of criminal
charges and convictions.
85
In many cases, the stigma attached to adult criminal records can
seriously hinder their ability to obtain gainful employment or pursue higher education.
86
This is
the case even if the criminal charges are later dismissed, because documentation of the arrest will
remain on a young person’s record. If students age 16 and older wish to have frivolous and
unfounded school-based arrests expunged, they must go through additional court proceedings
and pay additional court and attorney’s fees.
87
Complainant S.P., whose charges were ultimately
dismissed, is still dealing with the repercussions of his arrest record. He will be required to
report his arrests on his applications for admission to college and financial aid, and has learned
that this record may jeopardize his admission to college and eligibility for scholarships. Notably,
even if he does ultimately decide to pay the fees necessary to expunge the arrest from his record,
the mug shots and charges may still be searchable online if previously published by a private
magazine or website.
88
83
JASON LANGBERG, BARBARA FEDDERS, & DREW KUKOROWSKI, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN WAKE COUNTY
SCHOOLS: THE HUMAN, EDUCATIONAL, AND FINANCIAL COSTS 5-6 (2011), available at
http://www.dignityinschools.org/sites/default/files/SRO%20Report.pdf.
84
N.C. Gen. Stat § 7B-1501(7); Tamar R. Birckhead, North Carolina, Juvenile Court Jurisdiction, and the
Resistance to Reform, 86 N.C. L. REV. 1443, 1445 (2008) (noting that North Carolina “is the only state in the United
States that treats all sixteen-and seventeen-year-olds as adults when they are charged with criminal offenses and then
denies them the ability to appeal for return to the juvenile system”).
85
Emily Buss, Rethinking the Connection Between Developmental Science and Juvenile Justice, 76 U. CHI. L. REV.
493, 514 (2009) (reviewing Elizabeth S. Scott & Laurence Steinberg, Rethinking Juvenile Justice (2008).
86
ACTION FOR CHILDREN NORTH CAROLINA, FROM PUSH OUT TO LOCK UP: NORTH CAROLINA’S ACCELERATED
SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE (2013), available at http://www.ncchild.org/content/push-out-lock-north-carolinas-
accelerated-school-prison-pipeline.
87
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-146.
88
David Segal, Mugged by a Mug Shot Online, NYTIMES.COM (Oct. 5, 2013),
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/business/mugged-by-a-mug-shot-online.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
January 22, 2014 Page 34 of 74
Finally, 16- and 17-year-olds arrested for minor school-based offenses are prosecuted,
detained, and incarcerated alongside adult criminals charged with serious violent crimes. When
16-year-old L.H. and 17-year-old S.P were arrested for minor misbehavior at school, they were
immediately taken to jail and held in cells with adults twice their age. Research shows that, in
addition to facing the trauma of being confined alongside adult criminals, young people bear a
heightened risk of sexual assault in adult jails and prisons.
89
Research further shows that young
people prosecuted and incarcerated in the adult system are much more likely to reoffend than are
young people processed in the juvenile system, making the reasonableness of using law
enforcement officers to police typical adolescent behavior even more suspect.
90
C. Unreasonable and Excessive Use of Force and Restraints
Existing school policing agreements are also silent regarding when and how SROs may
use force (e.g., physical force, guns, TASERs, and pepper spray) and restraints (e.g. handcuffs
and zip ties) on students. Instead, the individual law enforcement agencies are permitted to set
their own standards regarding force and restraint. Notably, for many of the agencies, the policies
make no delineation between appropriate force and restraints for adults versus appropriate force
and restraints for children.
91
Of even greater concern is the fact that the Sheriff’s Department,
which has created separate policies governing the conduct of SROs, gives officers even broader
latitude in using force and restraints against students than it does against adults. For example,
under the use of force and weapons policy applicable to the general population, sheriff deputies
may use varying degrees of non-deadly force against adults only in the following situations:
In defense of themselves or others from the use or imminent use of physical force;
In order to effect an arrest of a person or prevent the escape of a person from custody
where the person is reasonably believed to have committed a criminal offense; or
In order to effect the relocation of an individual, when necessary, to or within some law
enforcement or detention facility.
92
By comparison, SROs employed by the Sheriff’s Department are given a far greater scope of
authority to use physical restraints, handcuffs, or other measures on young students. Under the
Sheriff Department’s SRO policy, officers may use physical or mechanical force to restrain a
student anytime the following situations arise:
The student is posing a danger to himself or other individuals in the classroom, including
students, faculty, staff, or the SRO;
The student is causing damage to school and/or another individual’s property; or
89
JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE, THE RISKS JUVENILES FACE WHEN THEY ARE INCARCERATED WITH ADULTS (1997),
available at http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/97-02_REP_RiskJuvenilesFace_JJ.pdf.
90
LONN LANZA-KADUCE, ET. AL., JUVENILE TRANSFER TO CRIMINAL COURT STUDY: FINAL REPORT (2002),
available at http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/juveniletransfers.pdf (analyzing Florida experience with juvenile
transfer to adult court).
91
See e.g. Raleigh Police Department, Use of Force and Weapons, Regulation 1108-1(Feb. 7, 2008)(see Appendix);
Garner Police Department Policy Manual, Use of Force, Directive 710.1 (June 1, 2010)(See Appendix).
92
Wake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office Pol’y Manual, Reg. 404 (see Appendix).
January 22, 2014 Page 35 of 74
The student is causing a disturbance or otherwise engaging in conduct constituting a
violation of law.
93
In a school setting, virtually any minor student misbehavior could be subjectively construed by
an officer as “causing a disturbance.”
As a result of the WCPSS’s and law enforcement agencies’ failure to set strict limits on
when SROs can use force on school campuses, students regularly face unreasonable and
excessive force by SROs, even in non-arrest situations. Despite the serious harms caused by
these weapons and their routine and harmful use on WCPSS students, neither the law
enforcement agencies nor the WCPSS publishes, nor presumably maintains, any data or
information about the use of TASERs, pepper spray, handcuffs, zip ties, or other unreasonable
and excessive force by law enforcement officers against students. However, the impact of school
policing can be collected from individual students and media reports. A non-exhaustive
sampling of some of the many student experiences of being subjected to unreasonable and
excessive force is included below.
Many SROs in the WCPSS carry a TASER (or “stun gun”) and/or pepper spray. The
TASER is shaped like a gun and is loaded with cartridges that shoot two small hooked metal
electrodes. When fired, the electrodes hook into the skin or clothing to prevent removal and
distribute a charge of about 1,200 volts in electrical pulses at a rate of 19 pulses per second.
94
TASERs have caused hundreds of deaths across the country,
95
and more than a dozen in North
Carolina.
96
In April 2013, Raleigh police officers killed a man with a TASER.
97
In November
93
Wake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office Pol’y Manual, Reg. 418 (see Appendix).
94
THE NC TASER SAFETY PROJECT, NOT THERE YET THE NEED FOR SAFER TASER POLICIES IN NORTH
CAROLINA (2008), available at http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/files/NotThereYet.pdf.
95
Suzanne Trimel, Amnesty International Urges Stricter Limits on Police Taser Use as U.S. Death Toll Reaches
500, AMNESTYUSA.ORG (February 15, 2012), available at http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/amnesty-
international-urges-stricter-limits-on-police-taser-use-as-us-death-toll-reaches-500.
96
THE NC TASER SAFETY PROJECT, NOT THERE YET: THE NEED FOR SAFER TASER POLICIES IN NORTH
CAROLINA (2008), available at http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/files/NotThereYet.pdf; Gary L. Wright & Cleve
R. Wootson Jr., Family Sues over 2011 Taser Death, CHARLOTTE OBSERVER (July 9, 2013),
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/19/3734575/family-sues-over-taser-death.html; Ian Mance, TASER
death puts spotlight on use-of-force policies, THE PROGRESSIVE PULSE (July 30, 2008),
http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2008/07/30/taser-death-marks-a-grim-milestone; Renee Chou, Coalition Calls for
Stricter Taser Regulations, WRAL.COM (Apr. 10, 2008), http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2716926/; Renee
Chou, Halifax County Man Dies After Being Shot with Stun Gun, WRAL.COM (Nov. 22, 2011),
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10415249/; Gary L. Wright & Cleve R. Wootson Jr., Police shelve Tasers for
now after another suspect dies, CHARLOTTE OBSERVER (July 22, 2011),
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/07/22/v-print/2472244/police-shelve-tasers-for-now-after.html; Meghan
Cooke, Second review keeps Tasers out of Charlotte police officers’ hands, CHARLOTTEOBSERVER.COM, (Aug. 26,
2011), http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/08/26/v-print/2555944/2nd-review-keeps-tasers-out-of.html;
Fayetteville police suspend Tasers after man’s death, CHARLOTTEOBSERVER.COM, (Aug. 30, 2011),
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/08/30/v-print/2565985/fayetteville-police-suspend-tasers.html; Rick
Martinez, Time to ban the Tasers, NEWSOBSERVER.COM, (Nov. 30, 2011),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/30/1679170/time-to-ban-the-tasers.html.
97
Report: Taser used several times on Raleigh man who died, WRAL.COM (April 17, 2013),
http://www.wral.com/report-taser-used-several-times-on-raleigh-man-who-died/12352632/; Amanda Lamb, Man
Dies After Raleigh Police Use Stun Gun on Him, WRAL.COM (April 10, 2013), http://www.wral.com/man-dies-
after-raleigh-police-use-stun-gun-on-him/12324803/; Thomasi McDonald, Raleigh Police Say Man Died After they
January 22, 2014 Page 36 of 74
2011, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that a stun gun can be considered a deadly
weapon, only months after a federal jury ordered Taser International, Inc. to pay $10 million to
the family of a 17-year–old Charlotte teenager who died after a police officer struck him with a
TASER.
98
Advocates have raised concerns about the use of TASERs in WCPSS schools for
nearly a decade.
99
However, no steps have been taken to regulate their use in schools. Below is
a non-exhaustive list of incidents in which TASERs were used against WCPSS students:
In 2005, a Cary SRO threatened to use a TASER on a student and then arrested the
student for profanity.
100
In 2007, a Garner SRO used a TASER on a 16-year-old high school student who was
involved in a minor fight with another student.
101
In 2008, a Cary SRO used a TASER on a 15-year-old high school student (who had Post-
Traumatic Stress Disorder) three times after the student did not respond to questioning
and reacted to being interrogated by the officer. The TASER prongs punctured the
student’s lungs resulting in hospitalization for an extended period of time. The Town of
Cary and WCPSS agreed to pay the student’s family $12,000 in a lawsuit settlement.
102
In October 2008, a Cary police officer used a TASER on a 16-year-old ninth grade
student, who was then taken to the hospital for treatment of injuries.
103
In August 2010, a Cary SRO used a TASER on an eighth grade female middle school
student in order to break up a fight. Paramedics were called to the school to take the
student to the hospital.
104
Used Taser to Subdue Him, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (April 10, 2013),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/10/2816738/raleigh-police-say-man-died-after.html; Thomasi McDonald,
Raleigh police: Man hit with Taser several times before he died, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (April 17, 2013),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/04/17/2832115/raleigh-police-man-hit-with-taser.html; Raleigh police: Man
died after officers tasered him, ABC LOCAL NEWS (April 10, 2013),
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9059715.
98
Associated Press, N.C. appeals court rules on use of stun guns, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (November 2, 2011),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/11/02/1612673/appeals-court-rules-on-use-of.html; Court of Appeals rules stun
guns are deadly weapons, BEAUFORT OBSERVER (November 2, 2011), http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-
NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2011-11-02-256782.112112-Court-of-Appeals-rules-stun-guns-are-deadly-
weapons.html; Doug Miller, Teen’s family wins $10 million Taser verdict, CHARLOTTEOBSERVER.COM (July 20,
2011), http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/07/20/v-print/2468659/teens-family-wins-10-million-taser.html.
99
T. Keung Hui, Tasers use in schools worries some, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (October 19, 2005),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2005/10/19/96121/tasers-use-in-schools-worries.html; THE NC TASER SAFETY
PROJECT, NOT THERE YET THE NEED FOR SAFER TASER POLICIES IN NORTH CAROLINA (2008), available at
http://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/files/NotThereYet.pdf.
100
Gloria Lopez, Police Stand Behind Use of Tasers In Wake Public Schools, WRAL.COM (Sept. 28, 2005),
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/120194/.
101
News & Observer Staff, Use of Taser proper, Garner police say, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (Sept. 20, 2007),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2007/09/20/50015/use-of-taser-proper-garner-police.html.
102
Andrew Kenney, Cary settles Taser, cell-tower lawsuits, CARYNEWS.COM (May 26, 2012),
http://www.carynews.com/2012/05/26/2089942/cary-settles-taser-cell-tower.html.
103
School officer assaulted, uses Taser on student, WRAL.COM (Oct. 2, 2008),
http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3652583/.
104
News & Observer Staff, Officer stops school fight with taser, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (Aug. 31, 2010),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/31/656262/officer-stops-school-fight-with.html; Barry Saunders, Saunders:
Stun gun used; do we care?, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (Sept. 2, 2010),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/09/02/659962/taser-hits-teen-at-school.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 37 of 74
In December 2010, an SRO at a WCPSS high school used a TASER on a ninth grade
female student. Emergency medical services were called to inspect the burns left on her
skin.
105
During 2011-12, SROs used TASERs on at least two high school students.
106
WCPSS student members of Complainant NC HEAT affirm that the TASER uses described
above are not isolated incidences, and that SROs demonstrate a pattern of utilizing TASERs to
deescalate minor situations in WCPSS schools. In a recent incident from the fall of 2013, a
young high school girl was reportedly TASERed while standing on the stairs, and then fell down
the flight of stairs after being electrocuted.
107
Notably, in November 2013, a student in Texas
fell into a coma as a result of being TASERed by an SRO and then hitting his head on the
ground.
108
Pepper spray is similarly dangerous, yet it is carried by many SROs, and its use against
students is largely unregulated. Pepper spray is made from the same chemical that makes chili
peppers hot, but at much higher concentrations, combined with water, glycol, and a propellant,
such as nitrogen.
109
Pepper spray may cause sudden death; cardiac, respiratory, and neurological
problems; burning pain; inflammation; blistering; and nausea.
110
Pepper spray can be
particularly lethal for students with asthma or other respiratory disorders.
111
Pepper spray is
dangerous, not just for the student being assailed, but also for any bystanders. Because the spray
105
Interview with ACS Client (2012).
106
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
107
Interview with NC HEAT student (Nov. 18, 2013).
108
RT, Texas boy tasered by officer after breaking up school fight, remains in a coma, RT.COM (Nov. 29, 2013)
http://rt.com/usa/texas-boy-taser-coma-502/; Rebecca Klein, Civil Rights Groups Ask Texas Police To Stop Using
Tasers On Students, HUFFINGTONPOST.COM (Dec. 6, 2013) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/06/texas-taser-
students_n_4399674.html. See also Melanie Michael, FHP Trooper Daniel Cole sued by family of Danielle
Maudsley, NEWS10.COM (Nov. 6, 2013) http://www.wtsp.com/news/topstories/article/343397/250/Controversial-
FHP-trooper-faces-another-lawsuit (A 20-year-old woman in Florida was sent into a coma as a direct result of being
TASERed and then hitting her head on the ground. She remained in a vegetative state for almost two years prior to
passing away in September of 2013).
109
Christian Nordqvist, What Is Pepper Spray? Is Pepper Spray Dangerous?, MEDICAL NEWS TODAY (Nov. 25,
2011), http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/238262.php; What Is Pepper Spray?, DISCOVERY NEWS (Nov.
21, 2011), http://news.discovery.com/human/pepper-spray-111121.htm.
110
Meredith Melnick, How Painful Is Pepper Spray? HEALTHLAND.TIME.COM (Nov. 22, 2011),
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/22/how-painful-is-pepper-spray/; C. Gregory Smith, MD, MPH &Woodhall
Stopford, MD, MSPH, Health Hazards of Pepper Spray, NCMEDICALJOURNAL.COM,
http://web.archive.org/web/20000817004624/http:/www.ncmedicaljournal.com/Smith-OK.htm (last visited July 9,
2013); Briana Rognlin, Is Pepper Spray Dangerous To Health?, HUFFINGTONPOST.COM (Nov. 23, 2011),
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/pepper-spray-health-dangerous_n_1108637.html; Kate Shepard, How
Bad Is Pepper Spray?, MOTHERJONES.COM (Nov. 21, 2011), http://www.motherjones.com/blue-
marble/2011/11/how-bad-pepper-spray; Brianna J.H., 5 Things You Need to Know About: Pepper spray, PBS.ORG
(Dec. 1, 2011), http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/pepper-spray/12472/; Tom Hayden, Why the
Pepper Spray Spree Should End, THENATION.COM (Nov. 23, 2011), http://www.thenation.com/article/164794/why-
pepper-spray-spree-should-end#.
111
C. Gregory Smith, MD, MPH & Woodhall Stopford, MD, MSPH, Health Hazards of Pepper Spray,
NCMEDICALJOURNAL.COM, http://web.archive.org/web/20000817004624/http:/www.ncmedicaljournal.com/Smith-
OK.htm (last visited Jan. 5, 2014). Notably, African-Americans are 20% more likely to have asthma than the
general population. Office of Minority Health, Asthma and African Americans, US DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES (last visited Jan. 5, 2014) http://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/templates/content.aspx?ID=6170.
January 22, 2014 Page 38 of 74
is a mist and disperses through the air, student bystanders are likewise injured when this
chemical weapon is used against one of their peers. Despite its pronounced dangers to students,
there are no clear policies restricting its use in WCPSS schools. Below are a few examples of
incidents of pepper spray use against WCPSS students and the resulting impacts:
In June 2009, an SRO used pepper spray on multiple students at a WCPSS middle school.
An ambulance was called to treat affected students.
112
In April 2010, between 15 and 20 WCPSS middle school students had to receive medical
treatment after pepper spray was used to break up a fight involving three individuals at a
bus stop across the street from the school.
113
In September 2010, a Raleigh police officer used pepper spray in a crowded high school
cafeteria. Sixteen students were treated for exposure; four of them were taken to the
hospital for respiratory distress.
114
In October 2011, T.S. was pepper sprayed in the face as an SRO attempted to break up a
fight at school. At the time pepper spray was used on him, T.S. was already incapacitated
as two other students held him on the ground and punched him. T.S. experienced near
blindness and burning pain for several hours after an SRO pepper-sprayed him directly in
his face. At no point after the incident did a school or law enforcement official assist T.S.
in washing his eyes or otherwise administer first aid. Other students in proximity of the
incident also reported injuries related to the pepper spray being discharged in a crowded
area.
Moreover, because there are no bright line policies restricting the use of force against
students, law enforcement officers routinely utilize excessive and unreasonable physical force in
their interactions with WCPSS students. Below are some examples of the physically aggressive
manner in which students are regularly treated by SROs and law enforcement officers in the
district:
In 2003, a police officer at a Wake County high school lifted a student off of the ground
during a cafeteria scuffle and slammed him down, causing his head to hit the floor and
causing the student to have a seizure.
115
In May 2013, a Raleigh police officer used excessive and unreasonable physical force
against a 15-year-old student on the campus of a WCPSS high school. At the time, the
student was fleeing from a water balloon fight. The officer responded by grabbing the
112
ABC News 11, Pepper spray used on middle schoolers, ABCLOCAL.GO.COM (June 3, 2009),
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=6846220; WRAL Staff, Pepper spray used to break up
fight at Raleigh middle school, WRAL.COM (June 3, 2009), http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/5271221/;
Pepper spray used to stop school fight, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (June 4, 2009),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2009/06/04/73542/pepper-spray-used-to-stop-school.html.
113
Fight near Ligon Middle School nets 3 arrests, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (April 29, 2010),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/29/459830/fight-near-ligon-middle-school.html.
114
T. Keung Hui, Pepper spray used to quell Wake school fight, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (Sept. 28, 2010); News 14
Carolina, Three Students Charged After School Fight, TRIANGLE.NEWS14.COM,
http://triangle.news14.com/content/video_stories/630905/three-students-charged-after-school-fight?ap=1&MP4 (last
visited July 9, 2013).
115
Cindy George, Lawsuit claims officer injured teen at school, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (Aug. 10, 2006),
http://newsobserver.com/2006/08/10/v-print/57761/lawsuit-claims-officer-injured.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 39 of 74
student, knocking him down, and pushing his head into the concrete at least twice.
116
The
student was treated at a hospital for a cut above his eyebrow, a bruised shoulder, a
scraped knee, and a sore neck and back. There was no allegation that the student was
engaging in any form of unlawful behavior at the time he was attacked.
117
S.P. experienced extreme and unreasonable physical force at all stages of his interaction
with the SRO: first when the SRO pushed him violently in the chest as he began
questioning him; then again when the SRO jerked him around and grabbed him by his
neck as he attempted to walk away when he thought the questioning was over; yet again
when the SRO threw him over a nearby railing, causing his glasses to fly off from the
impact; and finally, when the SRO shoved him down into a chair prior to interrogating
him.
When an SRO walked in on J.H. attempting to call his father, the SRO responded by
grabbing J.H.’s arm and twisting it behind J.H.’s back and then pushing his face and
upper body into a nearby table.
In a situation where no criminal activity was remotely implicated, an SRO used
unreasonable and excessive force on L.H. when he grabbed him by the back of his neck,
squeezed it hard, and then pushed L.H. to his knees, scratching his neck in the process.
This force was initiated after L.H. and a friend jokingly tried to get onto an activity bus
that was leaving for a field trip and then, after being called by the SRO to stop and come
back, walked directly back over to him.
Two SROs attacked T.W., throwing him against a window and handcuffing him.
The level of force described in the incidents above is inappropriate under any reasonable
standard, and causes children and youth to experience physical and emotional trauma. In none of
the cases did the adult officer need to utilize force in self-defense or defense of others, nor was
the force incident to a lawful arrest or search, nor was it necessary to prevent a student from
fleeing from lawful custody. Notably, however, in T.W.’s case, an Internal Affairs panel
reviewed the facts of his case and determined that the SROs’ actions in throwing a young student
against a window and handcuffing him for appearing to be too old to attend that school and
pulling his arm away from an officer’s aggressive grasp was “proper conduct” under agency
policy. Accordingly, law enforcement officers in the WCPSS appear to have a virtual carte
blanche to physically abuse students at will.
116
Bruce Mildwurf, Parents question police response to Enloe High prank, WRAL.COM (May 17, 2013),
http://www.wral.com/parents-question-police-response-to-enloe-high-prank/12459772/; Ken Smith, Group mulls
federal complaint after Enloe High prank arrests, WRAL.COM (May 31, 2013), http://www.wral.com/parents-
question-police-response-to-enloe-high-prank/12500690/.
117
WNCN Staff, Enloe students, parents, speak to board about arrests, WNCN.COM (June 18, 2013),
http://www.wncn.com/story/22504079/enloe-student-and-parents-speak-out-about-arrests; T. Keung Hui, Enloe
High School students asking for dismissal of charges in water-balloon incident, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (May 31,
2013), http://blogs.newsobserver.com/wakeed/enloe-high-school-students-asking-for-dismissal-of-charges-in-water-
balloon-incident; T. Keung Hui, Enloe students say water-balloon charges should be dropped, NEWSOBSERVER.COM
(May 30, 2013), http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/30/2928310/enloe-students-say-water-balloon.html; Barry
Saunders, Saunders: In Enloe water-balloon case, does punishment fit the crime?, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (May 20,
2013), http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/05/20/2905804/saunders-in-enloe-water-balloon.html; Bruce Mildwurf,
Parents question police response to Enloe High prank, WRAL.COM (May 17, 2013), http://www.wral.com/parents-
question-police-response-to-enloe-high-prank/12459772/; ABC News 11, Parents push to get students back in
school after arrests, ABCLOCAL.GO.COM (May 22, 2013),
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9111361.
January 22, 2014 Page 40 of 74
Law enforcement officers also regularly utilize handcuffs and other mechanical restraint
devices against WCPSS students as intervention techniques for minor behavioral incidents. The
improper overreliance on these restraint devices is sadly predictive given the fact that the MOU
is completely silent as to proper limits on the use of mechanical restraints, and individual law
enforcement agency policies give alarmingly broad deference to SROs, granting them authority
to use handcuffs anytime a student causes “a disturbance.”
118
No data is made publicly
available, nor presumably maintained, regarding the use of handcuffs or zip ties to restrain
students in non-arrest situations. This is of great concern in light of increasing reports of SROs
utilizing mechanical restraints to address student behavior.
J.H. was handcuffed in response to his attempt to call his father to let him know that he
had been called to the office by a security guard and SRO.
T.S. was handcuffed in a crowded cafeteria after he cut in line and ignored the
administrator’s request to move to the back of the line.
L.H., a student with severe cognitive and emotional disabilities, was placed in handcuffs
and forced to sit in the hallway while his peers passed by because he had walked out of
his class and refused to return.
In none of those cases were the parents ever informed by school administrators or law
enforcement officials that their child had been handcuffed. Instead, they were informed after the
fact by their children. Student members of Complainant NC HEAT confirm that the experiences
of J.H., T.S., and L.H. are not isolated incidents and that law enforcement officers routinely use
handcuffs and zip ties to detain students in non-arrest situations.
D. Denial of Rights in Custodial Interrogations
Existing agreements are also completely silent regarding the appropriate roles of WCPSS
staff and SROs in interviewing students. Instead, the MOU indicates only that “the SRO shall
abide by all applicable legal requirements.”
119
This practice of including generic statements in
the MOU about following “applicable legal requirements” fails to provide students and parents
with notice about their rights. Moreover, by failing to set forth explicit requirements regarding
WCPSS staff and SROs’ respective duties to protect a student against coercive and unlawful
questioning, the current MOU has left the door wide open for unlawful collaborations between
WCPSS staff and SROs in violating students’ constitutional rights.
In fact, WCPSS school board policies and training practices actively enable law
enforcement misconduct related to improper interrogations and the denial of student rights. For
example, training materials for SAs explicitly note that students have the right to not be
questioned by SROs, but then immediately provide a means for SROs to use SAs in order to
gather information for SROs that can be used against students in juvenile and criminal cases. In
this manner, SROs can gather information without triggering legal protections students would
118
Wake Cnty. Sheriff’s Office Pol’y Manual, Reg. 418 (see Appendix).
119
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
January 22, 2014 Page 41 of 74
otherwise have, including warnings that their statements could be used against them and that
they have the right not to be questioned if they want an attorney present:
120
The Area Security Administrator must be cognizant of the allegation against the
student and the presence of the SRO when questioning a suspect. The student has
the right to not be questioned in the presence of a law enforcement official when
circumstances may lead to his/her arrest. . . . If the Area Security Administrator is
able to question the student in a serious allegation, the SRO may be advised of the
information obtained once the interview is complete.
121
This policy directly contravenes guidance issued by the International Association of Chiefs of
Police’s National Law Enforcement Policy Center:
In no case should officers enlist school teachers, officials, or other employees to
conduct interviews of students for purposes of gathering information for a police
investigation. Nor should officers ask school employees or suggest to teachers,
administrators, or others that they make inquiries or conduct any fact-finding
activities regarding students if officers intend to use or reasonably believe that the
information may be used as part of a criminal investigation. School officials who
are enlisted by the police to act in these or similar capacities constructively
become agents of the police, and information they obtain is subject to due-process
limitations that may affect its admissibility in a criminal or juvenile court
proceeding.
122
Notably, even in cases where a law enforcement officer is present during student
questioning, WCPSS training materials teach SAs that “[t]he rights of a student to due process as
it relates to being questioned in the presence of law enforcement should be made by a school
administrator.”
123
Accordingly, WCPSS policies purport to delegate to school administrators the
legal determination of whether a student is in custody and has the due process right to be
informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and/or to have his parent or attorney present.
