*1 17, 1971.] Fifth Dist. Nov. No. 1373. [Civ. Minor, MONTALVO, etc., Plaintiff Appellant,
DANIEL OF EDUCATION UNIFIED DISTRICT BOARD MADERA SCHOOL al., et Defendants Respondents.
Counsel
Fred J. Hiestand for Plaintiff and Appellant. Donald C. Thuesen as Amicus Curiae on behalf of and Plaintiff Appellant. Wolfe, Counsel, E. Roy Barstow & Christiansen and County Herbert E. Bartou for Defendants and Respondents.
Opinion (G. A.), J. BROWN This case involves the of a school validity regulation at Thomas Jefferson Junior School in High Madera the hair limiting length of students that institution. due attending After notice the minor public time, who was 14 at the plaintiff, was on the suspended day from opening the seventh for his grade refusal to with the hair then in comply regulation effect. Three later he days was reinstated after with the complying regula- tion by a getting haircut. This action in declaratory relief fol- immediately lowed.
At the commencement of trial it was that the hair stipulated regula- Montalvo, tion was that the minor Daniel was in duly appellant, adopted, fact violation of the that he was because of regulation, suspended such violation. It was further that the issues law stipulated pertinent were:
(a) Whether the said governing board*of school district under the Cali- fornia and federal Constitutions could of hair. regulate length style
(b) Whether or not the hair was question constitutionally reasonable. decision for the the court rendered its
After trial three-day nonjury The of fact were waived. school district and against Findings appellant. is matters, recites: “That the California Legislature other judgment, among of a free vested with out mandate carry operation power Constitution, Article (California in California. public system statutory Section has school boards Legislature conferred upon the conduct rules regulations governing authority promulgate 921, 925) and Code (Education pupils §§ schools public operation 10609; (Education Code § rules and regulations. must with those comply Code, 5, Education, 62, 64[*]) Title Article California Administrative §§ Dress’ Student Policy Grooming That ‘General Board Relating . of Madera Unified . was the Board of Education duly . adopted School District to the valid. statutory authority foregoing pursuant of Madera . . was officials said . duly adopted “That hair of Education Code authority Unified School District under the statutory Code, Title California Administrative §§ there and is Article substantial justification §§ 64[†] *5 evi to-wit: strong for the and enforcement of said hair regulation; adoption of the Madera schools dence that the hair male in long by wearing pupils interfere Unified School and and District has does substantially disrupt has a with conduct of the educational processes, proper orderly and decorum adverse effect on the academic prejudicial atmosphere classroom, of the causes divisiveness and hostility among pupils health and hazards. safety presents and reasonably is reasonable rational
“That said hair regulation and the health function to and serves enhance the educational relates district; benefits that the public of said school safety pupils of the male student’s outweigh consequent thereby impairment produced of those no less subversive constitutional and there are alternatives rights rights. District School in Madera Unified action of officials of
“That not not and are were said hair regulation and enforcement of adoption fraudulent, an discretion. abuse of or capricious arbitrary, title in 1969 when were deleted Code of these *†Sections 62 and Administrative is now found old sections reorganized. code was The substance of the title 300 and 302. division article sections “That said hair is regulation not vague or uncertain.
“That said hair is regulation and enforced officials of applicable, by Madera Unified District, School all to male students equally uniformly of said school district.
“That said hair regulation applicable, enforced officials of United States Constitution the laws and Constitution the State of California. lawfully
“That plaintiff suspended Daniel Montalvo officials from Thomas Jefferson Junior School on High September 18, 1969, for violation of said hair and his refusal to regulation with school officials he his comply direction of have hair cut to with said hair regulation. That said did not comply violate suspension any of plaintiff’s under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution.” moot,
Aside from the of whether the cause is the central problem ques- tion on this appeal to the constitutional the hair pertains validity style under the facts of this case.
At the are outset we with confronted whether the determining cause has become moot. The with the appellant complied order be readmitted to school. while Secondly, this has been appeal the school pending code was grooming changed. under the continued compulsion suspension compliance
Appellant’s does (Uyeda (6th from school matter v. Brooks render moot Cir. 1965) Uyeda (revd. F.2d 633 v. Brooks p. other grounds, (6th 326)). Cir. 365 F.2d This was not mentioned in position *6 court, the it the trial nor is included the as tot be stipulation to issues Also, resolved the trial court. the involuntary despite compliance, has a interest in the of the plaintiff continuing determining validity regula- tion since the remains a of his record. suspension part disciplinary
The under which the regulation occurred read suspension part: Hair for Unified School Length Boys Madera “Regarding: Attending District
“Hair must be worn clean well their hair groomed. Boys must keep ears, neat trimmed above and collars. Hair must be eyes, tapered from the neck.” up
While this cause has was been the above pending regulation appeal
329 in pertinent part which reads a adopted, new regulation repealed follows: as (Boys)
“Hair be at all times.
