Preview:

REL: 09/17/2010

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



REL: 09/17/2010

Southern Reporter
Southern Reporter.
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
SPECIAL TERM, 2010 2090746
Monroe County Board of Education
v.
K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H.
Appeal from Monroe Juvenile Court (JU-10-85.01; JU-09-117.02; JU-09-20.03; and JU-09-64.02)
THOMPSON, Presiding Judge.
The Monroe County Board of Education ("the Board") appeals from a judgment of the Monroe Juvenile Court ("the juvenile court") reversing the Board's finding that K.B., T.P., C.W., and R.H. violated the Board's policy on alcohol



2090746
use at school or at school-sponsored activities or functions. The juvenile court also found that the punishment imposed for the violation was unreasonable in light of the facts of this case. Because K.B., T.P., and C.W. have already graduated, this dispute is moot as to those three students. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to K.B., T.P., and C.W., and, in this opinion, we shall discuss the issues only as they pertain to R.H.
Documentary evidence included in the record on appeal tends to show the following. On March 21, 2010, Excel High School ("the school") held its prom. Faculty members at the school smelled alcohol among students in the prom "line up," and several students, including R.H., were asked whether they had been drinking. An assistant principal administered Breathalyzer tests to R.H., who was a junior at the school at the time. The test results measured blood-alcohol levels of .001 and .006. The Board has never disputed that R.H. did not have alcohol in his possession at the prom.
On March 23, 2010, Kevin York, the principal of the school, suspended R.H. for five days for being under the influence of alcohol at the prom. On March 26, 2010, the

2



2090746
use at school or at school-sponsored activities or functions. The juvenile court also found that the punishment imposed for the violation was unreasonable in light of the facts of this case. Because K.B., T.P., and C.W. have already graduated, this dispute is moot as to those three students. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to K.B., T.P., and C.W., and, in this opinion, we shall discuss the issues only as they pertain to R.H.
Documentary evidence included in the record on appeal tends to show the following. On March 21, 2010, Excel High School ("the school") held its prom. Faculty members at the school smelled alcohol among students in the prom "line up," and several students, including R.H., were asked whether they had been drinking. An assistant principal administered Breathalyzer tests to R.H., who was a junior at the school at the time. The test results measured blood-alcohol levels of .001 and .006. The Board has never disputed that R.H. did not have alcohol in his possession at the prom.
On March 23, 2010, Kevin York, the principal of the school, suspended R.H. for five days for being under the influence of alcohol at the prom. On March 26, 2010, the

2



2090746
use at school or at school-sponsored activities or functions. The juvenile court also found that the punishment imposed for the violation was unreasonable in light of the facts of this case. Because K.B., T.P., and C.W. have already graduated, this dispute is moot as to those three students. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to K.B., T.P., and C.W., and, in this opinion, we shall discuss the issues only as they pertain to R.H.
Documentary evidence included in the record on appeal tends to show the following. On March 21, 2010, Excel High School ("the school") held its prom. Faculty members at the school smelled alcohol among students in the prom "line up," and several students, including R.H., were asked whether they had been drinking. An assistant principal administered Breathalyzer tests to R.H., who was a junior at the school at the time. The test results measured blood-alcohol levels of .001 and .006. The Board has never disputed that R.H. did not have alcohol in his possession at the prom.
On March 23, 2010, Kevin York, the principal of the school, suspended R.H. for five days for being under the influence of alcohol at the prom. On March 26, 2010, the

2



2090746
use at school or at school-sponsored activities or functions. The juvenile court also found that the punishment imposed for the violation was unreasonable in light of the facts of this case. Because K.B., T.P., and C.W. have already graduated, this dispute is moot as to those three students. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as to K.B., T.P., and C.W., and, in this opinion, we shall discuss the issues only as they pertain to R.H.
Documentary evidence included in the record on appeal tends to show the following. On March 21, 2010, Excel High School ("the school") held its prom. Faculty members at the school smelled alcohol among students in the prom "line up," and several students, including R.H., were asked whether they had been drinking. An assistant principal administered Breathalyzer tests to R.H., who was a junior at the school at the time. The test results measured blood-alcohol levels of .001 and .006. The Board has never disputed that R.H. did not have alcohol in his possession at the prom.
On March 23, 2010, Kevin York, the principal of the school, suspended R.H. for five days for being under the influence of alcohol at the prom. On March 26, 2010, the

