McDonald v. Sweetman et al., 2004 U.S. Dist LEXIS 5558 (Dist. CT. 2004).

Alyssa McDonald was a high school student who regularly brought baked goods to school for school events. On May 4, 2001, Alyssa brought brownies she had made onto the school bus and distributed the brownies to several students. One of the students, Michael Nield, jokingly told some students that the brownies were laced with marijuana.

As a result of Nield’s joke, a seventh graders mom called the principal of the middle school and indicated that her son had acted strangely, reportedly after eating the marijuana-laced brownies. This information was passed to the high-school principal, Mr. Horrigan.

This began a chain of events that the court calls “dismaying.” Mr. Horrigan allegedly called Alyssa in, and locked the door to his office; he then questioned her at length notwithstanding her denials with respect to the brownies being laced with anything.

When Alyssa’s dad finally became involved, Mr. Horrigan refused to listen and simply indicated that he did not believe Alyssa and that she would be punished. Alyssa was subsequently drug tested with a negative result.

Alyssa filed suit in federal district court alleging a violation of her rights to procedural and substantive due process.

With respect to the procedural due process claim, the court concluded that since Alyssa received only a ten-day suspension she was only entitled to oral or written notice of the charges; an opportunity to deny the charges and an explanation of the evidence where the student denies the charges. The court noted that even though the school officials actions were misguided in this case, Alyssa’s due process rights had not been violated since Mr. Horrigan had told her of the charges and after she denied them, told her of the evidence, namely, the call from the mother of the seventh-grader.

In dealing with Alyssa’s substantive due process claim the court concluded that Alyssa would have to prove that the school official’s conduct would have to shock the conscience. Although the court was dismayed by the school official’s action against her, it was not conscience shocking and thus the suit was dismissed.

Editor’s note: Some federal courts would likely apply a deliberate indifference standard rather than shock’s the conscience which may have led to a different result.