LPM v. School Bd. of Seminole County

Decision Date21 January 2000
Docket NumberNo. 5D99-345.,5D99-345.
Citation753 So.2d 130
PartiesL.P.M. and J.D.T., Appellants, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF SEMINOLE COUNTY, Florida, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

Howard S. Marks of Graham, Clark, Jones, Builder, Pratt & Marks, Winter Park, and Robert W. Smith, Orlando, for Appellants.

Ned N. Julian, Jr., Sanford, for Appellee.

ORFINGER, M., Senior Judge.

L.P.M. and J.D.T., both former students at Seminole High School, appeal an order of the Seminole County School Board confirming their suspension for 30 days from all extracurricular school activities (but not from school) for violation of the "Citizenship Standards For Participation in School Sponsored Extra-Curricular Activities" (Citizenship Standards) by drinking alcoholic beverages off campus. We affirm.

Appellants were students at Seminole High School (SHS) and played on the football team. Section 3(a) of the "Zero Tolerance" policy of the School Board proscribes possession or being under the influence of alcoholic beverages. The Citizenship Standards provides, in pertinent part:

Off Campus: A student who, while off-campus, is found to have committed any act identified under Section 3(a) of the Zero Tolerance Policy (File JGE) shall be subject to the consequences related to extra-curricular activities listed below for each violation:
First Violation—suspension from all school sponsored extra-curricular activities, including practice and tryouts, for 30 school days.

* * *

On September 8, 1998, Gretchen Schapker, principal of Seminole High School, was informed that students had been drinking alcohol at the beach on the Labor Day holiday. Based on this information, Schapker began an investigation. Schapker spoke with several students, including L.P.M. and J.D.T. (whose names had come up during her investigation), and obtained written statements from them. L.P.M. admitted in his written statements that at the beach on Labor Day he "drank too much and with no food I got sick and passed out"; the statements of other students confirmed that L.P.M. was visibly drunk at the beach. J.D.T. did not admit to drinking, but the statements of other students indicated that J.D.T. either drank or supplied alcohol to others; for example, one of L.P.M.'s statements provides in part that J.D.T. "got into the truck with a bottle of vodka" and L.P.M., J.D.T., and others "drank it on the way to the beach" although J.D.T. "didn't drink that much." Schapker spoke to L.P.M.'s father on the afternoon of Tuesday, September 8; she informed him of what she had learned, and he confirmed that L.P.M. had arrived home from the beach on Monday "pretty rough."

On Wednesday, September 9, Schapker suspended L.P.M. from football practice, and she suspended J.D.T. from practice on Thursday, September 10. However, after these two days, Schapker, either realizing or being told that the suspension was premature, rescinded the suspensions and apparently appellants resumed practice and game participation immediately.1 On September 14, Schapker sent letters to appellants' parents and the parents of three other students regarding an alleged violation of the Citizenship Standards applicable to athletes. The letters informed the parents of the alleged violation and Schapker's investigation thereof; referred to a telephone conversation that Schapker apparently had with each parent; informed the parents of the right to a hearing; and enclosed a copy of the Citizenship Standards.

On September 28, Schapker had separate meetings with L.P.M. and his parents and with J.D.T. and his parents. Also present at each meeting were two other administrators. L.P.M. admitted drinking alcohol and being under the influence of alcohol on Labor Day, and J.D.T. admitted supplying the bottle of vodka. Following the hearings, on September 28, 1998, Schapker issued notices of suspension to appellants, suspending them from all school-sponsored extracurricular activities for 30 school days.

A Chapter 120 administrative hearing was later conducted before the School Board at which appellants and their parents were present and were represented by counsel. After hearing the testimony of various witnesses, (not including appellants, who refused to testify based on Fifth Amendment rights), the School Board issued its final order suspending appellants from extracurricular activities for 30 days, with credit for the 2 day suspension previously imposed and rescinded. This appeal follows.

Appellants raise several issues, only two of which merit discussion. They contend first that Florida high school students have a constitutionally protected property interest in extracurricular activities and that school officials do not have the authority to discipline a student for off campus activity unrelated to a school event, where such activity does not materially or substantially interfere with the operation of the school.

This court has previously held that a student has no constitutionally protected contract, property or other economic right to participate in interscholastic sports activities. Florida Youth Soccer Ass'n. v. Sumner, 528 So.2d 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). See also, Florida High Sch. Activities Ass'n., Inc. v. Bradshaw, 369 So.2d 398 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979) (the opportunity to participate in interscholastic athletic activities is not a constitutionally protected right). Participation in extra curricular sports activities is a privilege, not a right. Although there is some authority to the contrary, the prevailing view in the country is that no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Ryan v. Cif-Sds
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • December 24, 2001
    ...interscholastic sports. (See e.g., Scott v. Kilpatrick (1970) 286 Ala. 129, 237 So.2d 652, 656; L.P.M. v. School Bd. of Seminole County (Fla.App.2000) 753 So.2d 130, 132; Smith v. Crim (1977) 240 Ga. 390, 240 S.E.2d 884, 886; Ind. High School Ath. Ass'n v. Carlberg (Ind. 1997) 694 N.E.2d 22......
  • Nieshe v. Concrete School Dist.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 9, 2005
    ...No. 380, 689 F.Supp. 1055, 1058 (D.Kan.1986); Paschal v. Perdue, 320 F.Supp. 1274, 1276 (S.D.Fla.1970); L.P.M. v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole County, 753 So.2d 130, 132 (Fl.App.2000). 42. WAC 180-40-215(5). More specifically, state law requires that students be afforded the "right to an informal c......
  • Wooten v. Pleasant Hope R-VI School Dist.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri
    • November 28, 2000
    ...is that no federally-protected property interest exists in a student's participation in extracurricular activities. See L.P.M. v. Sch. Bd., 753 So.2d 130, 132-33 (2000) (finding that "[a]lthough there is some authority to the contrary, the prevailing view in the country is that no such fede......
  • State v. JM
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • July 3, 2002
    ... ... See, e.g., § 775.083(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2001) ("A county may adopt an ordinance imposing ... a fine upon any person who ... is convicted of or adjudicated ... Stat. (2000) (requiring Department of Juvenile Justice to inform school superintendent of juvenile sexual offender's presence); 824 So.2d 112 § 985.308(1)(d), (6), Fla ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Zero-Tolerance Discipline in Illinois Public Schools
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • May 10, 2002
    ...1999). Colvin, 114 F Supp 2d at 512. Id. 678 NE2d 799 (Ind App 1997). Id, 678 NE2d at 805. See also L.P.M. v School Bd. of Seminole Co., 753 So2d 130 (Fla App 2000) (upholding suspension extracurricular activities pursuant to a zero-tolerance policy because participation is a privilege, not......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT