Student Admissions Are Sufficient Proof of Guilt – Most of the Time

With students returning to school after a year of operating on a hybrid and/or remote basis due to the COVID-19 pandemic, schools may be seeing an uptick with student behavior referrals resulting in long-term suspensions. For a student to be suspended for a period longer than five days, the student is entitled to a hearing in accordance with Section 3214 of the Education Law.

At the hearing, the school must prove by competent and substantial evidence that the student violated the district’s code of conduct as provided for in the charges in the notice of hearing letter. The only evidence that may be considered by the hearing officer, or any decision maker in the appeal process, is the evidence presented at the hearing. As a general rule, a student’s admission of guilt to the charged conduct is sufficient proof of guilt.

In Appeal of NR, 60 Ed Dept, Decision 17,913, a parent of a student appealed to the Commissioner of Education a decision where the student was found guilty and suspended for searching on the school-issued Chromebook inappropriate topics including, but not limited to, “I will kill every drug addict”, “funniest ways to die”, “what’s the sharpest knife”, “nitroglycerin explosion”, “mother of all bomb explosion”, and “kill shot”. At the hearing the student admitted to conducting the internet searches, and the student was suspended based upon his admission to the conduct.

Even though the student admitted to conducting the searches that were subject to the charge, the student specifically denied that such searches were inappropriate, violent in nature, or constituted misconduct under the policies cited by the district. The Commissioner held that the district proved by competent and substantial evidence the student conducted the searches but did not prove by competent and substantial evidence that the student was “insubordinate or disorderly or violent or disruptive, or whose conduct otherwise endangers the safety, morals, health or welfare of others” or violated district policies. At the hearing the student provided an explanation as to the searches he conducted, and the district did not submit any evidence to rebut the student’s testimony at the hearing. Because the district did not submit proof to establish that the student’s searches violated Education Law § 3214 or district policies, the Commissioner overturned the suspension and ordered the district to annul and expunge from the student’s records all references to the long-term suspension.

The moral of the story here is that context is everything. The student, administrator, and parent may know the conduct is not appropriate based upon prior discussions and information. However, the decision-makers are only able to consider the evidence presented at the hearing, and any information not presented may not be considered. As such, a student’s admission to the conduct may not be enough if there is no proof that the conduct was a violation of the district’s code of conduct or policies. Therefore, even when there is an admission to the conduct, the district should still provide its version of events by presenting its evidence to enable the decision-makers to come to the same conclusion that the administrator did when making the initial determination to suspend the student.