1. Must clean
2. than collar longer length.” No a which pro- retains regulation be the new provision It is to noted that is. regulation latter than collar longer length. hibits hair from being have been called record; however, the thereof contents not part notice thereof. we take attention judicial court’s may respondent Witkin, (b); Code, Code, (a); subd. (Evid. § subd. Evid. § 170.) (2d 153 and Cal. Evidence ed. pp. of a statute the repeal
It is true
under some circumstances
further consideration
of a cause on
will render
during
pendency
appeal
(Hake
(1942)
v.
174
thereof
[121
moot
49 Cal.App.2d
of Bakersfield
Cal.
1
13
25];
Supervisors (1969)
Callie Board
Cal.App.3d
P.2d
v.
[81
Nevertheless,
re-enacts
statute or
440]).
if the repealing
Rptr.
which forms
or
a material
of the
statute
portion
repealed
the matter is
for the
court’s determination
basis
lower
part
after, well as
as
since the
the lower court inheres
moot
determination by
before,
Cal.
651
P.
(Carter
(1930)
v. Stevens
208
the change.
[284
217];
454
(1969)
In re
Cal.2d
Dapper
189
Cal.Rptr.
[77
Further,
905].)
P.2d
this
a matter of
interest
general public
students
is a
between other
controversy
there
likelihood
recurrence
Bland
(Diamond v.
or
others
situated
similarly
among
respondent
733];
(1970)
People
Without question conduct and tion rules and regulations governing promulgate School, those High including of the Thomas Jefferson Junior operations dress, are to student relating grooming required pupils *7 IX, 1; Code, Const., Ed. (Cal. with such valid directives art. comply § 300, 921, 10609; 5, 2, 2, 302). 925, Code, div. art. Cal. Admin. tit. § § §§ however, tested against are subject, being Such rules regulations of the students. constitutionally rights protected are do which
It is further clear that students have protected do not and that the and California state Constitutions they federal by 330 Independent v. Moines (Tinker
shed them at the Des schoolhouse gate 731, 503, 737, (1969) Com. Sch. Dist. L.Ed.2d 89 S.Ct. 393 U.S. 506 [21 733, 736]). However, it that a be may must be student recognized subject environ to far more than an adult outside a school stringent regulations due a school environment ment to his status as a student in immaturity where and considerations health disciplinary relating problems . there an safety of minors take on “. . where is significance. special the invasion of to control con freedoms ‘the of the state protected power duct of children over adults. authority reaches of its beyond scope (Ginsberg . . .”’ v. York 638 (1968) State New U.S. [20 195, 203, 1274, 1280]; L.Ed.2d 88 S.Ct. Akin v. Board Education etc. Dist. (1968) Riverside 557].) Cal.App.2d [68 Cal.Rptr. We reject contention that a is specifically student in the appellant’s same as an adult not in a position school environment. The courts have univer difference, sally recognized this those situations including where First Amendment are (Tinker involved. v. Moines rights admittedly Des Inde Dist., pendent Com. Sch. 393 U.S. at L.Ed.2d at p. p. [21 737]; 89 S.Ct. at L.A. Teachers v. L.A. (1969) Union Bd. Ed. p. 71 Cal.2d 827].) 455 P.2d Cal.Rptr. for and the responsibility involved problems operation educational, school are system our ones of social and primarily political committed the state philosophy Legislature, Executive department of the state and the local school boards Tenth Amendment the United States Constitution and article IX of our state Constitution.
“By large, education in our Nation is committed to the public control of state and local authorities. do Courts not cannot intervene in the resolution of conflicts which arise in the school daily operation of and which do systems basic constitu directly sharply implicate (Epperson tional values.” Arkansas 393 U.S. L.Ed. 228, 234, 2d 266, 270].) 89 S.Ct.
