March 27, 2018
On March 26, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that a school corporation may obtain a protective order directing a harassing parent to “stay away from” the administration center, school buildings, and athletic complex. The trial court granted the protective order when, on the first day of school, a disgruntled father picketed on a public sidewalk across the street from the middle school, while openly wearing a handgun.
After several parents expressed concerns about his presence, the superintendent approached the father and requested that he put the firearm in his car. The parent refused, became angry, and offered that he could return with his AK-47 that afternoon when school let out. The superintendent believed a threat to students existed; the school corporation sought and successfully obtained a protective order.
Enlisting the assistance of the ACLU of Indiana, the father challenged the protective order, arguing among other things that a school corporation did not possess legal standing to seek a protective order and the order violated his First and Second Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals in S.B. v. Seymour Community Schools rejected those arguments and upheld the protective order’s validity.
For the first time, the Court held that the protective orders are available to schools for the purpose of keeping their students safe. The Court reasoned that schools stand in locos parentis to students, allowing the schools to fall within the statutory definition of a person and a representative who may seek a protective order. School officials are in a unique position to identify persons who may present a threat to students, that student safety is a principal concern of you state legislature, and that schools are not expressly prohibited from seeking a protective order, stated the Court. Therefore, schools can obtain protective orders to protect their students.
Concerning the father’s First and Second Amendment claims, both the Court of Appeals and the school recognized that those rights exist, but continuing harassments and threats are not “constitutionally protected activities.” The protective order did not prohibit the parent from protesting, unarmed, near school premises nor did the order prohibit his possession of a firearm elsewhere. The order only required the father to “stay away” from school premises. Consequently, the protective order did not impermissibly infringe upon his First or Second Amendment rights.
Key factors in upholding the school’s protective order included the order expressly stated that it protected children, numerous parents expressed concern about their children’s safety, the father openly displayed a firearm, and he also suggested that he carried an additional concealed weapon. His statement that he may return with an AK-47 and his visible anger and distress combined with the other factors to create conduct that a person would reasonably perceive as a threat, making a protective order an appropriate court remedy.
Have a question about this decision or a similar situation in your organization?
[button color=”orange” link=”https://warrickandboyn.com/contact/”]Contact Tim Shelly or Matt Schram[/button]
Warrick & Boyn, LLP, is a full-service law firm in Elkhart, Ind., that practices in all areas of business and corporate law. Areas of practice include commercial litigation, creditors’ rights and bankruptcy law, labor and employment law, defense litigation, securities law and regulation, worker’s compensation defense, education and school law, EEOC law, employee benefits law and pension plans, environmental law and regulation, tax and estate planning, municipal law, and property and real estate law. The firm’s clients are located primarily in northern Indiana and southwestern Michigan, and most of the attorneys are licensed to practice in both Indiana and Michigan.