2



2090746
Administrative Discipline Committee of the Board held what it called a "fact-finding" hearing. R.H. and his attorney were present at the hearing. On March 29, 2010, the Board notified R.H.'s mother of its findings by letter. In the letter, the Board stated that there was no evidence indicating that R.H. was in possession of alcohol at the prom and that he "was not under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he would have been guilty of the criminal offenses of driving under the influence, or public intoxication." The Board went on to find, however, that R.H. had consumed alcohol on the day of the prom "in anticipation of attending the Prom, and by doing so [R.H.] used alcohol at a school function, in violation of the Board's alcohol policy." The school's handbook for the 2009-2010 school year included the Board's alcohol policy, which provided that "no student shall carry, possess, or use drugs, drug paraphernalia, or alcohol" at a school function.
Based upon its findings, the Board upheld the suspension. In addition, the Board assigned R.H. to the C.P. Carmichael Alternative School for one year, subject to a review at the end of a semester or the equivalent of a semester, i.e., three six-week periods.

3



2090746
Administrative Discipline Committee of the Board held what it called a "fact-finding" hearing. R.H. and his attorney were present at the hearing. On March 29, 2010, the Board notified R.H.'s mother of its findings by letter. In the letter, the Board stated that there was no evidence indicating that R.H. was in possession of alcohol at the prom and that he "was not under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he would have been guilty of the criminal offenses of driving under the influence, or public intoxication." The Board went on to find, however, that R.H. had consumed alcohol on the day of the prom "in anticipation of attending the Prom, and by doing so [R.H.] used alcohol at a school function, in violation of the Board's alcohol policy." The school's handbook for the 2009-2010 school year included the Board's alcohol policy, which provided that "no student shall carry, possess, or use drugs, drug paraphernalia, or alcohol" at a school function.
Based upon its findings, the Board upheld the suspension. In addition, the Board assigned R.H. to the C.P. Carmichael Alternative School for one year, subject to a review at the end of a semester or the equivalent of a semester, i.e., three six-week periods.

3



2090746
Administrative Discipline Committee of the Board held what it called a "fact-finding" hearing. R.H. and his attorney were present at the hearing. On March 29, 2010, the Board notified R.H.'s mother of its findings by letter. In the letter, the Board stated that there was no evidence indicating that R.H. was in possession of alcohol at the prom and that he "was not under the influence of alcohol to the extent that he would have been guilty of the criminal offenses of driving under the influence, or public intoxication." The Board went on to find, however, that R.H. had consumed alcohol on the day of the prom "in anticipation of attending the Prom, and by doing so [R.H.] used alcohol at a school function, in violation of the Board's alcohol policy." The school's handbook for the 2009-2010 school year included the Board's alcohol policy, which provided that "no student shall carry, possess, or use drugs, drug paraphernalia, or alcohol" at a school function.
Based upon its findings, the Board upheld the suspension. In addition, the Board assigned R.H. to the C.P. Carmichael Alternative School for one year, subject to a review at the end of a semester or the equivalent of a semester, i.e., three six-week periods.

3



2090746
R.H. appealed the Board's decision to the juvenile court. On April 8, 2010, the juvenile court held a hearing. The parties stipulated to the evidence; however, the specific stipulations are not included in the record on appeal. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments of the parties' attorneys, the juvenile court entered a judgment finding that the word "use" as set out in the Board's policy "means to ingest alcohol while on school property or at any other school function." Because there was no evidence indicating that R.H. "used" alcohol on school property or at a school function, the juvenile court ruled that he did not violate the Board's policy and ordered him reinstated in the school immediately. The juvenile court further found that the Board's alcohol policy was silent on the issue of punishment for violations of the prohibition of using alcohol at school or at school functions, and it held that the punishment that the Board had imposed on R.H. in this instance was unreasonable in light of the facts. The Board appeals.
In Ex parte Board of School Commissioners of Mobile  County, 824 So. 2d 759, 761 (Ala. 2001), our supreme court set