In that, this it should be approaching subject, recognized large, individuals, administrators are trained personnel professionally who are education, and dedicated in the field of competent experts which is the courts are not. In the something absence clear abuse of their very power authority arbitrariness or bad bordering capriciousness, faith and the violation involving mandates or clear constitu- statutory tional the courts let stand their proscriptions, should decisions as to what and not required administration of affairs required day day of the schools. A court with of school may disagree judgment person- nel, but such no license or authorization to provides disapproval usurp their substitute the court’s for that authority, judgment of the administra- tors, or take over the of their schools. operation *8 816, 811, v. the Corley 1970) Daunhauer (E.D. In Ark 312 F.Supp. students in the restrictions on remarked: “Reasonable court appropriately if the schools are conduct, dress, are desirable fields of appearance so because learning That is necessarily and efficiently. effectively operate be if it is to a is a rather than for many pleasure, people discipline out in dignified the must be carried successfully, practiced practice students, those at the Public school surroundings. particularly orderly levels, immature, some of them are still elementary junior high distracted are excitable and to be are children of tender They prone years. in conformity Whatever be about thought general, from their tasks. may norms of dress to established seems clear that reasonable conformity it classrooms, and administration of contributes orderly appearance That has of tends to it. that uncontrolled individuality appearance disrupt and administrators the uniform of school teachers been public experience an almost reflexive tendency for and that is of them have years, why many the dress or or eccentricities in appear- to move oddities against personal ance of individual students.” akin this is hair is a style right
Basic to
a determination if
controversy
the
rationale of
First
to free speech
“preferred
protected
position”
Constitution,1
Amendment to the
subjecting any
United States
thus
regula-
tion
therewith to
heavier
interfering
scrutiny”
“special
placing
(West
burden
the state to
interference with such right
justify any
upon
624,
Virginia
Board
Education v. Barnette
U.S.
State
674];
1628, 1638,
Tinker v.
L.Ed.
147 A.L.R.
S.Ct.
Dist.,
supra,
Des Moines
Com.
Independent
Sch.
393 U.S.
509 [21
731, 739,
733, 738];
L.A.
L.Ed.2d
L.A. Teachers Union v.
89 S.Ct.
Ed.,
be
551, 566);
Bd.
is to
found
71 Cal.2d
or if the protection
the “liberty”
within the
but numerous of ill-defined
under
group
latter,
If the
assurance of the Fourteenth Amendment.
preferred
does not
status
of free
right
First Amendment
position
speech
apply.2
is described in
Amendment
under the First
The mantle of protection
Barnette, supra,
Education
Virginia
Board
State
West
case of
I,
in article
found
substantially
First Amendment
identical
provision
1A
the California Constitution.
section
cases,
shot
litigants
taken the
have
pointed out
several of the
some
has been
in
2As
Fourth, Eighth,
Ninth
asserting
gun
protection
under
approach
claims
King
Junior
Amendments,
In
v. Saddleback
as
First
Fourteenth.
well as the
Tenth
court,
referring
to this
1971)
College
(9th
445 F.2d
District
Cir.
by the tenuous nature
confusion is fostered
“No doubt their
approach, states:
(10th
asserted”;
v. Flake
Cir.
right
case of Freeman
the recent
many
opines:
hodgepodge
provisions
the court
“The
reference
U.S. at 1638, at 63 page 639 L.Ed. at [87 S.Ct. “The page page 1186]: a include, of State to for right a regulate, example, well utility public may concerned, so far as the due test is to all process of power impose restrictions which a legislature have may a basis’ ‘rational for adopting. But freedoms of and of of speech of press, assembly, may worship not be on such slender infringed of grounds. They are restric- susceptible tion to only prevent grave immediate to interests which the danger state may lawfully protect.”
First Amendment the burden protection Board of Educa- places tion to the constitutional invasion justify “facts which might reasonably have led to forecast substantial of [them] or material interference disruption activities, with school (Tinker . .”. v. Des Independent Moines Com. Dist., Sch. supra, 742, 393 at U.S. 514 L.Ed.2d at at 89 S.Ct. p. p. [21 740]; Ed., L.A. p. Teachers Union v. L.A. City Bd. supra, Cal.2d at 71 of “ 559) and the test p. when First Amendment are is: ‘In involved each case must “evil,” ask whether the [courts] of the discounted gravity by its of improbability, justifies such invasion free isas necessary speech ” to avoid the (Dennis v. (1950) 494, United States danger.’ 341 U.S. 510 1137, 1153, 857, L.Ed. [95 868.) 71 S.Ct.