Unsurprisingly, it has been the longstanding experience of Complainants that law
enforcement officers in schools commonly ignore students’ constitutional rights to receive
Miranda warnings prior to custodial interrogations. In cases in which students are clearly in
custodial situations, SROs rarely administer Miranda rights to students and even flagrantly
refuse to grant students’ explicit requests to speak with or have their parents present during
questioning. For example, after being held in a room for over an hour and told he could not
leave even to get lunch or use the restroom, J.H. was confronted by an administrator, a school
security guard, an SRO, and an SA. As the SRO began to interrogate him, J.H. promptly asked
to call his mother, at which point he was explicitly told that he could not call her until he
answered their questions. For most students, this blatant refusal to permit them to have their
parents present during questioning is also in direct violation of state law which requires that
120
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
121
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
122
IACP National Law Enforcement Policy Center, School Liaison, Concepts and Issues Paper (2010).
123
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
January 22, 2014 Page 42 of 74
students under the age of 18 be advised that they have the right to have a parent present, and
forbids interrogations of students under the age of 14 from occurring without the presence of a
parent.
124
Moreover, whether the offending behavior occurred on campus or not, WCPSS staff and
law enforcement officers increasingly collaborate to circumvent students’ rights by having SROs
or law enforcement officers wait nearby as administrators or SAs question students without the
student having the benefit of Miranda warnings or the opportunity to have his or her parent or
guardian present. This was precisely the situation in K.H.’s case, where the administrator
questioned K.H. about an incident for which the SRO had a warrant for K.H.’s arrest, while the
SRO sat in the closed room with them. At no point during that questioning was K.H. given
Miranda warnings. This practice of using administrators to question students with SROs nearby
preys on students’ vulnerabilities and lack of understanding of the law. Many students who
understand the consequences of talking to a police officer often do not understand that statements
they make to a principal or other school employee can also be used against them in criminal
proceedings and so will not assert their rights even if they know that they have them. Police
officers arguably take advantage of these more trusting relationships between students and
school administrators to elicit student confessions.
These collaborations are further concerning in light of the fact that existing WCPSS
school board policies place unlawful pressure on students to relinquish their due process rights
during interrogations by threatening retaliation against students who refuse to submit to
questioning involving a law enforcement officer. Under the WCPSS Code of Student Conduct,
students can be disciplined for withholding consent to a search or exercising their right to remain
silent.
125
Because the MOU is completely silent regarding the specific requirements and
expectations applicable to WCPSS staff with regard to student interrogations, students’ due
process rights will continue to be violated unless deliberate steps are taken to train both school
and law enforcement officials on students’ rights and the responsibilities of the adults to protect
those rights.
E. Unlawful Searches and Seizures
MOU provisions and WCPSS policies regarding student searches provide additional
insight into ways in which current policies contribute to the pattern and practice of criminalizing
students for very minor, normative behaviors at school. For example, the MOU permits an SRO
to take part in searching a student anytime “school personnel require the assistance of the SRO
because of exigent circumstances, such as the need for safety.”
126
This provision does not
require that SROs first determine that a reasonable suspicion standard has been met prior to
becoming involved in a search initiated by a school staff member. By failing to clearly outline
the reasonableness requirement to which school administrators and SROs must adhere in
conducting school-based searches, the current MOU leaves the door open for SROs to search
students at the behest of school staff in any situation where a vaguely defined “need for safety” is
124
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2101.
125
Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Board Policy 6410: Noncompliance, WCPSS.NET (December. 12, 2011),
http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/6410-bp.html.
126
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER PROGRAM MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) (July 1, 2009).
January 22, 2014 Page 43 of 74
alleged.
127
Further, since no data or written reports are required to be compiled or made publicly
available, there is little ability to review whether searches that are conducted are justified under
the circumstances.
Training materials for SAs further state that “if the Area Security Administrator has
reasonable suspicion that a student is in the possession of a weapon, he/she should contact the
school SRO or local law enforcement for assistance during the search.”
128
Notably, Wake
WCPSS board policies define “weapon” broadly enough to include even a slingshot, as well as
“any sharp-pointed or edged instrument.”
129
Furthermore, the training materials do not provide
SAs with the legal standard of what constitutes “reasonable suspicion,” instead leaving
interpretation of the standard to the complete discretion of SAs and school administrators.
In practice, these vague and incomplete policies have created a school culture in which
school personnel and law enforcement officers routinely search students without regard to
established legal standards. The following testimony of a WCPSS SRO, who charged a student
based on evidence taken from his unlawful search of the student, is illustrative of the alarming
and erroneous perceptions held by SROs and WCPSS staff regarding the law and their
responsibilities to respect students’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures:
That’s standard procedure for any event such as this. The administration has a
right to search a student at any time, for any reason whatsoever. But certainly
during events such as this, it’s standard procedure that everyone is searched…Uh,
it doesn’t matter whether there’s a suspicion of being a, uh, of having something
or not. It’s just, uh, the administration’s right, uh, for anyone coming on to
campus. Um, but it’s standard procedure for any time that a violent act, or near
violent act, um, on campus, uh, it’s standard procedure that when those suspects
or individuals are spoken to that they are searched because it is found that, um,
individuals that are involved in this type of behavior, uh, it’s very possible that
they may have something associated with this same type of behavior. So, again,
it’s the administration’s right to go ahead and search, um, at any point.
130
Of further concern is the fact that existing WCPSS school board policies place unlawful
pressure on students to submit to illegal searches by threatening retaliation via discipline for
“noncompliance” against students who refuse to submit to searches.
131
WCPSS Board Policy
6600 further states that “a student’s failure to permit searches and seizures as provided in this
127
In re D.L.D., 203 N.C.App. 434, 437 (2010).
128
Public Records from WCPSS (Sept. 21, 2012)(see Appendix).
129
Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Board Policy 6410: Weapons/Dangerous Instruments/Substances, WCPSS.NET
(December. 12, 2011), http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/6410-bp.html.
130
Raleigh Police Dept. SRO in a long-term suspension appeal hearing, responding to questions about an illegal
search (Oct. 2009). Throughout the testimony, the officer referred to himself and the school administration
interchangeably as “the administration.”
131
Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Board Policy 6410: Noncompliance, WCPSS.NET (Dec. 12, 2011),
http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/6410-bp.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 44 of 74
policy will be considered grounds for disciplinary action.”
132
The policy then describes searches
of the student’s person, personal effects, locker, or automobile.
133
V. Discriminatory Impact on African-American Students and SWD
As the policing culture in the WCPSS grows, all students in Wake County are
increasingly subjected to the harmful impact of the unsound policies and practices that give
security staff, private security guards, SROs, and other law enforcement officers virtually
unregulated authority to address minor student misbehavior. While the rampant criminalization
of minor, developmentally normative adolescent behavior in the WCPSS is disturbing in and of
itself, existing policing policies and practices have disproportionately harmful and discriminatory
impacts on African-American students and SWD, in violation of Title IV, Title VI, Section 504,
and the ADA. Section A discusses evidence of a discriminatory disparate impact on African-
American students as a result of current policing policies and practices. Section B discusses
evidence of the discrimination that SWD face in the context of school policing.
A. Evidence of Racial Discrimination
Evidence of racial discrimination in the administration of school policing in the WCPSS
is readily found in data regarding school-based delinquency complaints. For at least the last five
state fiscal years, which approximately mirror school years, African-American students have
been disproportionately subjected to school-based delinquency complaints as compared to their
White peers. (See Charts 3 and 4).
134
Chart 3
132
Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Board Policy 6600: Search and Seizure, WCPSS.NET (Mar. 19, 2013),
http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/6600-bp.html.
133
Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Board Policy 6600: Search and Seizure, WCPSS.NET (Mar. 19, 2013),
http://www.wcpss.net/policy-files/series/policies/6600-bp.html.
134
Public Records from DJJ (Nov. 4, 2013)(May 23, 2013)(July 16, 2012)(Jan. 31, 2012)(Sep. 22, 2010)(see
Appendix).
January 22, 2014 Page 45 of 74
Chart 4
51.8%
51.1%
49.5% 49.3%
16.9%
20.4%
22.9%
17.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
School-Based Delinquency Complaints Against White Students
% of population % of School-Based Delinquency Complaints
* The Division of Juvenile Justice did not provide disaggregated data regarding White students for 2012-13.
A review of disaggregated data regarding school-based delinquency complaints in the
WCPSS from the past five years (above) shows dramatic disparities between African-American
and White students in the meting out of complaints. On average, African-American students
have represented only 25.2% of the total student population in the WCPSS over the past five
school years.
135
However, they have received, on average, 68.2% of the delinquency complaints
filed in the WCPSS over the past five state fiscal years.
136
This amounts to a discrepancy that is
170% higher than the expected proportionate distribution. We believe that if DOJ runs tests of
significance or other measures of statistical reliability they will agree that this disparity is large
enough to warrant further investigation.
Of course, if African-American students had engaged in very dangerous misconduct at
much higher rates than White students, that disproportionate misconduct could justify the
observed patterns. We therefore urge DOJ to investigate whether this is the case. However, we
have numerous reasons to believe that further analysis of the data from the WCPSS and law
enforcement agencies will suggest an unlawful disparate impact.
Further, while schools are arguably justified in filing delinquency complaints in response
to the most serious and unlawful misbehaviors, we do not believe that frequently filing
delinquency complaints against students for misdemeanor behavior committed in school is a
necessary or justifiable policy or practice. As the available data demonstrate, an overwhelming
percentage of school-based delinquency complaints stem from minor school misconduct. In state
fiscal year 2011-12, 90% of the 763 school-based delinquency complaints were for
misdemeanors.
137
We urge DOJ to collect and analyze these data further for disparities by race
and disability and by severity of alleged offense.
135
Wake Cnty. Pub. Sch. Sys., Demographic Reports, WCPSS.NET http://www.wcpss.net/about-us/our-
students/demographics/reports.html (last visited January 5, 2013).
136
Public Records from DJJ (Nov. 4, 2013)(May 23, 2013)(July 16, 2012)(Jan. 31, 2012)(Sep. 22, 2010)(see
Appendix).
137
Public Records from DJJ (May 23, 2013)(on file with Author).
January 22, 2014 Page 46 of 74
Complainants do not have access to these disaggregated data. However, based on
patterns of punishment documented in other states and districts, clearly showing that racial
disparities tend to be the largest in less serious offense categories, we believe that, for
delinquency complaints involving African-American students, the percentage of misdemeanors
is likely even higher than the 90% district-wide percentage in WCPSS, and higher than it is for
White students. For example, a longitudinal study of middle schools and discipline in Texas
tracked nearly one million students throughout the state for six years and found that African-
American students were more likely to be disciplined for “discretionary” offenses.
138
By
contrast, when poverty and other factors were controlled for, higher percentages of White
students were disciplined on more serious nondiscretionary grounds, such as possessing drugs or
carrying a weapon.
139
Analysis of data from the State of California by the Center for Civil
Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights Project at UCLA similarly demonstrates large racial
disparities in the rates of out of school suspensions when the most serious offenses are compared
to the most subjective.
140
Moreover, a 2010 study of 21 schools led by a Johns Hopkins
researcher found that, even when controlling for teacher ratings of student misbehavior, African-
American students were more likely than others to be sent to the office for disciplinary
reasons.
141
These and numerous other empirical studies raise significant concerns that African-
American students in the WCPSS are likewise receiving harsher punishments, including referrals
to court, when it comes to non-violent misbehavior that requires a more subjective evaluation.
Unfortunately, neither the WCPSS, nor the law enforcement agencies, nor any other
entity maintains data regarding school-based adult criminal court complaints for students ages 16
and older. By refusing to collect this data, the WCPSS and local law enforcement agencies have
made it impossible for Complainants to provide statistical data specific to racial disparities in
school-based criminal complaints. However, Complainants allege that the same massive racial
disparities reflected in delinquency complaints are likewise present in the subset of students who
receive school-based adult criminal court complaints and urge DOJ to collect and analyze this
data for disparities by race. This allegation is based primarily on the fact that the underlying
policing policies and practices are the same for all WCPSS students, regardless of student age.
Neither the MOU nor the local law enforcement policies make any distinction regarding
expectations or limitations for an SRO as applied to a 15-year-old student compared to a 16- or
17-year-old student. Because the underlying policies and practices are the same, it logically
follows that the impact of those policies and practices on African-American students age 16 and
older would reflect the same egregious disparities evidenced by the treatment of African-
American students age 15 and younger.
138
TONY FABELO ET AL, BREAKING SCHOOL RULES: A STATEWIDE STUDY OF HOW SCHOOL DISCIPLINE RELATES TO
STUDENTS' SUCCESS AND JUVENILE JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT (2011), available at http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/08/Breaking_Schools_Rules_Report_Final.pdf
139
Id.
140
Letter from Jesse L. Jackson, Sr., et al., Founder and President, Rainbow PUSH Coalition, to Edmund G. Brown,
Jr., Governor, State of California (Aug. 15, 2013), available at http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/news/news-and-
announcements/2013-site-news/civil-rights-leaders-urge-ca-governor-to-address-inequities-in-school-discipline/AB-
420-Civil-Rights-Letter-to-Gov-Brown-FINAL.pdf
141
Bradshaw et al., Multilevel exploration of factors contributing to the overrepresentation of Black students in
office disciplinary referrals. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, 102, 508-520 (2010).
January 22, 2014 Page 47 of 74
This Complaint likewise alleges that African-American students experience
discriminatorily adverse impacts of school policing insofar as they are disproportionately
subjected to excessive and unreasonable force, unlawful searches and interrogations, and
harassment at the hands of law enforcement officers in schools. By refusing to collect data on
these impacts, the WCPSS and local law enforcement agencies have made it impossible for
Complainants to provide statistical data in support of this allegation. Instead, this allegation is
based, in part, on the collective experiences of the attorneys and local organizational
Complainants in their longstanding work with WCPSS students, and is further supported by the
expertise of the state and national organizational Complainants in their work studying and
fighting against racial disparities in the school-to-prison pipeline.
