Gabbard v. Madison Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 30 March 2020
• Docket Number: NO. CA2019-03-051,CA2019-03-051
• Citation: 153 N.E.3d 471,2020 Ohio 1180
• Parties: Erin G. GABBARD, et al., Appellants, v. MADISON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

153 N.E.3d 471

2020 Ohio 1180

Erin G. GABBARD, et al., Appellants,

v.MADISON LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Appellees.

NO. CA2019-03-051

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler County.

March 30, 2020

OPINION

RINGLAND, J.

{¶ 1} Appellants, Erin Gabbard and several other parents of students enrolled in the Madison Local School District (collectively, "Gabbard"), appeal from the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment to Madison Local School District Board of Education and Madison Local School District Superintendent Dr. Lisa Tuttle-Huff (collectively, "Madison Local"). For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

{¶ 2} In the aftermath of a 2016 school shooting at the Madison Junior-Senior High School, Madison Local passed a resolution that allowed it to authorize several Madison Local School District employees to carry concealed firearms into the Madison Local School District's school safety zones.¹ Madison Local claimed authority for this resolution on application of R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a), a criminal statute that excludes certain individuals from the offense of possessing a deadly weapon in a school safety zone.

{¶ 3} The persons authorized by Madison Local to carry concealed firearms under this resolution were deemed "approved volunteers" employed by the Madison Local School District who were licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Ohio and who had undergone 24 hours of active shooter/killer training. The authorized employees had also completed and passed a criminal background check, a drug screen, and a mental health evaluation.

{¶ 4} The training requirement passed by Madison Local differs from the requirement passed by the General Assembly set forth in R.C. 109.78(D). Pursuant to that provision:

No public or private educational institution * * * shall employ a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty, who has not received a certificate of having satisfactorily completed an approved basic peace officer training program, unless the person has completed twenty years of active duty as a peace officer.

{¶ 5} The Ohio Peace Officer Training Commission ("OPOTC") governs basic peace officer training in Ohio. The OPOTC sets rules and approves programs for certified peace officer training. Training takes place at the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy ("OPOTA") or an approved local police academy. Martucci v. Akron Civ. Serv. Comm. , 194 Ohio App.3d 174, 2011-Ohio-1782, 955 N.E.2d 404, ¶ 2 (9th Dist.) ; R.C. 109.75(A) (allowing the executive director of OPOTC to approve peace officer training schools); R.C. 109.79 (establishing OPOTA). This training requires a minimum of 728 hours of training, divided into units and subunits. Ohio Adm.Code 109:2-1-16. Individuals must also pass a criminal background check, a physical fitness test, and a drug screen. The purpose of OPOTA training is "to provide the student with a strong basic knowledge of the role, function, and practices of a peace officer." Id.

{¶ 6} After Madison Local passed the resolution, Gabbard moved for a permanent injunction estopping Madison Local from implementing the resolution unless the employees completed an approved basic peace officer training program in accordance with R.C. 109.78(D). Gabbard also sought the public disclosure of certain court documents that Madison Local had provided to the trial court under seal. This included, among other documents, the mental health evaluations of the Madison Local School District employees authorized to carry concealed weapons in accordance with the resolution passed by Madison Local.

{¶ 7} Following discovery, both Gabbard and Madison Local moved for summary judgment on Gabbard's request for a permanent injunction. In addition, Madison Local moved for a protective order restricting the disclosure of the mental health evaluations. After taking the matter under advisement, the trial court granted Madison Local's request for a protective order. The trial court also granted Madison Local's motion for summary judgment on the Gabbard's request for a permanent injunction of the resolution. Gabbard now appeals, raising two assignments of error for review.

{¶ 8} Assignment of Error No. 1:

{¶ 9} THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE RESOLUTION, WHICH REQUIRES ONLY 24 HOURS OF TRAINING FOR ARMED STAFF, DOES NOT VIOLATE R.C. 109.78(D).

{¶ 10} In the first assignment of error, Gabbard argues the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of Madison Local. We sustain Gabbard's first assignment of error.