Lastly, current decisions if many indicate that First Amendment rights involved, are the court will to give little weight expert testimony opinion of disturbance, divisiveness, fears expressing disruption, and interference with the educational where those are process not based opinions upon Dist., actual (Tinker incidents v. Des Moines Independent Com. supra, Sch. 393 at 739, 738]; U.S. 509 L.Ed.2d at p. 89 S.Ct at L.A. p. p. Ed., Teachers Union v. City 563-564; L.A. Bd. 71 Cal.2d at pp. of Finot v. Pasadena 189, Bd. (1967) Education 200- Cal.App.2d 520]). [58 Cal.Rptr. of the due clause the Fourteenth provision “liberty" process been Amendment3 has construed to constrict the broadly governmental activities, state in its different kinds power many contract, “the of the individual to to including engage any right life, useful common to acquire knowledge, marry, occupations children, establish home and God bring according up worship conscience, and the dictates of his own those generally enjoy privileges as common law essential to the long recognized pursuit orderly (Meyer (1923) free men” v. Nebraska U.S. happiness 626]), travel, L.Ed. 43 S.Ct. choose what eats, (Kent one wears or reads v. Dulles U.S. 125-127 provision substantially 3A “liberty" identical to the clause Fourteenth Amend I, ment is found in article section of the California Constitution. *10 1204, 1210-1211, L.Ed.2d 1118-1119]). 78 S.Ct. A number [2 of federal decisions have the constitutional placed of students protection hair against on this rather than regulations within the ambit of ground the First Amendment. such are King decisions Saddleback v. Among College (9th 1971) 932, 937-938; Junior District4 Cir. 445 F.2d Jackson (6th 213, 217; v. Dorrier 1970) Cir. 424 F.2d v. Yuba Jeffers Unified (E.D.Cal. 368, 371-372; School District 1970) Brick v. Board F.Supp. Education, 1, Denver, Sch. Dist. No. Colo. (D. 1969) Colo. of 1316, 1320; (E.D. 1967) Davis v. Firment F.Supp. La. 269 F.Supp.
527. Circuit, case,
The Ninth
King
in the
was careful to
out that the
point
protected right
here involved can’t be
liberty
analogized to the right
referred to in Griswold v.
privacy
Connecticut
Tinker Dist., v. Des Independent Moines Com. Sch. U.S. 503, which is cases, cited in the hair frequently involved stu regulation dents who were black wearing arm bands school classes in during protest of the Viet Nam War. The arm bands were an acknowledged symbol in of the expression war and fell protest within the of the First protection Amendment. The Court hair Supreme quite clearly excepted Tinker, cases from the same when it stated at in 507-508 protection pages L.Ed.2d at 737-739, pages S.Ct. “The page posed problem 737]: case does not relate to present of the of skirts length or the to hair type clothing, style, or It does deportment. [Citations.] not concern aggressive, action or even demonstrations. disruptive group Our direct, involved problem First Amendment akin primary ”5 ‘pure speech.’ High d appeal 4Consolidated v. East Union School District on an with Side Olff disposed opinion. of in same Circuit, (Freeman (10th Tenth a case filed v. Flake September 5The 258) heavily Cir. holding 448 F.2d relied on this from the Tinker case in statement “Complaints nothing regulations that: which are based on than school more length ‘directly implicate a male sharply student’s hair do not basic constitu- holds without with that line which hair style, We of authority agree within the more, or se an speech, symbolic pure, expression per cases which with the of the First We further agree Amendment. protection umbrella “liberty” hold these activities are protected by are likewise they pro reasoning Fourteenth Amendment. By parity contained of the California Constitution tected equivalent provisions I, article section 13. *11 most, At hair is an indefinite and of style vague expression personality, an much like the color of clothes or of or idiosyncrasy style individuality or not intended be nor is it Such is to activity by deportment. interpreted social the viewer to be an of definitive or expression any philosophical, be view. If of were held to of these point types activity protected political Amendment, the authorities the First the burden on school by heavy placed the schools that to the would render amendment justify to or conceivable control Virtually regulate, every type prohibit helpless bizarre, of dress and hair freakish outlandish style. They grotesque, time, all, as would have a difficult could such things if they prohibit males, The bare chested barefooted students and blouses. see-through in the case at of the administrators and educators testimony professional