*1
SMITH,
UCA;
Affairs,
Dr. John
Vice
Student
President, UCA;
Winfred L.
P.
Thompson,
Madison
III;
Burton;
Goods;
III;
Aydelott,
Ben F.
Elaine
Harding,
Rush
Malone;
White;
Womack,
Jerry
Joe
F.
M.
and Dalda
Trustees;
Board of
UCA Heather A. DENTON
93-1297
Supreme Court Arkansas delivered Opinion April *2 UCA, for Mary Stallcup, B. General Counsel for appellants. Collier, P. for appellee. Linda Mouser, Justice. In this from Special M. appeal Rosalind finding Court County Chancery a decision of Faulkner of Central Arkansas University facially firearms due and aside setting and violative of substantive process void Denton, Heather A. a UCA three-year suspension appellee — student, Central Arkansas appellants — Board raise of its administration and of Trustees1 members four reversal. points convenience, generally designated group by appellants will be as a the com 1For recognized
monly abbreviation “UCA.” (1)
UCA
argues
the court had no
to set
power
Denton,
aside UCA’s disciplinary action
unless the
law;
university’s action was arbitrary,
capricious,
contrary
(2) UCA’s decision to
Ms. Denton was neither
suspend
arbitrary
(3)
nor capricious;
UCA’s
decision
Ms. Denton was
suspend
law;
(4)
not
contrary
Ms. Denton received
due
procedural
four
process. These
can be
questions
more
grouped
coherently
under two broad
(1)
issues: whether Ms. Denton received
pro
(2)
cedural due
substantive due
process. Although
determined,
did not
chancellor
address the former
we have
topic,
review,
on de novo
that Ms. Denton was denied
We
process.
uphold
chancery
decision of the
court when it
result,
reaches the right
even if it did not enunciate the
rea
right
*3
(1992).
son.
Cawood
310 Ark.
Facts In December after several firearms incidents on its UCA a campus, issued revised firearms provided which policy, that: student
Any possessing, or a firearm on Uni- storing, using controlled versity or at property University sponsored functions, supervised University, unless authorized will be from suspended UCA for a of not less than period three a years unless waiver of the suspension granted by the President Vice upon recommendation of the Pres- ident for Student Affairs.
A of the amended copy firearms was delivered to every student organization residence-hall room and was published 11, 1993, January in the student newspaper. morning Saturday, February
On Heather A. Denton, a UCA freshman honors student on a full academic schol- record, a her loaned automobile with disciplinary no
arship friend, Smith, The vehicle was returned Victor a non-student. in the day. her later student, Denton, Patterson, a Eric UCA
That Ms. evening, Patel, friend, in Ms. “cruising” Rita went off-campus a mutual car, they While were driving. stopped Mr. Patterson Denton’s occurred with unknown a confrontation Conway, in downtown incident, a third vehicle During truck. occupants pickup scene, and, an unidentified reportedly, person on the arrived waved a handgun. that car events, drove Denton’s Mr. Patterson Ms.
Soon after these officer, A who had campus. Conway police car back the UCA (including the incident the brandished received about report the cam- and followed Ms. Denton’s vehicle to located weapon), unloaded and then and searched it. An semi-automatic stopped pus bag pas- in a book beneath the backpack-style found weapon Denton, Patterson, Mr. and Ms. Patel denied seat. Ms. senger Mr. stated though Patterson knowledge gun, presence Victor Mr. Patterson was arrested that it was owned Smith. from No action taken removed the scene stop. Ms. or Ms. Patel law enforcement officials. either Denton incident, aware of Dr. John appellant After becoming Affairs, UCA Student interviewed Vice-President interview, Monday, During Denton on 1993. *4 was a violation of being charged advised her that she Smith and was a deter- being pending the firearms policy suspended Dr. Ms. mination the Student Judicial Board. Smith ordered written of the to the No notice campus immediately. Denton leave Denton nor did given meeting, was to Ms. to this charge prior interview. document the simultaneously Smith 1993, the some four after Wednesday, days On incident, Vari- the Judicial conducted hearing. Student Board Smith, admit- testimony, witnesses Victor who gave including ous he he and that had borrowed ted that the owner gun the. with Mr. Patterson targets car to at go shooting Ms. Denton’s finished, that had he the they his brother. He said after put the in the it in the floorboard behind bag book gun placed knowledge Ms. or permission. seat without Denton’s passenger The Board the declar- found Ms. Denton not guilty charge, ing its belief that that knowledge she “did not have the weapon car,” inwas the against and recommended that no action be taken Smith, however, her. Dr. the Board’s rejected Student Judicial finding determined that be Ms. Denton should suspended. Ms. Denton then to the Univer- Dr. Smith’s decision appealed Committee, sity Discipline which found her of a violation guilty of the firearms but the be policy recommended that sanction reduced. Dr. to whom the recommendation had been referred, withdrew from of the further consideration case. result,
aAs Denton the decision to appealed appellant UCA, Dr. Winfred L. Thompson, who the upheld Committee’s guilt rejected determination but its recommendation of a reduced sanction. Dr. then Thompson imposed three-year for in the UCA suspension provided policy. firearms 11, 1993,
On March Ms. Denton filed a for a tem- petition Court, porary restraining order the Faulkner County Chancery that requesting stay enjoin court her from UCA. suspension following day, chancellor entered a temporary injunc- 31, 1993, tion. on Subsequently, March Ms. Denton filed an petition amended a permanent injunction, that UCA’s asserting failed, face, firearms policy due its substantive provide process and that UCA’s failed actions provide procedural An process. expedited was held on 8 and 1993. April The chancery court converted the order temporary restraining order, into a permanent restraining that: finding the UCA 14th gun violates 5th and Amendments policy America, Constitution of the United States is, isit violative of substantive due process; pol- is icy void on its face and violates basic principles democracy. The policy hereby any struck attempts to enforce the said student policy any subsequent April will be sanctioned inherent con- tempt authority Court. void, found
Having that the facially firearms *5 court chancery declared the moot process issue and declined to issue a ruling on court also question. found that the actions of UCA its not their agents and did remove
258 therefore, and, entitled to Denton was not that Ms.
immunity order, and this appeal fees. From that damages attorney’s arise. cross-appeal
Standard
review2
of
Act
not applica
the Administrative Procedure
is
As
case,
on a
at trial
presented
we consider the evidence
ble to this
of the substance
review
de novo basis.
avenue
judicial
University
Regents
is narrow. See
of academic decisions
of
(1985). There is a general
It
insti
state-supported
that UCA is
undisputed
is
to its administra
higher learning
may delegate
which
tution
A chancery
over non-academic offenses.
disciplinary power
tion
a state-sup
in the exercise of
has no
to interfere
court
power
imple
discretion in
ported university’s
promulgation
is shown
clear
measures unless it
disciplinary
mentation
abused its discretion.
university
evidence that the
convincing
66,
Bowman,
v.
294 Ark.
See
Board Education
Springdale
(1987);
School Dis
v. Board Marianna
S.W.2d 909
Williams
Tucker,
trict,
(1982);
v.
274 Ark.
ten of an report alleged incident of non-academic misconduct Thereafter, with the Office of Vice Student Affairs. according to “Standards of Student Conduct”: The Dean Students reports will receive incident assign discipline cases to appropriate council and/or hearing as needed. The Student Board Judicial [or officer other council or appropriate hearing make their officer] recommendations to the Vice President for Student Affairs. action shall be after Disciplinary only taken hearing held and the Vice President for Student Affairs has reviewed the action and made a final decision. added.) The are
(Emphasis hearings informally, conducted with- out strict adherence to the rules evidence.
