{ "id": 3520788, "name": "JOHN WILSON, Father and Next Friend of Lynn Wilson, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLLINSVILLE COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 10, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Wilson v. Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10", "decision_date": "1983-07-05", "docket_number": "No. 83\u2014213", "first_page": "557", "last_page": "563", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "116 Ill. App. 3d 557" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "424 N.E.2d 737", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "739" }, { "page": "739" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "98 Ill. App. 3d 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 8499446 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "439" }, { "page": "439" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/98/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.E.2d 1228", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1230" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 Ill. App. 3d 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2970752 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "590-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/46/0588-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 622, "char_count": 12311, "ocr_confidence": 0.768, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8571107532527023e-07, "percentile": 0.7243306463040895 }, "sha256": "7942540a8abafc984523c39c167e04ea69eccbcdb75368ab950b285f66c149d7", "simhash": "1:95cd2b933e4a9cd4", "word_count": 1922 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:34:21.721217+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JOHN WILSON, Father and Next Friend of Lynn Wilson, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLLINSVILLE COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 10, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE KASSERMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Collinsville Community Unit School District No. 10, appeals from an order which permanently enjoined it from continuing disciplinary action against Lynn Wilson, a junior at Collinsville High School. In an order entered May 26, 1983, we reversed the trial court\u2019s judgment, indicating that this opinion would follow.\nOn January 21, 1983, plaintiff, John Wilson, Lynn Wilson\u2019s father and next friend, filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a complaint for injunction. The complaint for injunction alleged, inter alia, that Miss Wilson was suspended from school on November 24, 1982, when school personnel observed her in possession of between 80 and 100 pills. Subsequent testing indicated that the pills contained caffeine. On December 2, 1982, an expulsion hearing took place and a few days later the Collinsville Board of Education approved the suspension of Miss Wilson and expelled her \u201c for the remainder of the 1982-1983 school year for gross misconduct.\u201d In the complaint for injunction, plaintiff alleged that the disciplinary actions taken by the school board were \u201carbitrary, unreasonable, and excessive acts in light of the nature of the conduct of the minor and the prevailing regulations of the Defendant at the time of the conduct.\u201d\nOn April 6, 1983, a hearing on the temporary restraining order was conducted. Mr. Wilson testified that his daughter had not been in trouble previously and he did not know why she had pills in her possession.\nDallas Harrell, an assistant superintendent for defendant, testified that he was the hearing officer assigned to Miss Wilson\u2019s case and that it was his duty to investigate the matter for the school board. According to Mr. Harrell, when he questioned Miss Wilson she told him that the pills in her possession were to be delivered to other students and were for dieting. Miss Wilson further told Mr. Harrell that she was not selling the pills and that she did not know what caffeine was. Mr. Harrell stated that the student handbook\u2019s prohibition against \u201cunauthorized drugs\u201d might include aspirin, Tylenol, or vitamin pills but that it was not his responsibility to make such a determination.\nJohn Renfro, defendant\u2019s school superintendent, testified that, based upon the evidence presented at Miss Wilson\u2019s expulsion hearing, he recommended to the school board that Miss Wilson be expelled because he considered her conduct to be \u201cserious\u201d and \u201cdestructive.\u201d Mr. Renfro indicated that generally when students are found either possessing or using \u201cunauthorized drugs\u201d they are immediately suspended and usually expelled. Mr. Renfro also stated that neither \u201cdrugs\u201d nor \u201cunauthorized\u201d were defined in the student handbook.\nThe trial court granted the temporary restraining order, stating that it thought that \u201cthe punishment far outweighs the crime.