in areas bench the conclusion that lack of controls these causes supports which a deterioration in the educational is conducive atmosphere of should The these "necessary learning. persons opinions professional meet be authorities should have to the school highly regarded. the burden cast them the freedom heavy speech proscriptions First in such regulate activity of the Amendment order to provisions conduct. We are in with the Court when it observed agreement Supreme 367, 672, United (1968) States v. O’Brien 391 U.S. 376 L.Ed.2d [20 1673, 1678]; view 88 S.Ct. cannot the that an “We apparently accept be limitless of conduct can labeled whenever variety person ‘speech’ (See an Jackson in the conduct intends idea.” engaging thereby express Dorrier, 213; City v. Yuba School Dis supra, 424 F.2d v. Jeffers Unified trict, District, 368; College v. Junior supra, King Saddleback F.Supp. 319 932; supra, (10th 1971) v. Flake Cir. 448 F.2d 445 F.2d Freeman 258; v. Myers Cf. Arcata etc. School Dist. (1969) 269 549 Cal.App.2d cognizable said tional values’ and are not in the courts. . . .” The court federal impose duty respon- courts the United States does not on federal Constitution sibility length supervising arising of students’ hair and ordered dismissal of cases Utah, in the courts of Mexico and federal New Colorado. comment, sitting See also late Justice as Circuit for the Fifth Black’s Justice Circuit, substantially concerning effect the involvement of the federal same style (1971) courts in student hair cases Karr v. 1201 Schmidt 401 U.S. [27 L.Ed.2d 592]. S.Ct. etc. Dist. Education Riverside 68]; Akin v. Board Cal.Rptr. [75 v. Pasadena 557]; and Finot (1968) Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d Education, 189.) City supra, Bd. 250 Cal.App.2d rather Because the to be found under Fourteenth is protection Amendment, than the First in the of a clear violation constitu absence tional is those right, the valid and the burden regulation upon presumed who assail it (Jorgensen (1962) its v. Cranston Cal. invalidity prove 297]; Co. v. Brock Creamery Knudsen App.2d Cal.Rptr. 26]; 37 Cal.2d P.2d v. Yuba 494-495 [234 Unified Jeffers District, 372; School Bradley County Brownlee v. 319 F.Supp. 1365; Tennessee Ed. (E.D. Board Tenn. 311 F.Supp. District, King 932, 939) College Saddleback Junior supra, 445 F.2d and the need be some reasonable only justified by relationship between the concerns of the administration legitimate relating the educational of male hair length process controlling style *12 District, 932, 939; (King v. Saddleback Junior College supra, 445 F.2d District, 372; supra, Yuba School 319 F.Supp. v. Jeffers Unified 737; (S.D. 1970) Farrell v. Smith Rickel Me. v. 310 F.Supp. Gfell (6th 1971) 444; man 441 County Cir. F.2d v. Wheeler Board Stevenson Dorrier, Education (S.D. Ga. 1969) 101; v. 306 Jackson F.Supp. of 213; supra, Education, 424 F.2d Brick v. Dist. Board Sch. No. Denver, Colo., 1316, 1320; supra, 305 (1st Richards v. Thurston F.Supp. 1281, 1284; Cir. v. Bradley County F.2d Brownlee Tennessee Education, Board 1360, 1365). 311 F.Supp. standards,
Measured these the evidence in this case by clearly the . . the recitation therein “. that there supports judgment, including was and is substantial the justification for and enforcement of adoption hair said to wit: regulation; evidence that the wearing strong long hair male in schools of the Madera Unified District has School pupils and does with the and substantially interefere disrupt orderly proper conduct of the educational effect has and adverse prejudicial processes, the classroom, academic of the causes divisive decorum atmosphere ness and among health and hazards. hostility safety pupils presents
“That said hair is reasonable and rational and reasonably to and relates serves to enhance the educational and the health function district; of said benefits safety school that the public pupils the the male stu- thereby produced outweigh impairment consequent dent’s constitutional there are no alternatives less subversive of those rights.” waived,
Because were essential fact it is that findings every presumed Laboratory v. (Block the the trial judgment was found court to uphold Procedures, 778]) Inc. (1970) Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.3d (Mears in favor the and all conflicts are to be resolved respondents 618]). Mears (1960) Cal.Rptr. Cal.App.2d his hair was he to wear long testified the reason wanted only Appellant better. he it made him look thought were there nor there was no actual disruption
It is that undisputed he at one hair day incidents caused during any by appellant’s hair school with to his long prior suspension.