A notice provision is set forth in the “Standards”: student(s) notified, accused shall be writing, of date,
alleged and of charge time and of the hear- place ing. Notice will be student(s) mailed to the room, delivered residence hall student(s) lives if on campus, at three (3) days prior least to the hearing. added.) The (Emphasis accused and are complainant afforded to be at right present hearing, evidence wit- present ness, affidavit, hearing, to the an advisor bring or deposition, all witnesses. and to question Commit- to the are
Appeals assigned *7 for Stu- the Vice President be made in to writing tee and must decision is ren- after a days disciplinary dent within three Affairs the serve as basis may One more of the reasons following dered. an appeal: of defense;
1. to prepare Inadequate opportunity decision; or 2. justify evidence to Inadequate of gravity wrong-doing. keeping 3. Sanction not in with the author- Vice Affairs vested President for Student all concerns. disciplinary final regarding make the decision ity case, own failed to adhere to its In the UCA present due ensuring procedural enunciated standards expressly the were not by university provided process. procedures however, flawed; the of compliance, in terms actual structurally violated. To pro were letter and due spirit procedural process courts, pertaining govern in matters tect due process, self-prescribed mental observance entity’s implementation enti and must hold such vigilant must be particularly procedures, of their letter and the spirit to a strict adherence to both the ties Heckler, v. F.2d 176 rules See Powell regulations. own Sullivan, (D. 1986); 744 F. Colo. (3rd Supp. Cir. Koolstra 1990).3
Here, that the Dean of Students' there no indication it was referred Denton before charge reviewed the Judi- Student assigned Dr. Smith or before the case was Board, Con- “Standards Student by cial as UCA required Affairs, Instead, Smith, inter- Vice President of Student duct.” February verbally Monday, Denton on viewed Ms. be held hearing would advised her disciplinary he immediately, her to the campus ordered leave Having board. room a to her vacated residence-hall caused to be delivered then 1993, notice, before hearing dated written 3Although claims, the cited deal with Social stated prin the federal cases Security agencies. governmental was intended to to all apply ciple Wednes- Student Judicial Board to be held “at 7:00 p.m., notice, 1993.” The which more should day, February properly address, the dor- have been mailed to her was sent to permanent room three mitory days days two to the rather than prior beforehand, as by the “Standards.” required
Thus, UCA, of its own self-imposed terms standards, failed to Ms. Denton the provide promised protection fail due Yet not was there a “specific only procedures.” ure to with the letter of there comport process, was also a failure Throughout to abide its spirit. pro Dr. Smith ceedings, acted in a variety often-conflicting capac witness, ities. He was at once investigator, judge. prosecutor, Affairs, Although Dr. as Vice President for Student clearly matters, held the ultimate he overrode authority disciplinary the decision of the Student Judicial Board. No provision made in the UCA for the Vice for Student handbook *8 case, Affairs to following aside from a Dr. Smith did so step yet the University Committee’s technical finding guilt and its recommendation of a reduced sanction.
The matter was submitted for review to UCA President Dr. Winfred He retained the because Thompson. three-year suspension Ms. Denton’s based on the lack of evi- appeal only adequate dence and not on the of the sanction. appropriateness
While the severity of the sanction is a stated basis for appeal Conduct,” under the UCA “Standards for Student the fact remains informal,” non-academic are accord- discipline hearings “[a]ll to the ing handbook. To a student of her educational deprive property interest on formal as narrowly grounds exemplified these circumstances is to violate spirit process. We hold that Ms. Denton was denied “rudimentary elements of fair the Due play” Process Clause. See required Henderson State v. Spadoni, supra, citing Dixon Education, (5th Alabama State Board 294 F.2d Cir. 1961). circumstances, Under the Ms. Denton was denied proce- dural due We therefore affirm the process. chancery decision of the court, albeit for a different than that the chan- given by reason cellor. Cawood v. supra. Attorney’s
Cross-appeal: fees of dam awards The Constitution prohibits Arkansas and its institutions. of Arkansas in lawsuits the State ages Art.5, of the State employees Ark. Const. 20. If officers § of their scope and within of Arkansas act without malice in lit damages an award of are immune from they employment, igation. that none found court chancery specifically Likewise, acted with malice. of UCA employees
the officers to rise to “such fail employees of UCA’s officers and actions another to constitute as disregard rights reckless Verser, 299 774 S.W.2d ill will.” Bland v. Ark. equivalent on Ms. Den- (1989). findings court’s chancery We affirm the ton’s cross-appeal. court chancery
Based facts as found upon herein, court’s decision chancery the law set forth we affirm in all respects.