{¶ 11} This court reviews summary judgment decisions de novo. Ludwigsen v. Lakeside Plaza, L.L.C. , 12th Dist. Madison No. CA2014-03-008, 2014-Ohio-5493, 2014 WL 7014717, ¶ 8. Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper when (1) there are no genuine issues of material fact to be litigated, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law and, (3) when all evidence is construed most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, reasonable minds can come to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party. Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc. , 82 Ohio St. 3d 367, 369-70, 696 N.E.2d 201 (1998).

{¶ 12} The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Robinson v. Cameron , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2014-09-191, 2015-Ohio-1486, 2015 WL 1774358, ¶ 9. Once this burden is met, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden to set forth specific facts showing there is some genuine issue of material fact yet remaining for the trier of fact to resolve. Id. In determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the evidence must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party. Vanderbilt v. Pier 27, L.L.C. , 12th Dist. Butler, 2013-Ohio-5205, 2 N.E.3d 966, ¶ 8.

{¶ 13} In construing a statute, the primary goal "is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature as expressed in the statute." Stewart v. Vivian , 12th Dist. Clermont, 2016-Ohio-2892, 64 N.E.3d 606, ¶ 44. Legislative intent is determined from the plain language of the statute. Summerville v. Forest Park , 128 Ohio St.3d 221, 2010-Ohio-6280, 943 N.E.2d 522, ¶ 18. "If the meaning of the statute is unambiguous and definite, it must be applied as written and no further interpretation is necessary." State ex rel. Savarese v. Buckeye Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. , 74 Ohio St.3d 543, 545, 660 N.E.2d 463 (1996). However, when a statute is ambiguous, a court must interpret the statute to determine the General Assembly's intent. Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Dayton Freight Lines, Inc. , 112 Ohio St.3d 52, 2006-Ohio-6498, 858 N.E.2d 324, ¶ 15. Therefore, when interpreting a statute, the threshold question is whether the statute at issue is ambiguous. Jacobson v. Kaforey , 149 Ohio St.3d 398, 2016-Ohio-8434, 75 N.E.3d 203, ¶ 8.

{¶ 14} This matter does not call upon the court to decide the wisdom of permitting concealed firearms in a school safety zone. Rather, the issue is how much training a teacher or school employee must receive before carrying a firearm into a school safety zone while on duty, a matter that the General Assembly has decided. As noted above, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 109.78(D), which provides:

No public or private educational institution * * * shall employ a person as a special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty, who has not received a certificate of having satisfactorily completed an approved basic peace officer training program, unless the person has completed twenty years of active duty as a peace officer.

{¶ 15} Despite R.C. 109.78(D), Madison Local maintains that R.C. 2923.122 permits them to authorize any individual, including its staff, to carry weapons on school property. R.C. 2923.122 prohibits a person from knowingly possessing a deadly weapon or firearm in a school safety zone. The General Assembly crafted several exceptions including, in relevant part:

any other person who has written authorization from the board of education or governing body of a school to convey deadly weapons or dangerous ordnance into a school safety zone or to possess a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in a school safety zone and who conveys or possesses the deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance in accordance with that authorization

R.C. 2923.122(D)(1)(a).

{¶ 16} Following review, we find that R.C. 2923.122 does not provide Madison Local with authority to enact a resolution above the clear and unambiguous dictates of R.C. 109.78(D). Contrary to the trial court's decision, R.C. 109.78(D) and R.C. 2923.122 do not conflict with one another and this court must apply the statutes as written.

{¶ 17} The plain and unambiguous language found in R.C. 109.78(D) makes clear that the Madison Local is prohibited from employing a person as a "special police officer, security guard, or other position in which such person goes armed while on duty " unless that person has either completed an approved basic peace officer training program or has 20 years of active duty as a peace officer. While Madison Local asks this court to consider rules of statutory interpretation and find ambiguity in the phrase "other position in which such person goes armed while on duty," we find that such a request would violate this court's duty to apply, not interpret, an unambiguous statute. Jacobson , 149 Ohio St.3d 398, 2016-Ohio-8434, 75 N.E.3d 203 at ¶ 8, citing Sears v. Weimer , 143 Ohio St. 312, 55 N.E.2d 413 (1944), paragraph five of the syllabus; Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Smyth , 87 Ohio St.3d 549, 553, 721 N.E.2d 1057 (2000) ("[w]hen the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no need for this court to apply the rules of...