Finally, these allegations are rooted in the individual experiences of the student
Complainants, all of whom are African-American and all of whom experienced these negative
impacts. This complaint alleges that the experiences of these individual students are
representative of what other African-American students in the district experience on a regular
basis. For example, Complainants J.H., L.H., T.W., P.D., T.S and S.P. were all subject to
extreme and unreasonably violent force at the hands of law enforcement officers as they were
slammed into walls, tables and windows; thrown over handrails and divider walls; pushed to the
ground and onto chairs; pepper-sprayed; and handcuffed. Similarly, all of the student
Complainants experienced unlawful searches and/or interrogations that were, in many cases,
jointly executed by law enforcement officers and school officials.
Notably, all of the student Complainants likewise experienced harassment by the SROs
and school officials involved in school policing matters, either via direct verbal taunting or
through the creation of an exceedingly hostile school environment. J.H. and S.P. both had to
transfer schools because the harassment had become so pervasive. T.W. experienced significant
mental health repercussions directly related to the harassment he faced from the SRO,
necessitating ongoing therapy and contributing to his dropping out. Notably, in the case of T.W.,
the criminal court judge who presided over the case stemming from his school-based charge
explicitly commented on the racially discriminatory nature of the SRO’s treatment of T.W.,
likening the SRO’s actions to accosting someone simply because they were “walking on the
sidewalk while being Black.”
The observed systemic disparities in the use of law enforcement and subsequent arrests
and prosecutions, even for minor and mundane school misbehaviors, combined with the
expressed perceptions of discrimination on the part of the Complainants, further raise serious
questions as to whether African-American students may be specifically targeted, either
purposefully, or as an outgrowth of unconscious bias. Whether a result of disparate impact, or
other forms of unlawful discrimination, there is no doubt that these students are most likely to be
criminalized by the unlawful practices and inappropriate policies that characterize the
relationship between the school district and the cooperating law enforcement agencies.
In light of the information discussed above, we urge DOJ to investigate these and all
other related violations pursuant to federal anti-discrimination law on the basis of race that may
be implicated by the policies and practices of the WCPSS and the local law enforcement
agencies described herein.
January 22, 2014 Page 48 of 74
B. Evidence of Disability Discrimination
Complainants likewise allege that the WCPSS’s and law enforcement agencies’ policing
policies and practices have the impact of unlawfully discriminating against SWD.
142
Specifically, WCPSS and law enforcement agencies routinely discriminate against SWD by
utilizing harmful law enforcement practices, including the use of unreasonable and excessive
force and subsequent arrest and filing of charges, to address behavior that is consistent with a
student’s disability, rather than making reasonable accommodations to the student’s disability.
Furthermore, this complaint alleges that SWD are harmed at disproportionate rates by these
harmful school policing practices as compared to their non-disabled peers.
In WCPSS schools, law enforcement officers are routinely used to address SWD’s
behavior through the administration of excessive and unreasonable force (including physical
force, handcuffs, and pepper spray) and the subsequent arresting or filing of charges against
SWD in response to actions that are not criminal in nature, are related to the disabilities of the
children involved, and would be more appropriately addressed through reasonable
accommodations, such as behavior intervention plans. Often these harmful and discriminatory
policing actions take place because WCPSS staff explicitly request police involvement in
addressing SWD’s behavior. For example:
In L.H.’s case, a teacher contacted an SRO to ask him to become involved after alleging that
L.H., a student with severe cognitive and emotional disabilities, was seen striking a student. L.H.
was subsequently arrested and criminally charged. On previous occasions, the same SRO utilized
the following “behavioral interventions:” forcing L.H. to sit handcuffed in the hallway while his
peers walked by; and pushing him to the ground by his neck.
After pinning P.D., a student with severe ADHD, to the wall following a minor verbal
incident with a peer, two teachers contacted the SRO and requested that he arrest P.D.
P.D. was subsequently arrested and charged in criminal court.
In other situations, law enforcement officers initiate the use of force against SWD while
WCPSS staff members simply look on, completely failing to take any steps to minimize the
unnecessary harm. For example:
As an SRO physically assaulted S.P., a student with severe ADHD, at least five administrators
stood passively nearby, at least two of whom had recently signed off on S.P.’s IEP and,
accordingly, were well aware of his impulsivity, how he reacts to yelling, and the required and
appropriate interventions for him. Instead of intervening so as to allow S.P. to step away and
decompress without harm, they turned their backs as S.P. was thrown over a railing.
When T.W., a student with depression and serious emotional disabilities, was attacked by
two SROs who threw him into a window because they did not believe that he was a
student at the school, no staff members stepped in to stop what was happening. Later, as
T.W.’s mother sought assistance from the principal in requesting that the charges against
T.W. be dropped in light of the fact that T.W. was the one who was attacked, the
142
34 C.F.R. §104.4(b)(4) (“A recipient may not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize
criteria or methods of administration . . .that have the effect of subjecting qualified handicapped persons to
discrimination on the basis of handicap.”).
January 22, 2014 Page 49 of 74
principal simply replied via his formal grievance response: “It is not within my
jurisdiction to request criminal charges brought by a police officer be dropped or
dismissed. This issue should be addressed with the Raleigh Police Department.”
143
When T.S., a student with ODD, was thrown over a retaining wall and handcuffed in a
crowded cafeteria after it was alleged that he cut in line in front of other students, an
administrator simply stood by and watched as T.S. was hauled to the office in handcuffs.
A few weeks later, the same SRO and other administrators let T.S. sit handcuffed with no
medical assistance for over 40 minutes after pepper spray has been discharged directly
into his eyes.
In all of these cases, the students’ disabilities should have been reasonably accommodated by
qualified special education staff in accordance with the students’ IEPs and BIPs. Instead,
WCPSS staff ignored their important legal responsibilities by allowing, and in some instances
orchestrating, the harmful intervention of a law enforcement officer to address non-criminal
behavior that was related to a student’s disability.
The failure to accommodate students’ disabilities in the context of school policing
practices is all the more concerning in light of the fact that these practices inflict more serious
damage on SWD due to their different emotional and cognitive development, as well as their
lacking in cognitive and emotional coping skills. Research has specifically shown that, in the
absence of appropriate training and limits, SWD are particularly at risk of being mistreated by
SROs:
SROs may actually do more harm than good with students who receive special education
services. Without the proper knowledge of special education, coupled with skills and
attitudes appropriate for working with special education populations, SROs may find
themselves ill-equipped for the challenges that can arise, and the frustrations that can
ensue, in dealing with such students. Additionally, if SROs witness teachers and/or staff
negatively stereotyping these students, they may, in turn, form similar perceptions and
treat these students in the same manner. Negative views of students receiving special
education services could lead SROs to ignore, reject, or treat these students more harshly
than other students, possibly resulting in higher numbers of students receiving special
education services receiving suspensions or being arrested.
144
143
Letter from Principal John Wall, Jr. (Sep. 15, 2011) (on file with ACS).
144
David May, Corrie Rice & Kevin Minor, An Examination of School Resource Officers’ Attitudes Regarding
Behavioral Issues among Students Receiving Special Education Services, CURRENT ISSUES IN EDUCATION
Vol. 15, Iss. 3, p. 1, (October 2012) available at http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/articles/88843607/examination-
school-resource-officers-attitudes-regarding-behavioral-issues-among-students-receiving-special-education-services.
The study specifically found that “SROs that spent more time in law enforcement activities and less time in law-
related education at school were significantly more likely to feel that including students receiving special education
services in the regular classroom was detrimental because of their problem behaviors. Male SROs were significantly
more likely to feel that students receiving special education services use their special education status as an excuse
for their problem behaviors. Finally, those SROs who spent more time in law-related education as part of their role
as an SRO were less likely to feel that students receiving special education services were responsible for a
disproportionate amount of problem behavior at school.”
January 22, 2014 Page 50 of 74
Due to the heightened vulnerability of SWD to the negative impacts of school policing, the
WCPSS and law enforcement agencies should make all necessary changes to the SRO program
so as to ensure that SWD are accommodated, rather than disproportionately harmed by policing
policies and practices. By refusing to develop adequate training and create strict policies
targeted at minimizing the harmful use of law enforcement officers to deal with the disability-
related behaviors of SWD, the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies have actively engaged in a
pattern and practice of discriminating against SWD.
145
In addition to alleging that the existing policing policies and practices inflict more serious
damage on SWD, Complainants also allege that SWD are harmed in disproportionate rates as
compared to their non-disabled peers. As previously noted, neither the WCPSS, nor law
enforcement agencies, nor any other entity maintains data regarding SWD who are subject to
school-based delinquency and criminal complaints, excessive and unreasonable force, unlawful
searches and interrogations, or harassment as a result of existing school policing policies and
practices in Wake County. Accordingly, the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies have made
it impossible to provide statistical evidence of the disability discrimination that results from
school policing policies and practices in Wake County. However, Complainants allege that the
experiences of the Complainants, seven out of eight of whom are SWD, are representative of the
experiences of the SWD population in the WCPSS at large. This allegation is supported by the
longstanding experiences of the attorneys and multiple organizational Complainants in working
with SWD in Wake County, and is further underscored by national research consistently showing
SWD to be at a far higher risk of facing school-based referrals to court than their non-disabled
peers.
146
Through the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), certain
school districts are required to report, among other information, data regarding referrals to law
enforcement and school-related arrests disaggregated by race/ethnicity, sex, limited English
proficiency, and disability.
147
Because the WCPSS serves more than 3,000 students, it is
required, under law, to provide the requested CRDC data, yet appears not to have done so. From
data reported by the Division of Juvenile Justice, we know that there were school-based
145
Wingard v. Pa. State Police, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97800 (W.D. Pa. July 11, 2013 ) (“It is recognized that both
the ADA and the RA apply to require reasonable accommodation of a disability where first responders are both
aware of the disability and can safely modify police practices to accommodate the disability. Thus, it has been held
that if an individual suffers from mental illness, but is not presenting a danger to himself or anyone else, this duty
might encompass a requirement on the part of defendants to ‘better train its police officers to recognize disturbances
that are likely to involve persons with mental disabilities, and to investigate and arrest such persons in a manner
reasonably accommodating their disability. One potential accommodation is to have the police refrain from taking
aggressive action until the plaintiff presented an immediate threat to human life.”) (citations omitted).
146
See e.g. Robin Dahlberg, Arrested Futures: The Criminalization of School Discipline in Massachusetts’ Three
Largest School Districts (Spring 2012), available at http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/maarrest_reportweb.pdf
(“Along with students of color, disabled students face exceptionally high rates of arrest nationally”); JUSTICE POLICY
INSTITUTE, EDUCATION UNDER ARREST: THE CASE AGAINST POLICE IN SCHOOLS (November 2011), available at
http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/educationunderarrest_fullreport.pdf (Anecdotal
evidence from public defenders, combined with data showing that youth with disabilities are more likely to be
affected by the juvenile justice system, suggests that youth with disabilities will also be more affected by zero
tolerance policies and school resource officers).
147
See U.S. Dep’t of Education 2011-12 Civil Rights Data Collection Questions and Answers, at
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2011-12-factsheet.html (last visited Jan. 10, 2014); Civil Rights
Data Collection FAQ, at http://ocrdata.ed.gov/FAQ (last visited Jan. 10, 2014).
January 22, 2014 Page 51 of 74
complaints in 2009-10. However, the publicly-available data that OCR gathered and reported to
the public inaccurately reports zeros for both students with and without disabilities. Therefore,
we know the OCR data are not accurate. We believe that the WCPSS failed to comply with
federal requirements to report this data to OCR in for 2009-10 and fear that the district’s non-
compliance may have been repeated for the 2011-12 data.
Without access to the CRDC data for school-based arrests or referrals to law enforcement
disaggregated by disability status, we reference the available data from public records requests
indicating that SWD in Wake County disproportionately receive out-of-school suspensions. For
example, during the 2011-12 school year, SWD were 12.6% of the WCPSS student
population,
148
but were 31.5% of suspended students.
149
In other words, SWD who were
suspended constituted a 150% variation from the expected value.
When the data on the risk for out-of-school suspension for students with and without
disabilities are compared for secondary schools in WCPSS, we see that in 2009-10, 23.5% of
students with disabilities were suspended at least once, compared to 9.8% of their non-disabled
peers.
150
When the disability difference is analyzed further by race we find that nearly four out
of every ten (37.4%) African-American secondary school students in the WCPSS were
suspended at least once.
151
This is nearly four times the risk for White secondary school students
with disabilities, which was about one in ten (10.4%).
152
We believe that further investigation
will likely show that the racial and disability disparities found in exclusionary discipline in the
WCPSS closely mirror the experience of SWD, and especially African-American SWD,
regarding school-based referrals to court that often accompany out-of-school suspensions in
schools where law enforcement officers are present. We urge DOJ to investigate these and all
other related violations pursuant to federal anti-discrimination law on the basis of disability that
may be implicated by the policy and practices of the WCPSS and the local law enforcement
agencies described herein.
VI. School Policing Practices are Not Educationally Necessary and There Are Less
Discriminatory, More Effective Alternatives
Having set forth evidence of a disproportionately adverse impact on African-American
students and SWD, the remaining two questions that must be answered to determine whether the
disparate impacts amount to unlawful discrimination are: (A) whether current policies and
practices permitting the unregulated involvement of law enforcement officers in addressing
student misbehavior meets an important educational goal;
153
and (B) whether there is an equally
or more effective response that has “less of a burden or adverse impact on the disproportionately
148
Wake Cnty. Pub. Sch. Sys., Student Demographics: Special Education Services, WCPSS.NET (2011),
http://www.wcpss.net/about-us/our-students/demographics/reports/book11/SpEd.pdf.
149
Public Records from WCPSS (Nov. 16, 2012)(on file with ACS).
150
The Center for Civil Rights Remedies, THE CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT AT UCLA, “Suspension Rates at U.S. Schools
– Nationwide (2009-2010), at http://schooldiscplinedata.org (last visited Jan. 8, 2014).