Affirmed. J., concurs.
Newbern,
Brown, J., dissents.
Roaf, J., not participating. Justice, this concurring. problem Newbern,
David case, think, by “pos- firearms is offended I the UCA knowledge. a firearm The Student Judicial session” of without had no knowl- Board found Ms. Denton not because she guilty *9 in the school pol- the her car. Dr. Smith testified edge pistol The Chancellor regardless knowledge. appar- was violated icy be declared the to in policy on that ently gagged point to substantive due process. violation of Ms. Denton’s right somewhat, While I its own agree procedures UCA violated I that we seem with the to agree dissenting opinion’s point also that on basis. The dissenting be to decide the case stretching extended, however, con- in its apparent seems equally opinion Denton knew the to show Ms. clusion that evidence is sufficient was in a of the in her car because it book of the presence pistol the I of no which was not under seat. know evidence bag pushed
263 that the bag book or that told her the transparent anyone pis- tol was in it. I dare say that the had contraband been we drugs would not found have the evidence of the of it in presence car Denton’s satisfied the possession constructive factors required State, to hold her in Mings See Ark. “possession.” 884 (1994). S.W.2d 596 Those all factors to whether the point accused had of the knowledge presence contraband.
Substantive
that
be
requires
legislation
ration-
related
ally
to
achieving legitimate governmental purpose. See
State,
Wintersv.
(1990).
Ark.
A which can policy be the basis of of one who punishment the is victim of created others without her circumstances can be knowledge also said to related It be could purpose. even the most place innocent in fear being student punished is, however, and thus serve the perhaps Such a purpose. view, in my irrational and the unfair to that it cannot be said point to be related to The rationally anything. got Chancellor this case I concur the right. result reached majority opinion. Justice, Robert L. Brown, case involves dissenting. This of Heather Denton for suspension having semi-automatic (TEC .22) (three and four pistol loaded of ammunition clips fully loaded rounds) with 30 rounds and in her car one majority affirm campus. ultimately stretches to this case does so on a than completely employed by different basis chancellor. The he chancellor because granted injunction believed that Ms. Denton lacked intent to culpable possess or even it. pistol knowledge According majority, however, Heather Denton was not afforded due process because notice of her the Student Judi- first before cial Board was and the letter of the Student Hand- inadequate book was not followed every respect. in Student majority minor wrong equate lapses
Handbook with a violation of the United States Con- procedures stitution. It is also even raised wrong to affirm for reasons not in her by Ms. Denton in her brief in this argued pleadings What that Dr. John appeal. argued she to the chancellor was *10 her and that Dr. Thompson biased against was somehow Smith her mother prior with her and the case have discussed should However, found: the chancellor meeting. Committee as he to enforce the trying policy simply “I think Dr. Smith was con- in the he has way And I find no fault to. had been instructed matter, whatsoever.” himself this ducted never lapses and raises majority disagrees procedural The unfair about this is What is patently Ms. Denton. by pursued majority’s had the to answer has not University opportunity findings which amount to deficiencies asserted procedural a Denton never asserted an court. Ms. by conclusions appellate The in this rights appeal. of her due process violation fact, was did contend that due process a matter of University, as how Denton and told this court specifically to Ms. given Now a with that contention. Denton did not take issue why. and does with that contention court does take issue of this majority to respond. of UCA in a that forecloses the way opportunity so theory find a stretch to majority’s But irrespective affirmance, there no violation of procedural 1992, Board of University in this case. In December firearm inci- at because of issue adopted gun policy Trustees dents on campus: Uni- a firearm on storing, using or
Any possessing, student or at versity sponsored controlled property functions, University, authorized unless supervised than of not less will be from UCA for suspended period granted a waiver of the years suspension three unless the Vice Pres- the recommendation of the President upon ident for Affairs. Student body. to the student disseminated gun fully and the driver Heather Denton