\u201d The trial court further stated that it did not find the school board\u2019s disciplinary action to be arbitrary or capricious but concluded that under the circumstances, including Miss Wilson\u2019s good school record and the fact that the pills were not a controlled substance, Miss Wilson deserved another chance.\nOn February 4, 1983, the trial court reconvened for the purpose of determining whether the temporary restraining order should be made a permanent injunction. At this hearing, plaintiff requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the prior testimony presented at the hearing on the temporary restraining order, which the trial court did, and plaintiff then rested. Defendant, after arguing its motion to dismiss, then presented a number of witnesses.\nLynn Wilson, called as an adverse witness, admitted possession of the pills and testified that her possession of these pills was not for medicinal purposes.\nDonna Rees, a forensic scientist with the Illinois Department of Law Enforcement, testified that the pills Miss Wilson possessed contained 65.4 milligrams of caffeine and 16.5 milligrams of ephedrine per tablet.\nRandall Webber, the State Prevention Coordinator for the Illinois Dangerous Drugs Commission, testified that caffeine pills constituted a \u201clook alike\u201d drug and were readily available to teenagers in the schools. It was Mr. Webber\u2019s opinion that the availability of \u201clook alike\u201d drugs in the school' constituted a danger because it constituted a physical threat to students and created an unhealthy drug-oriented atmosphere. Mr. Webber testified that within the past two years there have been six confirmed deaths related to \u201clook alike\u201d drugs containing caffeine.\nChris Carlton-Rankaitis, director of Project Oz, which is a drug education and prevention agency, also testified regarding the prevalence of \u201clook alike\u201d drugs in the schools. She indicated that the use of caffeine pills created a risk of overdoses and of psychological dependence.\nRon Ganschinietz, the principal of Collinsville High School, testified that he was familiar with the drug problem among the students. He related that he previously had been shot by a student under the influence of drugs. Mr. Ganschinietz was of the opinion that the presence of \u201clook alike\u201d drugs in school has a disruptive effect on the educational process. Mr. Ganschinietz testified that he recommended to the school board that Miss Wilson be expelled for the remainder of the school year because of her possession of the caffeine pills. Mr. Ganschinietz stated that the previous records of students are not considered in determining whether to expel a student for possession of drugs because of the seriousness of such conduct. He also indicated that the school determined what constituted \u201cunauthorized drugs.\u201d\nOn February 23, 1983, the trial court granted plaintiff\u2019s request for an injunction. The order stated in part:\n\u201cThat at the hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order on January 25, 1983, plaintiff raised the issue of the possible violation of due process due to vagueness of the Collinsville High School Student Handbook marked as Plaintiff\u2019s Exhibit Number 2; that the Court does not reach the Constitutional issues in this cause.\n* * *\nThat the Collinsville Community School District #10 abused its discretion and acted in an unreasonable manner in failing to give proper consideration to the prior good record of the student in question and acted in a manner far more severe than necessary to protect the other students in the school system when it expelled Lynn Wilson for the remainder of the 1982-83 school year.\u201d\nDefendant subsequently perfected this appeal.\nBefore we address defendant\u2019s assertions on appeal, we note that plaintiff in his brief urges that the prohibition of \u201cunauthorized drugs\u201d as set forth in the Collinsville High School Student Handbook is unconstitutionally vague. The handbook containing the words complained of provides as follows:\n\u201cProblem: Possessing, transporting and using unauthorized drugs and marijuana on campus and the school buses.\nPolicy: The possession, transportation and use of unauthorized drugs and marijuana are prohibited on school property, at authorized activities and on the school buses.\nDiscipline: Students found possessing or using unauthorized drugs on school property, school bus, or at an approved school activity being held on non-school property, will be suspended for ten (10) days and referred to the Board of Education for a hearing and possible expulsion from school for the remainder of the school year, and any evidence will be immediately submitted to the local police authorities for possible prosecution.\u201d\nDefendant argues that \u201c[a]lthough veiled references were made to claims of constitutional deprivation, no specific allegations were ever made against the Board\u2019s action other than that it was arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious [and] the Board was never given the opportunity to formulate a response to the constitutional allegations.