151
Id.
152
Id.
153
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Title VI Legal Manual (Jan. 11, 2011), available at
http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/cor/coord/vimanual.php.
January 22, 2014 Page 52 of 74
impacted group[s].”
154
In Wake County, school policing policies and practices are educationally
unsound, and there are less discriminatory, more effective alternatives to ensure school safety.
A. Educational Necessity
Ensuring school safety is of paramount importance. However, there is also no evidence
to suggest that Wake County’s current school security policies and practices, outlined in detail in
the above sections, are reasonably calculated to improve the learning environment or school
safety.
155
To the contrary, Complainants’ experiences indicate that current policies and practices
instead lead to a more hostile school environment for all students and have disproportionately
damaging impacts on the educational and emotional well-being of African-American students
and SWD.
The individual, negative experiences of the Complainants described above are further
supported by a wealth of research suggesting that the unregulated practice of using law
enforcement in response to minor adolescent violations of school codes may actually undermine
safety while also harming educational outcomes and damaging the school climate. Rather than
creating a safe, nurturing learning environment that fosters trusting and supportive relationships
and respects fundamental freedoms,
156
the manner in which the WCPSS uses SROs, including
the teaming of school administrators with law enforcement to address minor student
misbehavior, blurs lines of authority and causes many students to feel and experience a prison-
like atmosphere of suspicion, control, and dominance.
157
Studies suggest that a heavy police
presence intimidates students, creates an adversarial environment, and pushes out the most
vulnerable students.
158
Police presence in schools can further alienate students, interfere with
normal adolescent development,
159
and work against a cooperative learning environment by
producing hostility and fear.
160
Even if some students are not targeted as “suspects” or “law
breakers,” they may suffer serious psychological impacts by witnessing classmates being
targeted, TASERed, interrogated, whisked away in handcuffs, and charged with delinquency or
154
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, U.S. Dep’t of Education, Dear Colleague Letter on the Nondiscriminatory Administration
of School Discipline, 11 (January 2014), at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-
vi.pdf.
155
Id. at 11. (The Departments will consider both the importance of the goal that the school articulates and the
tightness of the fit between the stated goal and the means employed to achieve it.”).
156
See UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD, art. 29.
157
See Henry A. Giroux, Ten Years After Columbine, COUNTER PUNCH, April 20, 2009,
http://www.counterpunch.org/giroux04212009.html (last visited on Jan. 9, 2011), citing CHRISTOPHER ROBBINS,
EXPELLING HOPE (2008); WILLIAM LYONS & JULIE DREW, PUNISHING SCHOOLS: FEAR AND CITIZENSHIP IN
AMERICAN PUBLIC EDUCATION (2006); HENRY A. GIROUX, THE ABANDONED GENERATION (2004); Paul J.
Hirschfield, Preparing for Prison?: The Criminalization of School Discipline in the USA, 12 THEORETICAL
CRIMINOLOGY 79 (2008).
158
CATHERINE Y. KIM & I. INDIA GERONIMO, POLICING IN SCHOOLS: DEVELOPING A GOVERNANCE DOCUMENT FOR
SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS IN K-12 SCHOOLS 6 (2009).
159
See ANNENBERG INSTITUTE FOR SCHOOL REFORM, MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK, & NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION, SAFETY WITH DIGNITY: ALTERNATIVES TO THE OVER-POLICING OF SCHOOLS 10 (2009),
http://www.nyclu.org/files/publications/nyclu_pub_safety_with_dignity.pdf (citation omitted) (last visited on Jan. 9,
2011).
160
See Beger, The “Worst of Both Worlds,” supra note 5, at 341, citing Clifford H. Edwards, Student Violence and
the Moral Dimensions of Education, 38 PSYCHOLOGY IN THE SCHOOLS 249-57 (2001).
January 22, 2014 Page 53 of 74
criminal offenses.
161
This criminalized environment is the opposite of the nurturing, open, and
truly safe environment teachers need to build trust, engage with students, and facilitate the
pursuit of knowledge and understanding.
162
In addition to creating a hostile environment for all students, unregulated school policing
practices can have incredibly damaging impacts on individual students who are referred to court
for minor misbehavior at school. Once referred to court, young people miss valuable class time,
often falling behind, or further behind, their peers as a result.
163
Studies have further shown that,
even when controlling for other school-based factors such as grades, retention, and school
suspension, a school-based arrest doubles the probability of a student dropping out of school.
164
A subsequent court appearance then nearly quadruples the likelihood that a student will drop
out.
165
In Wake County, students are at great risk of these negative academic outcomes in light
of the fact that the presence of largely unregulated police officers has served to increase, rather
than lower, the number and rate of students being referred to court for school-based behavior.
166
As discussed previously, these unregulated school policing practices have exceedingly weighty
consequences for 16- and 17-year-old students because these students are prosecuted in the adult
system and must bear lifelong consequences of criminal charges and convictions.
167
While school staff and law enforcement officers may be justified in filing complaints in
response to the most serious and unlawful student misbehaviors, frequently filing complaints
against students for non-violent, developmentally-normative behavior committed in school is not
an educationally necessary or justifiable policy or practice. In fact, recent federal guidance
specifically states that “law enforcement approaches (such as arrest, citations, ticketing, or court
referrals) should be used only as a last resort, and never to address instances of non-violent
misbehavior that do not pose a serious and immediate threat to school safety.”
168
However, as
described by the Complainants, law enforcement officers in Wake County are routinely involved
in criminalizing student behaviors that do not pose a serious or immediate threat to school
safety.
169
Even to the extent that some school-based complaints may be filed in response to an
actual act of violence, the Complainants describe provocative and physically threatening and
161
See COMMUNITY RIGHTS CAMPAIGN, YOUTH JUSTICE COALITION, & DIGNITY IN SCHOOLS, POLICE IN LAUSD
SCHOOLS: THE NEED FOR ACCOUNTABILITY AND ALTERNATIVES 8 (2010),
http://www.thestrategycenter.org/sites/www.thestrategycenter.org/files/Police%20in%20LAUSD%20Schools%20-
%2002%20sm.pdf (last visited on Jan. 9, 2011).
162
See Arrick Jackson, Police-School Resource Officers’ and Students’ Perception of the Police and Offending, 25
POLICING: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF POLICE STRATEGIES AND MANAGEMENT 631, 632 (2002).
163
Heather Cobb, Separate and Unequal: The Disparate Impact of School-Based Referrals to Juvenile Court, 44
HARV.C.R.-C.L.L.REV. 581, 595 (2009).
164
Sweeten, Gary, “Who Will Graduate? Disruption of High School Education by Arrest and Court Involvement”
23.4, Justice Quarterly, 462-480, at 478 (December 2006) (emphasis added).
165
Id.
166
See infra Chart 2.
167
Emily Buss, Rethinking the Connection Between Developmental Science and Juvenile Justice, 76 U. CHI. L. REV.
493, 514 (2009) (reviewing Elizabeth S. Scott & Laurence Steinberg, Rethinking Juvenile Justice (2008).
168
U.S. Department of Education, Guiding Principles: A Resource Guide for Improving School Climate and
Discipline, p. 11, 16 (January 2014), available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline (emphasis added).
169
See e.g. S.P. who was criminally charged for inadvertently possessing a small pocket knife even though there was
no allegation that he did use or even intended to use the pocket knife in a violent manner; See also J.H. who was
charged in juvenile court after an SRO viewed a cell phone video of him play-fighting with a friend three months
earlier.
January 22, 2014 Page 54 of 74
inappropriate interactions with school police where it has been the police who caused an
escalation of non-violent behavior into more serious misbehavior through the use of excessive
and unreasonable force or other aggressive tactics.
Ultimately, school security policies and practices cannot be educationally necessary when
they manifest in the routine violation of students’ constitutional and civil rights. Further, to the
extent that the high frequency and observed disparities in delinquency complaints are the end
product of the disparate exposure of African-American students and SWD to illegal searches and
seizures, unlawful interrogations, and other violations of constitutional rights, or to a failure to
accommodate students’ disabilities in accordance with state and federal law, the resulting
disparities are not justifiable from an educational or public safety rationale.
B. Less Discriminatory Alternatives
Even if existing policies and practices regarding school policing confer some educational
benefit on WCPSS students, which Complainants assert they do not, the policies and practices
would nonetheless violate students’ rights. This is because there are far more effective, less
discriminatory, research-based alternatives available to promote school safety and effectively
respond to student misbehavior. The success of many of these alternatives has already been
demonstrated in other districts across the country that have chosen to take affirmative steps to
address racial and disability disparities and the unnecessary criminalization of students. The
WCPSS and Wake County law enforcement agencies could likewise implement research-based,
more effective alternatives to current practices. Below is a non-exhaustive list of less
discriminatory alternatives that could nearly eliminate violations of students’ rights and greatly
reduce discriminatory disparities related to school policing. In particular, these alternatives
could attain the greatest impact if integrated into comprehensive school policing reform.
i. Memorandum of Understanding, Law Enforcement Agency Policies,
and School Board Policies
The lack of clear, comprehensive policies defining the appropriate roles and expectations
for law enforcement officers in WCPSS schools greatly contributes to the increased and harmful
criminalization of students and to the growing racial and disability disparities. To date, no clear
guidelines have been implemented, either by the WCPSS or law enforcement agencies, regarding
appropriate training, limitations, and accountability for the police officers who serve in WCPSS
schools and interact with students on a daily basis.
Recently released federal guidance outlines important guiding principles for improving
school discipline practices and policies, calling for schools to operate security programs in a
manner that ensures SROs do not become involved in routine school disciplinary matters. The
report also calls for schools to provide clear definitions of the officers’ roles and responsibilities,
written documentation of those roles, proper training, and continuous monitoring through regular
data collection and evaluation. The report suggests formalizing these partnerships through
MOUs to clarify roles and areas of responsibilities, scope of work, and modes of data sharing.
170
170
See generally U.S. DEP’T OF EDUCATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL
CLIMATE AND DISCIPLINE, (January 2014), available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline. The guidance further
January 22, 2014 Page 55 of 74
The MOU that currently exists among the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies does
not adequately address training, use of force, data, accountability, or any of the other matters
related to racial and disability disparities outlined in recent federal guidance.
171
The creation of a
new MOU, that is made publicly available on the district and law enforcement agencies’
websites, could greatly reduce current violations and patterns of discrimination if it:
Clearly defines the roles and limitations of SROs, including when they should and should
not become involved in behavior management;
Requires on-going training in areas, including, but not limited to: cultural competency,
adolescent development, working with SWD, students’ rights, deescalating situations
without using physical force, alternatives to arrests and court referrals, and the
consequences of court involvement;
Provides for continuous monitoring through regular data collection and evaluation;
Prohibits school-based arrests and court referrals for minor misbehavior;
Mandates the use of alternative consequences and interventions;
Requires that law enforcement officers have positive experience working with students
prior to being hired as an SRO;
Prohibits the hiring of law enforcement officers who have a history of racial profiling or
excessive force;
Prohibits school-based arrests and court referrals for behaviors that are manifestations of
students’ disabilities;
Prohibits the use of pepper spray, TASERs, and other weapons unless there is an
immediate threat of serious physical injury that cannot be stopped with less harmful
means;
Mandates adequate supervision and oversight; and
Mandates the consideration of racial disparities in arrests and complaints as part of
SROs’ annual performance evaluations.
Comprehensive agreements that contain, among other terms, bright line prohibitions
against arrests and delinquency and criminal complaints for minor offenses committed by
students in schools have been shown to greatly reduce the negative impacts of school policing
while also enhancing student success.
172
For example, in 2004 in Clayton County, Georgia, an
recommends that MOUs between school administrators and SROs delineate clear limits on the scope of an officer’s
responsibilities, specifying that arrests, citations, and court referrals should be used only as a last resort, and never to
address instances of non-violent misbehavior that do not pose a serious and immediate threat to school safety. In
this manner, MOUs could identify and document specific examples of the types of conduct or incidents that do not
meet the definition of an immediate threat to safety, such as tardiness, loitering, use of profanity, dress code
violations, and disruptive or disrespectful behaviors, and schools could thereby reduce students’ involvement in the
juvenile justice, while still allowing SROs to address serious school safety issues.
171
Id.
172
New guidance from the Department of Education strongly recommends that MOUs between school
administrators and SROs delineate clear limits on the scope of an officer’s responsibilities, specifying that arrests,
citations, and court referrals should be used only as a last resort, and never to address instances of non-violent
misbehavior that do not pose a serious and immediate threat to school safety. In this manner, MOUs could identify
and document specific examples of the types of conduct or incidents that do not meet the definition of an immediate
threat to safety, such as tardiness, loitering, use of profanity, dress code violations, and disruptive or disrespectful
January 22, 2014 Page 56 of 74
innovative, cooperative agreement was developed between multiple stakeholders in an effort to
ensure misdemeanor delinquent acts such as fighting, disrupting school, disorderly conduct, most
obstruction of police, and most criminal trespass do not result in the filing of a complaint except
in extreme circumstances. After the implementation of the agreement: the presence of dangerous
weapons on campus decreased by 70%; there was an 87% decrease in fighting offenses and a
36% decrease in disorderly conduct and related offenses; and offense rates for African-American
students decreased by 86% for fighting offenses and by 64% for disruption of school offenses.
Notably, graduation rates increased over the same period of time.
173
Similarly, in Jefferson
County, Alabama, Judge Brian Huff led an effort to replicate the protocol from Clayton
County.
174
After the agreement was implemented, the number of ungovernable, truancy, and
runaway petitions, as well as school-related offenses that were filed in Jefferson County Family
Court, which handles juvenile matters, dropped by nearly 40%, from 4,000 in 2007 to 2,500 in
2011.