On Patel, in Ms. Rita were stopped Eric Patterson and passenger, car, Firebird, a Con- on campus Denton’s a two-door Pontiac officer, follow- had been Edgmon Michael way Edgmon. police intersection. Conway at a the car after a disturbance ing report clips pistol He the car at which time the automatic searched par- in a which had been bag ammunition were located black from behind that seat. under the seat tially passenger pushed *11 not bag was under the seat as the Ms. Den- majority proclaims. ton denied the of and told knowledge pistol clips. Patterson officer arresting police that owned Smith. pistol was Victor 15, 1993, Smith, On February Dr. John Vice Affairs, President for Student interviewed Heather Denton. He showed her the Officer police report by Edgmon and advised her that she was with charged violating University’s gun policy and was a suspended to Dr. Smith pending hearing. According Denton, and being Ms. after advised of the charge, they discussed alternatives for a Dr. Smith her that have hearing. told she could an hearing administration as the next early day as before the Students, Roberts, Dean of Gary or a before the Stu- hearing dent Judicial latter Board. The was hearing already scheduled 17, for Wednesday, February Denton that 1993. Ms. stated she would talk Eric Patterson about it. for a opted hearing She before the Student Judicial Board.
Dr. Smith testified that he sent her a of his copy suspension 15, 1993, letter dated of the February notice disciplinary before the and hearing Student Judicial Board a of Officer copy It is Edgmon’s police unclear whether he a report. gave copy either her at and meeting. that The letter were police report a introduced as exhibit at the joint subsequent trial. Ms. Denton denied the letter before receiving the Student Judicial Board hear- ing, although she admitted a of the seeing copy police report before that meeting.
On February Student Judicial Board comprised of student members conducted a on the hearing matter. Ms. Den- ton notified hearing it. Vari- present throughout Denton, ous witnesses were called and testified behalf of Ms. Patterson, Smith, Denton, Eric Victor Heather including and Rita Patel. Officer Associate Edgmon, Director of the Department Stacks, Safety Public Glenn and Assistant Dean of John Students Cagle testified of the University’s support position. major- is in when it ity error concludes that the of Stu- opinion Dean dents did not review the Ms. charge against Denton before the Judicial Board His at the hearing. assistant was hearing par- The Student Judicial Board ticipated. recommended that no dis- action be taken Ms. Denton the Board ciplinary because believed that she did not know the was in her gun car. to the listening after
On Dr. John after interview- Board the Student Judicial tapes Patel, Denton, Patterson, Smith, Rita Eric Victor ing Student Judicial as the Chairman Officer as well Edgmon He stated that he recommendation. rejected Board Board’s UCA on the believed that “guilty possessing weapon she was At in order. suspension and determined campus” matter, with- possession weapon trial of this he testified *12 knowl- but that gun policy a violation of the knowledge out was to be the deciding penalty of the was for edge weapon important in the stories played participants’ assessed. inconsistencies the As three-year suspension. in to a his decision assess part in her Denton knew of the handgun between that concluding Ms. know, He did. especially car or did not he concluded that she he had influenced fact that Victor Smith testified by was the in the floor clips thrown black with the and on bag gun his influ- He was also back seat and had it under the seat. not pushed in her car earlier that enced the fact that Ms. Denton had been were there. afternoon when the and ammunition gun the University decision to Ms. Denton Dr. Smith’s appealed staff, faculty, and Discipline comprised University Committee 4, 1993, after the Stu- which was two weeks students. On March Commit- University hearing, dent Judicial Board and did so. voted to Ms. Denton’s appeal tee hear unanimously attended. At the hear- was notified of the and hearing Ms. Denton mother, followed, in attendance with her Denton ing Ms. Jamison, the Chair of the questioned by Paula testified and was Offi- as did Dr. Smith. Committee. Officer also testified Edgmon seized from cer and ammunition Edgmon gun clips showed 5 to 2 to The Committee voted the Denton car the Committee. the sanction. The but to lessen guilty to decision uphold to Eric as guilty Committee also to affirm decision voted Patterson and the full three-year suspension. to Dr. John
Ms. the matter Smith Denton next appealed involvement, he make the final of Dr. Smith’s decision. Because Dr. Win- recused and turned the file over matter, and March fred reviewed Thompson Thompson. a full but instituted he the Committee’s decision upheld Denton. three-year for Ms. suspension On March 11 her Ms. Denton filed petitions Later, declaratory injunctive relief. on the peti- tion was conducted and was taken. At conclusion testimony of two days the chancellor stated his from testimony, ruling the bench in which he referred in “gaping inconsistencies” Later, (1) Denton’s story. the chancellor entered his decree declaring to violate due University’s gun substantive policy (2) process, and the Uni- granting permanent injunction against versity’s further suspension Ms. Denton. The chancellor ruled that there nowas need for him discuss and that issue moot.