4



2090746
R.H. appealed the Board's decision to the juvenile court. On April 8, 2010, the juvenile court held a hearing. The parties stipulated to the evidence; however, the specific stipulations are not included in the record on appeal. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments of the parties' attorneys, the juvenile court entered a judgment finding that the word "use" as set out in the Board's policy "means to ingest alcohol while on school property or at any other school function." Because there was no evidence indicating that R.H. "used" alcohol on school property or at a school function, the juvenile court ruled that he did not violate the Board's policy and ordered him reinstated in the school immediately. The juvenile court further found that the Board's alcohol policy was silent on the issue of punishment for violations of the prohibition of using alcohol at school or at school functions, and it held that the punishment that the Board had imposed on R.H. in this instance was unreasonable in light of the facts. The Board appeals.
In Ex parte Board of School Commissioners of Mobile  County, 824 So. 2d 759, 761 (Ala. 2001), our supreme court set

4



2090746
R.H. appealed the Board's decision to the juvenile court. On April 8, 2010, the juvenile court held a hearing. The parties stipulated to the evidence; however, the specific stipulations are not included in the record on appeal. Upon consideration of the evidence and arguments of the parties' attorneys, the juvenile court entered a judgment finding that the word "use" as set out in the Board's policy "means to ingest alcohol while on school property or at any other school function." Because there was no evidence indicating that R.H. "used" alcohol on school property or at a school function, the juvenile court ruled that he did not violate the Board's policy and ordered him reinstated in the school immediately. The juvenile court further found that the Board's alcohol policy was silent on the issue of punishment for violations of the prohibition of using alcohol at school or at school functions, and it held that the punishment that the Board had imposed on R.H. in this instance was unreasonable in light of the facts. The Board appeals.
In Ex parte Board of School Commissioners of Mobile  County, 824 So. 2d 759, 761 (Ala. 2001), our supreme court set

4



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

forth the standard of review applicable in appeals of
decisions from local boards of education as follows.
"A board of education must comply with the policies it adopts. Belcher v. Jefferson County Bd.  of Educ., 474 So. 2d 1063, 1068 (Ala. 1985). 'This court and the trial court must give substantial deference to an agency's interpretation of its rules and regulations. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County  v. Bailey, 475 So. 2d 863 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' Mobile County Pers. Bd. v. Tillman, 751 So. 2d 517, 518 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999). 'It is well settled that "an agency's interpretation of its own regulation must stand if it is reasonable, even though it may not appear as reasonable as some other interpretation." Ferlisi v. Alabama Medicaid  Agency, 481 So. 2d 400, 403 (Ala. Civ. App. 1985).' State Pers. Bd. v. Wallace, 682 So. 2d 1357, 1359 (Ala. Civ. App. 1996). An agency's interpretation of its own policy is controlling unless it is plainly erroneous. Brunson Constr. & Envtl. Servs.,  Inc. v. City of Prichard, 664 So. 2d 885, 890 (Ala. 1995). See also Peacock v. Houston County Bd. of  Educ., 653 So. 2d 308, 309 (Ala. Civ. App. 1994)."
Trumping that deferential standard, however, is the
constitutional requirement of due process. "[W]hen the basic
constitutional rights of students are at issue, this court
cannot avoid considering these constitutional rights when they
are infringed by board action. The authority vested in school
boards and officials to maintain order and discipline in
school must be exercised within constitutional bounds."

5



2090746

Dothan City Bd. of Educ. v. V.M.H., 660 So. 2d 1328, 1330
(Ala. Civ. App. 1995).
Due process of law requires fair notice that one's conduct is subject to a law or regulation. Courts have found that the right to due process is violated "'when a statute or regulation is unduly vague, unreasonable, or overbroad.'" Brooks v. Alabama State Bar, 574 So. 2d 33, 34 (Ala. 1990) (quoting Ross Neely Express, Inc. v. Alabama Dep't of Envtl.  Mgmt., 437 So. 2d 82, 84 (Ala. 1983)). Thus, rules and regulations governing the conduct of students "must be sufficiently definite to provide notice to reasonable students that they must conform their conduct to its requirements." 67B Am. Jur. 2d Schools

Download 2090746.pdf

Alabama Law