175
The unnecessary criminalization of students would be further alleviated through the
implementation of a common set of law enforcement agency policies for all SROs, as well as a
comprehensive set of policies governing WCPSS staff responsibilities in matters related to
school security. Currently, the practices of SROs across Wake County are dictated by the
individual policies of their respective law enforcement agencies. In some cases, these policies
purport to be tailored to the SRO program and working in schools. In other cases, the policies
governing SRO conduct are the same governing the conduct of police officers who patrol the
streets. Accordingly, students in the same school district but in different schools may face
officers who are held to very different sets of standards and protocols. In order to ensure that all
WCPSS students, regardless of the school that they attend, are being served by law enforcement
officers who are consistently held to the same high standards, it is essential that all SROs,
regardless of employer law enforcement agency, operate from a common set of standards.
behaviors, and schools could thereby reduce students’ involvement in the juvenile justice, while still allowing SROs
to address serious school safety issues. Id.
173
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, ENDING THE SCHOOLHOUSE TO JAILHOUSE TRACK, available at
http://safequalityschools.org/pages/clayton-county-ga; THE HONORABLE STEVEN C. TESKE CHIEF JUDGE,
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON “ENDING THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE,” available at
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/12-12-12TeskeTestimony.pdf.
174
ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION, AS SUSPENSIONS, EXPULSIONS AND JUVENILE ARRESTS GROW, JDAI SITES PUSH
BACK ,available at
http://www.aecf.org/MajorInitiatives/JuvenileDetentionAlternativesInitiative/Resources/May10newsletter/FeatureSt
ory.aspx.
175
Eric Velasco, Jefferson County Family Court Judge Brian Huff Saluted on Teen Programs, THE BIRMINGHAM
NEWS, available at http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2012/07/jefferson_county_family_court.html. See also
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT
(February 2013), available at http://safequalityschools.org/resources/entry/Padres-IGA. The Denver Public Schools
and the Denver Police Department entered into a formal Intergovernmental Agreement in order to address concerns
that police were being used to handle minor disciplinary matters. The collaborative agreement makes clear
distinctions between disciplinary issues and crimes, and requires SROs to treat them differently. Specifically, SROs
are required to first attempt to deescalate situations and arrest or issue citations only in cases when it is absolutely
necessary, in accordance with the district’s discipline policy, which explicitly favors restorative practices over law
enforcement intervention in dealing with student behavior. Unless absolutely necessary, discipline problems are to
be left to educators.
January 22, 2014 Page 57 of 74
Similarly, the district has failed to implement a comprehensive school board policy that
more clearly defines the appropriate role of WCPSS staff in facilitating law enforcement
involvement in school-related matters.
176
In order to ensure that there are common standards
across the district to which school staff are held accountable in ensuring disciplinary matters are
not inappropriately delegated to law enforcement officers, the WCPSS could create a board
policy that, among other things:
Establishes clear limits on when school staff may solicit and/or permit the involvement of
law enforcement in handling minor student misbehavior;
Establishes clear limits on when school administrators may permit a student to be
removed from class for law enforcement-related matters;
Establishes clear expectations regarding an administrator’s duty to notify and, absent
exigent circumstances, obtain consent from parents prior to allowing a police officer to
interrogate or search a student;
Establishes that school staff may not permit law enforcement officers to utilize force
against or arrest students in situations where it is the school’s legal duty to accommodate
the child’s disability;
Prohibits school staff from acting at the behest of law enforcement officers in order to
assist the officers in circumventing laws and policies; and
Excludes evidence that was illegally obtained through unlawful searches and
interrogations from use against students in suspension, expulsion, and administrative
transfer proceedings.
In an effort to limit excessive criminalization of its students, the San Francisco Unified
School District (“SFUSD”) revised its Student and Family Handbook to include a provision
aimed at restricting the involvement of police officers in school-based offenses. The provision
reads:
SFUSD recognizes the serious potential consequences for youth of juvenile court
involvement and wishes to avoid unnecessary criminalization of our
students…Staff members and site administrators shall only request police
assistance when (1) necessary to protect the physical safety of students and staff;
(2) required by law; or (3) appropriate to address criminal behavior of persons
other than students. Police involvement should not be requested in a situation that
can be safely and appropriately handled by the District’s internal disciplinary
procedures.
177
ii. Alternatives to Arrests and Court Referrals for Minor Misbehavior
176
In December of 2013, the board approved a policy that purports to dictate how principals are to respond when
non-SRO police officers want to question, search and/or arrest students. This policy does not pertain to interactions
with SROs, nor does it set firm limits, only loose guidelines. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., Board Policy 6605:
Investigations and Arrests by Law Enforcement, WCPSS.NET (December 3, 2013), http://www.wcpss.net/policy-
files/series/policies/6605-bp.html.
177
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT AND FAMILY HANDBOOK, available at
http://www.sfusd.edu/en/assets/sfusd-staff/2012-2013%20Student%20and%20Family%20Handbook%20-
%20English.pdf.
January 22, 2014 Page 58 of 74
Research consistently shows that alternative consequences, such as restorative justice,
restitution, substance abuse treatment, community service, and mandatory counseling, are far
more effective in reducing student misbehavior and promoting school safety than traditional
school policing measures. The WCPSS does not currently have any programs that formally
serve as alternatives to arrest and court referrals. The WCPSS and law enforcement agencies
should ensure the availability and use of alternative programs that better support students and
ensure that disciplinary sanctions are administered by school administrators, not by police
officers, court counselors, or judges.
Across the country, other districts have begun to implement alternatives to traditional
policing models and referrals to court, often with dramatic success. As described above, Clayton
County, Georgia has demonstrated great success in reducing incidences of violent behavior in
school by focusing on alternatives that improve school climate. In Clayton County schools,
students must receive warnings for first offenses and, after a second offense, are referred to
mediation or school conflict training programs. It is not until a student commits a third or
subsequent similar offense during the same school year, and the principal conducts a review of
the student’s behavior plan, that a complaint for school-based delinquent behavior can be
filed.
178
In Philadelphia, a middle school plagued by significant crime successfully improved its
school climate through the implementation of a “noncoercive, nonviolence based safety system”
that removed aggressive security guards, instead implementing "engagement coaches" trained in
nonviolent conflict resolution skills whose role it was to “continually interact[] with children in a
supportive instead of punitive role.”
179
After the implementation of this alternative to traditional
school policing, the number of serious incidents at school fell by 90% within the span of one
year.
180
Miami-Dade and Broward County school districts in Florida are among the most recent
districts to take steps to refer students to counseling or mentoring in order to address
misbehavior, rather than allowing law enforcement to refer those students to the court system.
181
iii. Targeted Recruitment and Screening of Qualified SROs
Under the current contracts and MOU between WCPSS and law enforcement agencies,
the selection of SROs is left entirely to local law enforcement agencies, and the only
qualification required for candidates to become an SRO is that they meet certification
requirements to be a police officer. Accordingly, there are no safeguards to ensure that, even at
the most basic level, the officer has a demonstrated expertise, interest, and commitment to
working with youth or that the officer would be a good match for the unique school environment
to which he or she is assigned.
178
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, ENDING THE SCHOOLHOUSE TO JAILHOUSE TRACK, available at
http://safequalityschools.org/pages/clayton-county-ga; THE HONORABLE STEVEN C. TESKE CHIEF JUDGE,
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON “ENDING THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE,” available at
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/12-12-12TeskeTestimony.pdf.
179
Jeff Deeney, A Philadelphia School’s Big Bet on Nonviolence, THE ATLANTIC, (2013) at
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/07/a-philadelphia-schools-big-bet-on-nonviolence/277893/.
180
Id.
181
David Smiley & Michael Vasquez, Broward, Miami-Dade work to close the ‘school-to-prison pipeline, MIAMI
HERALD, (2013), at http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/11/10/3744981/broward-miami-dade-work-to-close.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 59 of 74
In order to most effectively prevent students from being unnecessarily and
discriminatorily criminalized, it will be crucial for the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies to
require rigorous qualifications in order for an officer to be placed in any school setting.
Experience working with youth and a demonstrated interest and commitment to youth
development should be among the most fundamental of requirements for an SRO to be hired. In
no event should an officer be placed in a school setting against his will or without previous
experience working with youth. Further, no law enforcement officer with a history of racial
profiling or excessive force should ever be stationed in a school setting. Involving school
administrators, parents, students, and community members in the selection of the SRO for a
given school from an approved applicant pool would be one tool for better ensuring an officer
would be a good match for that particular school environment.
iv. Training for SROs, Security Personnel, and School Staff
Research has shown that “most police officers who interact frequently with juveniles are
not benefiting from the wealth of new scientific research available about adolescent brain
development. Nor are police provided information on promising and best practices for
interacting with teens that stems from our growing understanding of how teenagers’ brains differ
from those of adults.”
182
This lack of training is particularly detrimental to outcomes for SWD
and students who have been victims of trauma.
Currently, neither the WCPSS nor law enforcement agencies require on-going training on
adolescent development or any other youth-focused topic for security personnel. One way for
the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies to effectively reduce the negative and discriminatory
impacts of school policing practices in the district is to require mandatory, intensive, on-going
trainings for SROs, security administrators, security guards, and other WCPSS staff on topics
including, but not limited to:
Legal standards for searches, seizures, interrogations, and use of force in schools;
Age-appropriate, collaborative, problem-solving approaches for adults to utilize in
dealing with student behavior, including, but not limited to: Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS);
183
restorative justice;
184
Social and Emotional
Learning;
185
and Think:Kids
186
;
182
If Not Now, When?: A Survey of Juvenile Justice Training in America’s Police Academies, STRATEGIES FOR
YOUTH: CONNECTING COPS AND KIDS, (February 2013), available at
http://strategiesforyouth.org/sfysite/wpcontent/uploads/2013/03/SFYReport_02-2013_rev.pdf.
183
PBIS Frequently Asked Questions, POSITIVE BEHAVIORAL INTERVENTIONS & SUPPORTS,
http://www.pbis.org/pbis_faq.aspx (last visited January 2, 2014); See also Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports (PBIS) Models, DIGNITYINSCHOOLS.ORG (2011), http://www.dignityinschools.org/content/positive-
behavioral-interventions-and-supports-pbis-models (last visited January 2, 2014); N.C. Dep’t. Pub. Instruction,
Positive Behavior Intervention and Support, NCPUBLICSCHOOLS.ORG,
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/positivebehavior/background/ (last visited January 2, 2014).
184
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, OJJDP Model Programs Guide: Restorative Justice, OJJDP.GOV, at
http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg/progTypesRestorative.aspx (last visited January 2, 2014).
185
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, What is Social and Emotional Learning (SEL)?,
CASEL.ORG, http://casel.org/why-it-matters/what-is-sel/ (last visited January 2, 2014).
186
Our Collaborative Problem Solving Approach, THINK:KIDS, at http://www.thinkkids.org/learn/our-
collaborative-problem-solving-approach/ (last visited January 2, 2014).
January 22, 2014 Page 60 of 74
Adolescent development and psychology;
Recognizing and responding appropriately to students who have experienced trauma,
abuse, and exposure to violence;
Properly identifying and refering students exposed to trauma and violence for appropriate
services, including local mental health programs;
Working with students who have disabilities and other special needs and ensuring
protection of their rights under state and federal law;
Cultural competency;
Sexual harassment;
Implicit bias and institutional racism;
De-escalating students without use of unreasonable and excessive physical force;
Using safe restraint techniques;
Maximizing community-based resources;
The short- and long-term consequences for youth of court involvement and arrests;
Strategies for engaging parents; and
Student privacy rights.
Such training of SROs should cover the proper role and responsibilities of officers,
consistent with the school’s written policies or MOU, and officers should be trained on the need
to avoid using law enforcement to address school disciplinary issues. Officers should be trained
specifically on how to distinguish between, and appropriately respond to, disciplinary infractions
appropriately handled by school officials and major threats to safety or serious criminal conduct
that requires law enforcement involvement.
187
v. Training for Students and Parents
In addition to providing training for law enforcement officers and school staff regarding
students’ rights, training students is another crucial step in ensuring these rights are protected.
Specifically, students should be trained in how to respectfully assert their rights to:
be free from unreasonable and excessive force;
refuse to consent to searches not based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause;
remain silent or have their parent or an attorney present during custodial
interrogations; and
have their privacy protected.
Students should further receive training in behaviors that could be construed by law
enforcement officers as being “criminal” and what consequences could result from those
behaviors. They should also receive training in what behaviors are more appropriately construed
as school discipline issues and should be dealt with by school administrators rather than law
enforcement officers.
187
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUCATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL CLIMATE AND
DISCIPLINE, 10 (January 2014), available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline.
January 22, 2014 Page 61 of 74
In addition to training students, the district and law enforcement agencies should likewise
offer training for parents and guardians so that they can better understand the rights and
responsibilities that their students have in schools. Ultimately, training can empower students
and parents to challenge unlawful practices in schools before even more harm occurs.
188
vi. Annual Data Collection and Publication
Neither the WCPSS nor the law enforcement agencies publicly reports, or collects,
according to responses to public records requests, data related to school policing.
189
This
omission is detrimental to parents’, students’, and concerned citizens’ ability to hold the district
and law enforcement agencies accountable for inappropriately criminalizing students, and is in
violation of federal reporting requirements.
190
Recently released school discipline guidance from the U.S. Departments of Education
and Justice outline what form such monitoring of school-based law enforcement programs
should take. The report requires comprehensive data collection on officer activity – specifically
data on any school-based arrests, citations, searches, and referrals. It also stipulates that
disaggregated data on these activities should be publicly reported consistent with applicable
federal, state, and local privacy laws. In addition, the Departments call for schools to review,
analyze, and act on this data to eliminate negative or unintended consequences stemming from
the use of SROs or involvement of local law enforcement officials on school campuses.
191
Whereas the WCPSS has neglected to monitor the impacts of its school policing
programs, districts such as Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools have utilized data collection and
publication as a means for improving school security programs and student outcomes.
According to a police officer with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, data collection
has enabled the Department to focus “not only the number of arrests, but on who is being
arrested and why,” and, through that, to discover “that 49% of school-based arrests were for
minor offenses, a number that was too high and needed to be addressed.”