The standard of interference university review for disci- plinary matters is stringent indeed best summarized a recent Court of Appeals decision:
There a general the courts intervention in matters best left to inter- school authorities. “Judicial in the position operation public system school the Nation raises restraint.... problems requiring care and large, By public education our Nation is committed *13 to the control of state and local v. Lopez, authorities.” Goss 578, Arkansas, at 419 U.S. 393 U.S. citing Epperson v. 97 (1968). The with courts have been reluctant to interfere local authority local school boards to handle prob- 7, 130, lems. v. Sch. Ark. Fortman Texarkana Dist. No. 257 514 (1974). S.W.2d 720 A no to chancery power court has interfere with in of their school district boards the exercise discretion when directing operation of the schools unless the boards Bd. clearly abuse their discretion. Springdale Bowman, (1987). v. Educ. Ark. 66 The burden is 294 of upon those clear and such an abuse to it charging prove Bowman, convincing evidence. Ark. 740 S.W.2d 294 at 909. to Undoubtedly these disci- general principles apply plinary hearings for at state students universities supported and colleges.
Henderson State 41 848 University v. Ark. Spadoni, App. (1993). S.W.2d 953 of this state Accordingly, courts should be most reluctant in proceedings to interfere disciplinary of state here and such as we have colleges except universities when violations of due are and rights clear unmistakable. process 268
Here, of way received more in the if Ms. Denton anything, had full hear- than is She two protection required. due process testified and other and where she present where she was ings before the Judi- testified on her behalf: one Student witnesses Board, Uni- her not and one before the which found guilty, cial Committee, her In addi- culpable. which found versity Discipline tion, Vice her case reviewed Affairs, Uni- the President of the Dr. John Student her That totals four reviews versity, Thompson. Winfred it to court. before she took case due process
The seminal case for procedural
protection
at
v. Alabama State Board
state universities Dixon
students
Education,
denied,
1961),
(5th
368 U.S.
Cir.
cert.
F.2d
There,
(1961).
from
expelled
college,
the students were
were
Fifth
Court of
held that those students
Appeals
Circuit
them
charges
entitled to notice of the
and the witnesses against
a
both
their
allowing
present
positions
sides
of due
as
complete
expulsion
part
parcel
detail prior
a
establishing
the Dixon case is credited
Although
process.
right
university,
in a student’s attendance at a state
property
United States
Court
to decide that issue.
yet
has
Supreme
has, however,
Court
assumed a student’s
interest
property
in order to reach certain due
issues. See
higher
process
education
(1985).
University Michigan Ewing,
We do not hold a school has the authority require any right student to discard when he matric- constitutional ulates. hold that a college power We do has inherent inher- rules and that it promulgate regulations; has *14 ent that it has power appro- properly discipline; power priately may expect itself and its it protect property; that its adhere to generally accepted students standards these, conduct; that, as to room are flexibility elbow to be over preferred specificity; (as here must be afforded Hunter his Judge first opinion notice, specifically required) way adequate definite charge, hearing opportunity and a one’s present side all necessary protective own case and with mea- sures', that school are not to be measured regulations the standards which criminal law and for prevail criminal and that the procedure; courts should interfere only where there is a clear infringe- case constitutional ment.