There was extensive elicited from two testimony junior high teachers, the and assistant of schools superintendent superintendent District, Madera Unified School vice principal principal School, Jefferson Thomas Junior of Madera High principal Union School the effect of hair on educational High concerning long or witnesses process. testimony from one more of these adequately the conclusion that male would constitute a long safety hair supports hazard in the science and in and that it classes would laboratory shop be difficult to enforce a to wear hair extremely boys requiring nets or that if could be dress codes hair caps; style regulations enforced, could be it students would overboard go anticipated wear all sorts of costumes and arrive school in bizarre states extreme *13 one was testified a where in no hair appearance; experience effect, was in which students extreme hair regulation began using shades; such as various brilliant and coloring, orange, greens purple factor; that hair a if hair it long health there was no regulation presents friction, would result in and between and short incidents fighting long students; haired that educators inci- some of these had actual experienced students, dents and between haired short haired hostility consisting long hair, actual of name threats to cut incidents calling boys’ long harassment and one incident was recalled where teasing; razzing, in a class because did refused education he boy go swimming physical hair; not want to mess his it was said that in the up long employers that insist who are sent to them under work community boys experience have neat and hair have refused to trimmed programs styles actually otherwise; take students who there was there is testimony appear who to wear extreme a definite correlation between students are inclined misbehavior; lengths styles hair other misconduct types was evidence the above cause undue and there that all of would disruption classroom, the academic and on the and in the would affect campus would cause would create learning disciplinary atmosphere, problems, confrontation from student to student and and interfere group group with the educational process. do not
We this an with weigh or presume testimony express opinion to the or wisdom of the conclusions respect validity therein. expressed Our and ends with a authority begins determination as to whether there record, uncontradicted, substantial evidence in the any contradicted or which will findings (Primm conclusions of the trial support judge (1956) v. Primm 231]; 46 Cal.2d Dairy P.2d Continental Equip. Co. v. Lawrence Cal.App.3d Cal.Rptr. 887]). additional contentions that the
Appellant’s
violates
equal
and is
over-broad are without
protection
merit.
unconstitutionally
The
was
King
raised and
of in
equal protection argument
disposed
District,
Saddleback Junior College
supra, 445 F.2d
wherein the
court stated at
“There
939:
was no evidence of racial discrimination
page
that the
or
regulation in either case was
than
other
in an
applied
manner,
even-handed
nor was there
evidence of
any
protection
unequal
i.e.,
other than the assertion that
were treated
boys
than
differently
girls;
could have
girls
hair and
could not.
do not
long
boys
We
consider
latter difference in treatment or classification as
substantial
creating any
constitutional
we
case
have been able
find
question.”
only
to the
is Crews
(7th
v. Clones
contrary
1970) 432
Cir.
F.2d 1259 at page
which held that the distinction between
in a male
boys
hair
girls
classification,
an invidious
in violation of the equal pro-
tection clause.
doWe
but are
King
agree,
that the
opinion
case is more consonant with those cases
classifications based holding
sex to be
(Goesaert
constitutional.
v. Cleary (1948)
STONE, P. J. I dissent.I with that the which part opinion agree concludes that since the school board has the to establish authority rules attendance, it governing invoke reasonable may regulations concerning a student’s dress and condition of his hair. such
Admittedly, rules of conduct circumscribe a student’s freedom novel; laws, laws, ecologi- a traffic zoning certain extent. This is not conduct of an individual. Such cally motivated restraints likewise restrict the when freedoms are essential defined constitutional broadly intrusions upon the weighed the continued existence of are society against welfare and the as freedom of individual to do he pleases. Constitution; thus structure is the
The matrix of our
social
complex
an individual
that the
may
it is
in the Constitution itself
implicit
to the
are
related
be
such limitations
reasonably
when
upon
impinged
The California Supreme
in the Constitution.
overall
inherent
purpose
Priest,
601, 487 P.2d
Court,
Serrano
This us to critical the whether brings the question here was reasonable relation to the did the school objective; approved board exceed I its this authority by particular promulgating regulation? find the moot. The was question changed subsequent action; this it o-f is no in existence and its filing longer only relevancy would be to As herein. he with regu- appellant appellant, complied was at the end He cites no lation year. damage promoted special for us to consider. The states that was from appellant suspended opinion until he but such a mark on man’s record complied, disciplinary it “de innocuous—I To me comes within classification hope. legal non minimus curat lex."
I would dismiss as moot. appeal 15, A for a denied December petition rehearing appel- lant’s for a Court was denied January petition hearing Supreme Peters, J., Tobriner, J., Mosk, J., 1972. were of the opinion *15 should be petition granted.