192
According to the
Department representative, “[w]ithout this real-time, systematic approach to data collection, [it]
would not have been able to develop a strategy for reducing arrests for minor offenses and
slowing the effect of the ‘school to prison’ pipeline.”
193
188
JOHANNA WALD AND LISA THURAU, FIRST, DO NO HARM: HOW EDUCATORS AND POLICE CAN WORK TOGETHER
MORE EFFECTIVELY TO KEEP SCHOOLS SAFE AND PROTECT VULNERABLE STUDENTS, (March 2010)
available at http://strategiesforyouth.org/sfysite/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/do-no-harm.pdf.
189
This allegation is rooted in the fact that this information has never been produced despite numerous public
records requests, and on the fact that the Civil Rights Database Collection website currently reflects no information
regarding school-based arrests, etc. for Wake County.
190
This failure to record and report arrest data to the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection project
is in violation of the 1980 Department of Education Organization Act and 30 C.F.R. 100.6(b) of the Department of
Education Regulation implementing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
191
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUCATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL CLIMATE AND
DISCIPLINE, 11-16 (January 2014), available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline.
192
Paige Buckley, Counting Kids: The Value of Data Collection for Policing Youth Effectively, STRATEGIES FOR
YOUTH: CONNECTING COPS & KIDS, (October 2012), at http://strategiesforyouth.org/counting-kids/.
193
Id.
January 22, 2014 Page 62 of 74
In order for the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies to craft meaningful strategies to
reduce the unnecessary and discriminatory criminalization of students, the entities should collect
data and publish an annual report on school policing to include:
Data about SROs, security administrators, and private security, disaggregated by:
o School(s);
o Employer;
o Years of experience in current position;
o Years of experience as a law enforcement officer;
o Years of experience working with youth;
o Salary;
o Gender;
o Race;
o Age; and
o Type of weapon(s) carried.
Data about school-based searches, interrogations, uses of force, arrests, delinquency
complaints, and criminal complaints disaggregated by:
o Student’s school;
o Student’s grade;
o Student’s age;
o Student’s race;
o Student’s gender;
o Student’s disability status;
o Student’s economic status (e.g. economically disadvantaged vs. not
economically disadvantaged);
o Officer(s) involved;
o School personnel involved;
o Location of incident;
o Alternatives utilized;
o Alleged offense(s); and
o Outcome (e.g., referral to alternative, arrest, or complaint).
vii. Complaint Procedures
Currently, there is no meaningful process in Wake County for students, parents, and staff
to seek remedies when SROs or other law enforcement officers engage in misconduct on school
grounds. This lack of a meaningful complaint process is all the more concerning in light of the
fact that law enforcement and school staff actions related to school policing are not carefully
monitored. The WCPSS has a grievance policy and process, but it is only applicable to school
district employees. SROs are not technically WCPSS employees – even though they are
partially funded by the district – because they are employees of local law enforcement agencies.
Moreover, the law enforcement agencies’ internal affairs policies and processes are not well-
publicized and are largely ineffective means of seeking relief.
January 22, 2014 Page 63 of 74
To ensure that students’ rights are protected, the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies
should create a standardized, well-publicized, easy-to-use complaint system that requires, in
response to all grievances, timely investigations and written findings by the superintendent or
area superintendents, as well as the option to appeal the matter to the Board of Education.
Notably, the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice have specifically called for schools to
develop a complaint process that allows student or community concerns about officer activities
to be efficiently raised and addressed.
194
In addition, this measure has been successfully implemented in other districts that have
sought to reduce criminalization of students and racial disparities. In 2012, in response to citizen
concerns regarding police presence and misconduct in schools, the Oakland School Police
Department enacted a policy allowing for citizen complaints so as to increase police
accountability in local schools. Under the policy, citizens have multiple mechanisms for filing
complaints, including online, via mail, and in person. Anonymous complaints are permitted.
Investigations must be conducted and written reports to complaints generally must be made
within 45 days. Complainants can appeal police reports to the superintendent, who must
investigate the appeal and issue written findings. Complainants may then appeal to the Board of
Education, which must also issue written findings. Forms have been created in six languages for
the community to report officers behaving inappropriately, to report officers who handled
situations exceptionally well, and to make general recommendations. Forms and flyers
explaining the process are required to be available in every school in the district. Finally, the
Office of the Chief of Police is required to prepare a detailed, semi-annual statistical summary of
grievances.
195
viii. Community Involvement and Oversight
Across the country, school districts and police departments are partnering with
community stakeholders in implementing innovative solutions to ending the school-to-prison
pipeline. Below are some examples of how districts are utilizing community involvement to end
unnecessary criminalization of students and reduce disparities:
In Broward County, Florida, community stakeholders and the local school district
recently signed a collaborative agreement to work together to eliminate harmful
discipline practices and disparities.
196
194
U.S. DEP’T OF EDUCATION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES: A RESOURCE GUIDE FOR IMPROVING SCHOOL CLIMATE AND
DISCIPLINE, 11 (January 2014), available at www.ed.gov/school-discipline.
195
PUBLIC COUNSEL LAW CENTER, FAQS ABOUT THE OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICE COMPLAINT
POLICY AND COMPLAINT FORM, available at http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/FAQ-on-Oakland-
School-Police-Complaints.pdf; Michael Soller, Oakland Local, Oakland Students, Parents Say New School Police
Complaint Policy Gives Them a Voice, OAKLAND LOCAL.COM (Sept. 11, 2012),
http://oaklandlocal.com/article/oakland-students-parents-say-new-school-police-complaint-policy-gives-them-voice-
community-v; Oakland School Police Complaints Process, Black Organizing Project, available at
http://blackorganizingproject.wordpress.com/bettering-our-school-system-b-o-s-s/oakland-school-police-
complaints-process/.
196
COLLABORATIVE AGREEMENT ON SCHOOL DISCIPLINE (November 5, 2013), available at
http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/db79d1858f4c5f3e13_7hm6bq78b.pdf; San Diego Voice, NAACP Brokers
Groundbreaking Agreement to Close School to Prison Pipeline in Broward County, (November 2013), at
http://sdvoice.info/naacp-brokers-groundbreaking-agreement-to-close-school-to-prison-pipeline-in-broward-county/.
January 22, 2014 Page 64 of 74
In Denver, Colorado, the school system and police department have entered into an
agreement requiring, among other things, that SROs meet with community stakeholders
each semester so as to discuss concerns and get feedback on ways to improve the
program in schools.
197
In Clayton County, Georgia, a team of stakeholders from the juvenile justice system, law
enforcement, the local school system, and social services groups collaboratively created
an agreement to reduce the criminalization of students for minor misbehavior. The team
reviewed data, solicited input, and educated stakeholders on best practices. The team
also created a multidisciplinary panel to assess the needs of students at risk for referral to
law enforcement, and to refer the students to services outside of the school, such as
family therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and wrap-around services.
198
Community-based organizations, such as some of the Complainants, can be involved via
a community-based oversight panel or civilian review board that includes students, parents,
teachers, administrators, advocates, and law enforcement agency representatives charged with:
Monitoring the implementation of the MOU and school board policy;
Reviewing school policing data;
Hearing complaints about SROs and security staff (e.g., MOU violations, illegal
searches and seizures, discrimination, excessive force, etc.); and
Meeting with SROs and security staff each semester to review concerns and provide
feedback.
School policing experts have specifically lauded the value of a community board being charged
with “regularly review[ing] all school-based incidents leading to law enforcement intervention to
ensure that no abuses, racial profiling, or other targeting of certain students or groups of students
is taking place.”
199
In addition to community groups overseeing the actions of SROs, authorities at the state
and federal levels should likewise be closely monitoring potential abuses of students’ rights.
Policing experts recommend that “schools where more than 3% of the students have been
arrested or summoned by SROs should trigger an immediate audit by the state Department of
Education and the Attorney General’s office” who should in turn “investigate the number of
charges, the kinds of behavior being charged, the types of students who are being charged,
197
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DENVER POLICE DEPARTMENT
(February 2013), available at http://safequalityschools.org/resources/entry/Padres-IGA.
198
ADVANCEMENT PROJECT, ENDING THE SCHOOLHOUSE TO JAILHOUSE TRACK, available at
http://safequalityschools.org/pages/clayton-county-ga; THE HONORABLE STEVEN C. TESKE CHIEF JUDGE,
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING ON “ENDING THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE,” available at
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/12-12-12TeskeTestimony.pdf.
199
JOHANNA WALD AND LISA THURAU, FIRST, DO NO HARM: HOW EDUCATORS AND POLICE CAN WORK TOGETHER
MORE EFFECTIVELY TO KEEP SCHOOLS SAFE AND PROTECT VULNERABLE STUDENTS, (March 2010)
available at http://strategiesforyouth.org/sfysite/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/do-no-harm.pdf.
January 22, 2014 Page 65 of 74
whether charges are being overused in certain schools and by certain school officials, and the use
of alternative sanctions that will not result in criminal records.”
200
VII. Longstanding Efforts to Collaboratively Reform Harmful Policing Policies and
Practices
Despite over four years of active advocacy efforts targeted at educating WCPSS students,
parents, and policymakers – as well as law enforcement officials – on the ongoing issues of
students’ rights being violated and widening discriminatory disparities caused by school policing
in Wake County, neither the local law enforcement agencies nor the district have taken the steps
necessary to address the growing problems in Wake County. Below is a non-exhaustive list of
previous attempts to educate and work collaboratively with the district in remedying
discrimination and violations of students’ rights:
December 2009: Advocates for Children’s Services (ACS) – a project of Legal Aid of
North Carolina and complainant – published an issue brief titled, Zero Tolerance for the
School-to-Prison Pipeline in Wake County: Magnitude of the Crisis;
201
July 2010: ACS published report titled, Research-Based Recommendations for Improving
School Discipline in Wake County Public Schools,
202
and then presented the
recommendations to the school board;
203
February 2011: ACS and the UNC Juvenile Justice Clinic published a report titled, Law
Enforcement Officers in Wake County: The Human, Educational, and Financial Costs;
204
June 2011: ACS contacted the WCPSS Superintendent about concerns regarding the
renewal of SRO contracts;
August 2011: ACS wrote the WCPSS Board of Education a letter about an inadequate
evaluation of the SRO program;
December 2011: ACS and local community partners published a white paper about SROs
in WCPSS, which was accompanied by letters of support, a bibliography, news articles,
and stories of impacted families;
205
200
JOHANNA WALD AND LISA THURAU, FIRST, DO NO HARM: HOW EDUCATORS AND POLICE CAN WORK TOGETHER
MORE EFFECTIVELY TO KEEP SCHOOLS SAFE AND PROTECT VULNERABLE STUDENTS, (March 2010)
available at http://strategiesforyouth.org/sfysite/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/do-no-harm.pdf.
201
Jason Langberg & Cary Brege, Zero Tolerance for the School-to-Prison Pipeline in Wake County: Magnitude of
the Crisis, (Dec. 2009), at http://www.indyweek.com/pdf/081810/WakeSTPPIssueBrief.pdf.
202
Research-Based Recommendations for Improving School Discipline in Wake County Public Schools, Advocates
for Children’s Services of Legal Aid of North Carolina, (July 2010), available at
http://www.indyweek.com/pdf/081810/RecommendationsForWCPSSBoardofEducationFinal.pdf.
203
T. Keung Hui, Wake schools hear ideas on discipline, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (July 2010),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/30/603844/wake-schools-hear-ideas-on-discipline.html.
204
JASON LANGBERG, BARBARA FEDDERS, & DREW KUKOROWSKI, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS IN WAKE COUNTY
SCHOOLS: THE HUMAN, EDUCATIONAL, AND FINANCIAL COSTS (2011), available at
http://www.legalaidnc.org/public/ACS/IssueBrief_Feb-11_SROs_Rev.pdf; T. Keung Hui, Limits proposed on
school police, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (February 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/04/966971/limits-
proposed-on-school-police.html; T. Keung Hui, Report calls Wake to limit use of police officers in schools,
NEWSOBSERVER.COM (February 2011), http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/02/03/966087/report-calls-wake-to-
limit-use.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 66 of 74
January 2012: ACS published an op-ed commenting on, among other school-related
issues, the insufficient MOU;
206
March 2012: ACS and families of students who had been physically harmed by SROs
met with then school board chair Kevin Hill regarding concerns about SROs;
April 2012: ACS contacted the WCPSS Board of Education with concerns related to the
SRO program;
September 2012: ACS and one of its community partners met with WCPSS Security
Director Russ Smith and then Assistant Superintendent, Judith Peppler. Subsequently,
ACS sent a letter to then school board chair Kevin Hill detailing concerns regarding the
meeting and the apparent lack of oversight of the SROs in the WCPSS.
January 2013: Community advocates contacted the WCPSS School Board regarding its
unstudied proposal to add more private security guards.
207
April-May 2013: ACS participated on the WCPSS Task Force for Safer Schools in Wake
County and shared concerns related to school policing;
208
May 2013: ACS and a UNC Law professor published commentary titled, School Safety in
North Carolina: Realities, Recommendations & Resources, in response to the N.C.
Center for Safer Schools’ request for public input on school safety issues. The
commentary was sent to the WCPSS Board of Education;
209
August 2013: ACS published a report titled, The State of the School-to-Prison Pipeline in
the Wake County Public School System;
210
November 2013: ACS emailed board about Broward County developments.
VIII. Conclusion
The WCPSS and law enforcement agencies’ school policing policies and practices violate
rights guaranteed to students under the U.S. Constitution, and unlawfully discriminate against
African-American students and SWD in violation of Title IV, Title VI, Section 504, and the
ADA. Complainants respectfully request that the Department of Justice fully investigate these
claims and require the WCPSS and law enforcement agencies to cease their discriminatory
policies and practices and adopt policies and practices that are administered in a manner that
does not harm students or discriminate against African-American students and SWD.
205
School Resource Officers White Paper, Advocates for Children’s Services of Legal Aid of North Carolina
(December 2011), available at
http://www.newsobserver.com/content/media/2012/4/30/SRO%20White%20Paper.pdf.