Esteban Central Missouri State College, 415 F.2d
1089-
denied,
(8th
1969),
(1970).
Cir.
cert.
Though must assume that Ms. Denton did not receive written notice three in advance of the days Student Judicial Board hearing as Student Handbook she never com- contemplates, fact, lack of notice. In plained she had full notice of the hear- In Dr. John ing. Smith’s office on February she was shown of Officer copy on the Edgmon’s police report Saturday incident. The night two then discussed whether Ms. Denton wanted an administrative expedited hearing before the Dean of Students or a hearing before the Judicial Board two which days was already scheduled to meet. She chose the latter. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution does not require notice, a written three-day notice. It requires admits everyone that Ms. Denton got notice of the hearing this case.
She also knew the against witnesses her and what they would before the say Judicial Board hearing on 1993. Ms. Denton admitted seeing of Officer police report Edgmon, which essence of his before that testimony, hearing. She also knew in advance the administration’s as testified position Denton, to by Assistant Dean of Students John Eric Cagle. Ms. Patterson, friend, Patel, Victor and a Rita in her testified favor, and the Judicial Board found her not Dr. Smith then guilty. listened to the of the Student Judicial Board tapes hearing again interviewed pertinent witnesses and the Chairman Judicial Board. He decided not to accept Board’s recom- mendation. later,
Fifteen days Ms. Denton with her mother at appeared the University Committee and testified on her own behalf as did Eric Patterson. She had certainly written notice and knowledge of the witnesses her at this Offi- against hearing. cer and Dr. Edgmon Smith testified her. After the Uni- *15 270 Dr. Smith
versity
hearing,
disqualified
Committee
of his previous
himself from
the final decision because
making
President,
involvement,
Dr.
made
and the University
Thompson,
judicial
of
a full-blown
having
ultimate determination. Short
cross-examination, which due
with counsel
proceeding
present
context,
Denton was afforded
does not
in this
Ms.
process
require
Cura
more than
See Board
safeguards.
adequate procedural
of
Horowitz,
(1978);
v.
Moreover, due Dr. did not violate the spirit process. Smith Denton on Feb- against He did the initial investigate charge Board he did attend the Student Judicial ruary but not — Dean of Students meeting on 1993 Assistant University Discipline John did. Dr. Smith did attend the Cagle for the only purpose Committee on March 1993 but meeting That did not his decision to Committee explaining suspend. and for that rea- with Dr. on the agree penalty, Smith’s decision final decision. Far making son he himself from disqualified from Dr. Smith was zealous violating safeguards, the chan- certain that were a fact which making they provided, cellor acknowledged. protean that Dr. Smith majority performed complains Then, that
roles in this matter. concludes illogically, majority let Thompson Dr. Smith was aside and wrong step make the ultimate decision. The sole reason for Smith eliminate any sug- remove himself from the final decision was to were gestion appropriate of a conflict of interest. His actions there not be concluding should twisted into reason a denial of due process. failure for the cites no case majority principle amounts, itself,
adhere strictly Student Handbook procedures That because there to a violation of a constitutional magnitude. Here, lack of notice are none. did not complain Ms. Denton did not com- of the first she received notice. She hearing because none, there were her because plain surprise witnesses all her own case. That is she had full to present opportunity that due process requires. *16 to stu- such strict adherence
I am fearful that requiring what the U.S. those dent handbooks equating procedures of universities ability Constitution we undermine requires, their disci- even to enforce secondary schools primary case, gun policy In this school plinary policies. legitimate violated, sig- of constitutional and there were no procedural lapses Indeed, case her present nificance. Ms. Denton was allowed I dissent. fully multiple occasions. Arkansas
Charles PATTON v. STATE of CR 895 S.W.2d 95-230 Court of Arkansas Supreme delivered Opinion April Gibson, Jr., John F. for appellant.
No response. Gibson, Jr., John F. filed a motion for rule on Per Curiam. client, the clerk on behalf of his Patton. The appellant Charles to, requests “rule on the clerk by filing reinstate his appeal herewith; record tendered an order permitting Appellant