Sheriff Must Show Bus Video to School Board

A video from a public school bus’s sur­veillance system showing conduct by the boys’ basketball teams that school officials termed “appalling” and “violent” is school property and the sheriff’s department is required to show the video for the school board’s disciplinary hearing, says the Shenandoah County Circuit Court.

The commonwealth’s attorney estimat­ed that 25 people have viewed the video, including law enforcement, school and social services officials, as well as defense counsel in criminal proceedings and some students and parents.

As a result of the school administration’s investigation and Title IX reports, the school superintendent made the decision to recommend expulsion of three students. He also imposed long-term suspensions on three other students. Two additional students were found in violation of Title IX and will need to complete certain “rem­edies.” Of these eight students, the three with expulsion recommendations must be heard by the school board and three others have appealed to the school board.

School board members, including the chair, have yet to view the video. The mem­bers fell they must see the video in order to fully analyze the superintendent’s dis­ciplinary recommendations and provide a fair opportunity to the students involved.

The sheriff’s department refuses to make the video available, but offered in­stead 40,000 still image photographs from the video. The school board continues to seek the video and seeks an injunction and a writ of mandamus ordering the sheriff to present the video, or portions of the video, during the closed disciplinary hearings. The sheriff argues that, under Va. Code §§ 16.1-301 and 16.1-309, he cannot release the video and he disputes that the school board is entitled to the relief sought.

Limited need

The school board does not seek nor want to recover the video or otherwise affect its use in criminal proceedings. Thus, an ac­tion in detinue to recover the video fails to address the school board’s limited need, and it is therefore inadequate. The school board contends irreparable harm is likely to result based on obligations arising un­der three sources of law. If the board can­not conduct the necessary hearings, it will not be able to fully address the incidents and will fail in its obligations to remedy the harassment. If it conducts the hear­ings without the video, it deprives the stu­dents and families of a fair opportunity to respond to the evidence against them.

Article VIII, Section 7 vests in the school board a supervisory power and pursuant to this power, the board holds the author­ity to monitor and manage the safety and welfare of its students. The board may make decisions about how to best conduct these hearings, including deciding what evidence is necessary and how to best pro­tect the rights of the students and the in­stitution.

The sheriff’s reliance on Sections 16.1- 301 and 16.1-309 overlooks § 16.1-301(C) (3), which allows for inspection of juvenile records by any person, agency or institu­tion, by order of the court, having a legit­imate interest in the case or in the work of the law-enforcement agency. Section 16.1-309(B) also creates an exemption for certain disclosures, specifically disclo­sures of identifying information made to school personnel for purposes of enabling the school personnel to take disciplinary action. It would appear the school board would be an institution with a legitimate interest in the video.

I find there is no substitute for this vid­eo. The evidence demonstrates the video is subject to various interpretations and some parents question the interpretations of the superintendent, principal and Ti­tle IX investigator. A disciplinary hearing held without access to the relevant por­tions of the video would be unsatisfactory, as many parents and students would leave with a feeling that the school board is hid­ing important information.

If the court grants the injunction, the sheriff suffers no prejudice or injury. I can­not find the prosecution’s investigation is impeded by the school board’s request for a limited and confidential viewing. The orig­inal video has been secured in the sheriff’s evidence locker since the school adminis­trators first turned it over.

I grant the board’s motion for injunc­tive relief and direct the sheriff to make the video available and to show it to the school board, at the times determined by the board chair, in the presence of the par­ents and student at the upcoming school board disciplinary hearings, in closed ses­sion. The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied and the relief granted is on the petition for injunctive relief.

Shenandoah County School Board v. Carter (Wilson) No. 16-79, April 29, 2016; Shenandoah County Cir.Ct.; Lindsay C. Brubaker for petitioner; Harwell M. Darby Jr. for respondent. VLW 016-8-057, 9 pp.