206
Jason Langberg, Better school discipline, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (January 2012),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/23/1793346/better-school-discipline.html.
207
T. Keung Hui, Wake may add security guards at elementary schools, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (January 2013),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/19/2618314/wake-may-add-security-guards-at.html.
208
Wake Cnty. Pub. Sch. Sys., Task Force for Creating Safer Schools in Wake County Materials, WCPSS.NET
https://www.wcpss.net/about-us/our-leadership/board-of-education/task-force-safer-schools/ (last visited January 10,
2014).
209
BARBARA FEDDERS, JASON LANGBERG, & JENNIFER STORY, SCHOOL SAFETY IN NORTH CAROLINA: REALITIES,
RECOMMENDATIONS & RESOURCES (2013), available at
http://www.legalaidnc.org/public/learn/media_releases/2013_MediaReleases/school-safety-in-north-carolina.pdf.
210
T. Keung Hui, Report critical of Wake school discipline policies, NEWSOBSERVER.COM (August 2013),
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/08/19/3119031/report-critical-of-wake-school.html.
January 22, 2014 Page 67 of 74
Respectfully submitted:
Jennifer Story, Push Out Prevention Project Legal Fellow
Attorney for L.H. and T.S.
Advocates for Children’s Services
Legal Aid of North Carolina
P.O. Box 2101
Durham, NC 27702
919-226-5921
[email protected]
Jason Langberg, Supervising Attorney
Attorney for J.K. and T.W.’s Mother
Advocates for Children’s Services
Legal Aid of North Carolina
P.O. Box 2101
Durham, NC 27702
919-226-5901
[email protected]
Christine Bischoff, Staff Attorney
Attorney for T.S.
Education & Law Project
North Carolina Justice Center
P.O. Box 28068
Raleigh, NC 27611
919-856-3195
[email protected]
Erwin Byrd, Adjunct Professor
Attorney for K.H.
Juvenile Law Clinic
North Carolina Central University School of Law
640 Nelson Street
Durham, NC 27707
919-923-3232
[email protected]
Barbara Fedders, Clinical Assistant Professor of Law
Attorney for P.D.
UNC Juvenile Justice Clinic
University of North Carolina School of Law
160 Ridge Road
3062 Van Hecke-Wettach Hall
919-962-2623
[email protected]
January 22, 2014 Page 68 of 74
Brenda Berlin, Supervising Attorney
Duke Children’s Law Clinic
Duke University School of Law
210 Science Drive, Box 90360
Durham, NC 27708
919-613-7104
[email protected]
Daniel Losen, Director
Center for Civil Rights Remedies
Civil Rights Project at UCLA
20 Hillcrest Avenue
Lexington, MA 02420
781-861-1222
[email protected]
Shakti Belway, Consulting Attorney
Center for Civil Rights Remedies
Civil Rights Project at UCLA
P.O. Box 19974
New Orleans, LA 70179
504-333-6877
[email protected]
Calla Wright, Executive Director
Coalition of Concerned Citizens for African American Children
P.O. Box 14123
Raleigh, NC 27620
919-413-7397
[email protected]
Rukiya Dillahunt, Leadership Team
Education Justice Alliance
Need address
919-749-1692
[email protected]
Qasima Wideman, Youth Organizer
North Carolina Heroes Emerging Among Teens
804 Old Fayetteville Street
Durham, NC 27701
919-760-7088
[email protected]
January 22, 2014 Page 69 of 74
Diana Powell, Executive Director
Justice Served NC, Inc.
4909 Waters Edge Drive Suite 208
Raleigh, NC 27606
919-492-4068,
[email protected]
Caitlin Swain, Staff Attorney
Advancement Project
1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20005
202-728-9557f
[email protected]
Leah Kang, Staff Attorney
Advancement Project
1220 L Street, NW, Suite 850
Washington, DC 20005
202-728-9557
[email protected]
Courtney Bowie
Senior Staff Attorney
Racial Justice Program
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad St., New York, NY 10004
212-549-2682
[email protected]
Raul Pinto, Staff Attorney
American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina Legal Foundation
PO Box 28004
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919) 834-3466
[email protected]
J. Fernando Martinez, National Field Organizer
Dignity in Schools Campaign
90 John St, Suite 308
New York, NY 10038
(919) 594-1338
[email protected]
January 22, 2014 Page 70 of 74
Mark Dorosin
University of North Carolina’s Center for Civil Rights, Managing Attorney
323 West Barbee Chapel Road
Chapel Hill, NC 27517-7513
919-445-0174
[email protected]
Rev. Dr. William J. Barber, II, President
Irving Joyner, Legal Redress Chair
Jamie Phillips Cole, Legal Redress Coordinator
North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
P.O. Box 335
Durham, NC 27702
Phone: 919-682-4700
[email protected]
Rev. Dr. Portia Rochelle, President
Raleigh-Apex Branch of the NAACP
919-662-5006
[email protected]
Charles Upchurch, President
Wendell-Wake County Branch of the NAACP
919-833-9315
[email protected]
January 22, 2014 Page 71 of 74
Advancement Project is a next generation, multi-racial civil rights organization that advances
universal opportunity and a just democracy for all. Advancement Project believes that
sustainable progress can be made when multiple tools—law, policy analysis, strategic
communications, and research— are coordinated with grassroots movements. For the past ten
years, Advancement Project has focused on the use and devastating effects of harsh school
discipline policies and practices and the increased role of law enforcement in public schools. We
work at both the national level and with local grassroots organizations throughout the country to
support work on the ground, build capacity for community-led work, and build bridges amongst
those working to end the School-to-Prison Pipeline.
Advocates for Children’s Services (ACS) is a statewide project of Legal Aid of North
Carolina (LANC). LANC is a statewide, nonprofit law firm that provides free legal services in
civil matters to low-income people in order to ensure equal access to justice and to remove
barriers to economic opportunity. ACS’ mission is to fundamentally transform the public
education system into one that empowers all children with the knowledge, skills, and experiences
necessary to be responsible citizens and critical, courageous, creative thinkers. ACS staff work to
dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline and achieve education justice through legal advocacy,
community education, and collaboration. For the past four years, ACS has operated a special
project based in Wake County called the Push Out Prevention Project (POPP). The goals of
POPP include: Reducing suspensions and school-based court referrals; Improving the quality of
alternative education programs; Improving the qualifications, trainings, limitations, and oversight
of school resource officers; Reducing the disparate push out of low wealth students, students of
color, and students with disabilities; and increasing transparency and accountability through
improved data collection and publication and community oversight
The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (ACLU) is a nationwide, nonprofit,
nonpartisan organization with more than 550,000 members dedicated to the principles of liberty
and equality embodied in the Constitution and this nation’s civil rights laws. The ACLU and its
affiliates throughout the country work daily in the courts and in legislatures to safeguard the
rights of children in school. The ACLU has identified the “school to prison pipeline,” a set of
policies and practices that render at-risk youth more likely to become incarcerated than to receive
a high school diploma, as a major civil rights challenge of our time. The ACLU is committed to
ensuring that youth in public schools obtain the constitutional protections to which they are
entitled. In support of this commitment, the ACLU has appeared in numerous cases students’
rights cases before the Supreme Court and in federal district courts throughout the country. This
work is a priority for the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program.
The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU-NC) is the North Carolina
state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the ACLU-NC Legal Foundation
(ACLU-NCLF) is the 501(c)(3) arm of the ACLU-NC that coordinates and carries out its legal
and educational work around civil liberties issues. The North Carolina affiliate of the ACLU was
founded in 1965, is based in Raleigh, and has grown to approximately 10,000 members and
supporters statewide. Our mission is to preserve and defend the guarantees of individual liberty
found in the North Carolina Constitution and the US Constitution, with particular emphasis on
freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, equal protection under law for
all people, the right to privacy, the right to due process of law, and the right to be free from
January 22, 2014 Page 72 of 74
unreasonable search and seizure. As an organization dedicated to the ideals presented in the
North Carolina and U.S. constitutions, we seek to help all students to achieve equal access to
educational opportunity, including protection of all students’ rights. Our organization has voiced
strong opposition to the proliferation of School Resource Officers in the Wake County Public
School System in the past, as well as concerns over the disparate impact that school based
referrals into the juvenile justice and criminal justice system have on African American versus
white students.
The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the Civil Rights Project at UCLA is dedicated to
improving educational opportunities and outcomes for children from subgroups who have been
discriminated against historically due to their race/ethnicity, and who are frequently subjected to
exclusionary practices such as disciplinary removal, over-representation in special education, and
reduced access to a college-bound curriculum. The Center conducts new research to identify
problems or issues with educational policy or it's implementation, takes direct action to improve
policy, and enhances the capacity of advocates to press for successful remedies at the local, state
and federal levels. We develop research-based remedies relevant to policymakers and educators,
models for federal and state legislation, requests for administrative action, and supports to civil
rights groups, state agencies and local educational organizations actively engaged in the remedy
process.
The Coalition of Concerned Citizens for African-American Children (CCCAAC) is a parent
based organization advocating for students who attend public schools. Our goal is to empower
parents to become effective advocates for their children while providing them with information
on Wake County Public School System's laws policies, and procedures that govern our children,
and to assist parents in helping their children make choices that will enhance their children's
educational opportunities. The CCCAAC believes all children should receive a quality
education that will give them the skills necessary to become productive citizens in today's
society.
The Dignity in Schools Campaign (DSC) is a national coalition of 75 organizations from 22
states that challenges the systemic problem of push-out in our nation's schools and advocates for
the human right of every young person to a quality education and to be treated with dignity. The
DSC unites parents, youth, advocates and educators to support alternatives to a culture of zero-
tolerance, punishment and removal in our schools. We advocate for positive approaches to
school climate and discipline, such as restorative practices and School-Wide Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) that create safer, more supportive school communities and
improve educational outcomes.
The Duke Children's Law Clinic is a community law office that provides free legal advice,
advocacy, and representation to low-income children in 11 counties in North Carolina. The clinic
is staffed by upper-level Duke Law students and two supervising attorneys who are Duke Law
faculty members. The primary areas of expertise of the clinic are in the areas of school
discipline, special education, and children's disability (specifically, SSI). Most of the work of
the clinic involves individual representation of students, and on average, the clinic represents
about 100 children a year in individual cases. However the Clinic also engages in policy work
and advocacy on the local and state level. Finally, the Clinic is a partner in a Medical-Legal
January 22, 2014 Page 73 of 74
Partnership for Children in which area pediatricians and their staffs are trained with regard to
legal issues facing their patients, and given the ability to refer those patients for legal
representation.
The Education Justice Alliance (EJA) is a group of concerned individuals in Wake County
working for a reduction in the number of public school students pushed off the academic track
through unfair suspensions, harsh discipline policies, and academic failure. EJA is a non-
partisan grassroots group that participates in civic engagement efforts. EJA works for an
educational system that is effective, equitable, and inclusive. We promote racial, socio-
economic, and gender equity. We seek to decrease unfair suspensions and expulsions, and to
improve positive approaches to discipline that meet the academic, social, and emotional needs of
all students.
Justice Served NC, Inc. is a grassroots initiative in North Carolina providing empowerment
programs to re-entry youth between the ages of 14-24. Our team provides a 24 month program
that highlights confidence building, court system education, career development, resource
allocation and referral services to ensure that the youth populations that we serve successfully
transition back into society.
Founded in 1909, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
is the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. Its members throughout the United
States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities. The NC
Conference of NAACP Branches is 70 years old this year and is made up of over 100 Adult,
Youth and College NAACP units across the state, convenes the more than 160 members of than
Historic Thousands on Jones Street (HKonJ) Peoples Assembly Coalition, and is the architect of
the Moral Monday & Forward Together Movement.
The North Carolina Central University’s Juvenile Law Clinic represents juveniles on
reviews, misdemeanors and felonies in the county court system, and youths facing long-term
suspension in Durham Public Schools. The clinic was created in response to the epidemic of
juveniles who are falling between the cracks in the juvenile justice system. Its mission is to train
and educate lawyers to serve the needs of juvenile offenders in a holistic manner.
North Carolina Heroes Emerging Among Teens (NC HEAT) is a youth-led organization. We
are a multicultural group of youth seeking a common purpose: civil rights, human rights, and
justice in our communities and our public schools. We use peer education and organizing
campaigns to advocate for youth liberation. This often means defending schools against
destructive cut-backs, privatization and austerity. It further aims to end to the school-to-prison
pipeline, promote safety & security for LGBTQ students, and secure resources and equality for
immigrant youth.
The North Carolina Justice Center is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, working on issues
concerning low-income North Carolinians. As a leading progressive research and advocacy
organization, our mission is to eliminate poverty in North Carolina by ensuring that every
household in the state has access to the resources, services, and fair treatment it needs to achieve
economic security. The Education and Law Project of the NC Justice Center seeks to improve
January 22, 2014 Page 74 of 74
and reform public education from pre-K to 12th grade through policy advocacy, community
outreach, and litigation. We are committed to ensuring that all students-- including minority
students, low-income students, at-risk students, and students with disabilities -- have access to a
high-quality education. We provide legal assistance to families that encounter barriers to
accessing public schools or obtaining necessary educational supports for their students. The
Education and Law Project is also involved in litigation involving the state constitutional right to
a sound, basic education; virtual charter schools; students with disabilities; and school
vouchers.
The University of North Carolina Juvenile Justice Clinic (UNC JJC) represents youth in
delinquency proceedings, criminal cases, and school exclusion proceedings in the Triangle area
of North Carolina. UNC JJC faculty write and lecture in a broad range of areas related to youth
justice at the local, state, and national level. The clinic also engages in law reform and policy
projects.
The University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights strives to make America's promise
of justice and opportunity a reality by helping excluded communities transcend institutionalized
boundaries of race, class and place. Through legal representation outreach, research and
litigation, the Center works to address the discrimination that limits opportunities for African
American and low wealth individuals, families and communities.