\u201d Therefore, defendant concludes the issue was not raised in the trial court and cannot be raised here on appeal. We agree.\nThe record on appeal indicates that plaintiff\u2019s arguments suggesting that the term \u201cunauthorized drugs\u201d was ambiguous were directed towards buttressing the plaintiff\u2019s contention that the action of the school board in expelling Miss Wilson was \u201carbitrary, unreasonable, and excessive.\u201d Contrary to the reference in the trial court\u2019s injunction order of February 23, 1983, we find that plaintiff\u2019s argument did not raise a constitutional question. Having failed to properly litigate the issue in the trial court, plaintiff cannot raise the issue on appeal. (See Brubaker v. Community Unit School District No. 16 (1977), 46 Ill. App. 3d 588, 590-91, 360 N.E.2d 1228, 1230.) Therefore, the sole issue before this court is whether the trial court erred in enjoining defendant\u2019s expulsion of Miss Wilson when it determined that defendant\u2019s action was unreasonable, an abuse of discretion, and an excessive punishment.\nAs stated in Donaldson v. Board of Education (1981), 98 Ill. App. 3d 438, 424 N.E.2d 737, the Illinois courts have held that a decision to suspend or expel a student will be reversed by a court of review only if it is arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious, or oppressive. As a guide to the application of this standard, the Donaldson court stated:\n\u201cSchool discipline is an area which courts enter with great hesitation and reluctance \u2014 and rightly so. School officials are trained and paid to determine what form of punishment best addresses a particular student\u2019s transgressions. They are in a far better position than is a black-robed judge to decide what to do with a disobedient child at school.\u201d 98 Ill. App. 3d 438, 439, 424 N.E.2d 737, 739.\nApplying the rationale of Donaldson to the case at bar, we conclude that the trial court erred in issuing the injunction.\nThe possibility of expulsion due to the possession of drugs is set forth in the Collinsville High School Student Handbook and, according to the testimony presented in the trial court, is uniformly applied. We would further observe that the dissemination of drugs, whatever their legal status, to fellow students endangers the physical health of those students and need not be tolerated by the school board. Here, it is undisputed that Miss Wilson intended to give her classmates pills containing caffeine and ephedrine. The former is a stimulant and the latter a bronchial dilator. Whether or not these chemicals are controlled substances, their potential for causing harm is considerable and apparent. The possibility of an allergic reaction to such drug exists; and a student may take an overdose or improperly mix the drug with another, creating a harmful interaction effect. Additionally, as urged by defendant, the distribution of any form of pills, however harmless, in the restricted environment of a school would directly contribute to the creation of a drug-oriented atmosphere and could lead to a psychological dependence on the part of some students. We conclude that in light of the potentially serious consequences of Miss Wilson\u2019s conduct, the school board was justified in its decision to expel her from school for one year.\nAlthough the trial court found that the action of the board was neither arbitrary nor capricious, we are asked by plaintiff to affirm the trial court\u2019s conclusion that Miss Wilson\u2019s punishment was too harsh in light of the circumstances. Applying the standard of Donaldson, we find that the defendant\u2019s actions were neither arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious nor oppressive; and we conclude, therefore, that Miss Wilson\u2019s expulsion was not \u201can abuse of the especially broad discretion given school officials in making disciplinary decisions.\u201d Donaldson v. Board of Education (1981), 98 Ill. App. 3d 438, 439, 424 N.E.2d 737, 739.\nFor the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Madison County is reversed.\nReversed.\nHARRISON, P.J., and JONES, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE KASSERMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Dunham, Boman & Leskera, of Belleville (John W. Leskera and Russell K. Scott, of counsel), for appellant.", "Joseph R. Brown, Jr., of Mudge, Riley and Lucco, of Edwardsville, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JOHN WILSON, Father and Next Friend of Lynn Wilson, a Minor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COLLINSVILLE COMMUNITY UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 10, Defendant-Appellant.\nFifth District\nNo. 83\u2014213\nOpinion filed July 5, 1983.\nDunham, Boman & Leskera, of Belleville (John W. Leskera and Russell K. Scott, of counsel), for appellant.\nJoseph R. Brown, Jr., of Mudge, Riley and Lucco, of Edwardsville, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0557-01", "first_page_order": 579, "last_page_order": 585 }