Posts tagged with "possession"

Categories of Student Misbehavior Qualifying for Suspension

When a student misbehaves at school, he or she may be punished with a suspension in one of three categories: the behavior

  1. violated a publicized school policy;
  2. seriously disrupted the educational process; or
  3. endangered persons or property.[1]

As a parent, it is important that you understand what conduct qualifies as prohibited conduct, and in some instances you may be able to contest the characterization.

Violation of Publicized School Policy

School boards have the statutory authority to draft disciplinary rules and policies that apply to student conduct within their district. To that end, they utilize student handbooks, which are distributed to each child at the beginning of the school year, that specifically list conduct that is prohibited. Therefore, if and when a student engages in that conduct, school administrators may issue a suspension.

The rules and guidelines found in student handbooks must be clear and understandable so as to give students and parents reasonable notice of prohibited conduct.[2] Furthermore, the rules must not be completely arbitrary: rather, there must be some relationship between the rules and their intended purposes. Admittedly, this is not a difficult standard to meet.

If you are a parent and your child is suspended under this category, you should first review the school handbook to establish whether or not your child actually violated an articulated disciplinary rule. “You will likely be able to make a stronger case for your child during suspension hearings… if you can show that his or her conduct is neither prohibited by the school nor violates any school rules.”[3]

Serious Disruption of the Educational Process

To qualify for this category, a student’s behavior must interfere with the operation of a class, study hall, library, or any meeting that involves student or staff.[4] Even non-serious disruptions that are recurrent or cumulative qualify, though administrators will consider the frequency, number, and severity of these occurrences.[5]

Endangerment of Persons or Property

Finally, “endangerment of persons or property” constitutes conduct that exposes a student to injury, risk, or a harmful situation.[6] A number of student behaviors would fall under this category, including but not limited to:

  • Fighting and bullying
  • Possession of firearms or controlled substances
  • Damage to personal or school property

Because of the potentially adverse and significant impact a suspension or expulsion can have on a student’s future, it is imperative to seek the advice of an experienced school law practitioner. The lawyers at Maya Murphy, P.C., assist clients in Bridgeport, Darien, Fairfield, Greenwich, New Canaan, Norwalk, Stamford, and Westport. Should you have any questions regarding school discipline or other education law matters, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya, Esq. He may be reached at Maya Murphy, P.C., 266 Post Road East, Westport, Connecticut (located in Fairfield County), by telephone at (203) 221-3100, or by email at JMaya@mayalaw.com.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.


[1] Connecticut General Statutes § 10-233c.

[2] Crossen v. Fatsi, 309 F. Supp. 114 (D. Conn. 1970).

[3] “Advocating on Your Child’s Behalf: A Parent’s Guide to Connecticut School Law,” by Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at pp.42.

[4] “Guidelines for In-School and Out-of-School Suspensions,” by the Connecticut State Department of Education, at pp.9. http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/pdf/pressroom/In_School_Suspension_Guidance.pdf

[5] Id.

[6] Id. at 10.

Jury Reasonably Concluded Threat of Force Was Made During Course of Robbery; Absence of Firearm Immaterial

In a recent criminal law matter, the Appellate Court of Connecticut rejected a defendant’s claims that the State provided insufficient evidence to convict her of robbery and conspiracy.

This case arose from an incident that occurred on February 29, 2004. A loss prevention supervisor at the J.C. Penney in Danbury observed the defendant and her friend taking a foot massager from the store without paying for it. He pursued them into the mall and requested that they return with him; both refused and claimed they purchased the item. The defendant then threatened that she would blow the supervisor’s brains out if he touched the friend, who was presently holding the massager. The friend dropped the item as they walked away.

The defendant was subsequently convicted on numerous counts, including robbery in the third degree and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. Following sentencing, she appealed and argued in part that there was insufficient evidence to convict. She claimed that the statement was not made for the purpose of retaining possession of the foot massager. The defendant further stated that at the time the threat was made, she made no action indicating she actually had a firearm in her possession.

Under Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-133, a person commits a robbery:

[W]hen, in the course of committing a larceny, he uses or threatens to use immediate use of physical force upon another person for the purpose of: (1) Preventing or overcoming resistance to the taking of the property or to the retention thereof immediately after the taking; or (2) compelling the owner of such property or another person to deliver up the property or to engage in other conduct which aids in the commission of the larceny.

A jury must consider whether the use or threatened use of force takes place “during the continuous sequence of events surrounding the taking or attempted taking.” If the jury answers in the affirmative, the use in question “is considered to be in the course of the robbery or attempted robbery within the meaning of the statute.” In this case, the Appellate Court determined that the jury had authority to conclude that the threat made by the defendant – blowing the supervisor’s brains out – was made “during the continuous sequence of events surrounding the taking of the foot massager.” Indeed, it was stated while the friend was holding onto the massager after they had only just left the store.

The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s argument regarding the significance of an absent firearm. Third degree robbery requires mere physical force, while robbery in the first degree includes “[threatened] use of what he represents by his words or actions to be a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, machine gun or other firearm.” In other words, the State need not prove that the defendant in question actually had a gun at the time he made the threat. Therefore, with respect to this aspect of the appeal, the Court agreed that the State provided sufficient evidence to convict on both counts.

When faced with a charge of larceny, burglary, conspiracy, or attempt, an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Continue Reading