Saturday, 20 May 2000
By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
http://www.azstarnet.com/public/dnews/000520CURSING.html
PHOENIX - A student may be rude and disruptive and even curse at the principal. But that doesn't make him a criminal, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled yesterday.
In a 4-1 ruling, the justices threw out the conviction of a Maricopa County juvenile who was found guilty of disorderly conduct. The court said the evidence shows that the youngster was simply being defiant.
Justice Frederick Martone, in a dissenting opinion, said the fact the principal thought the behavior serious enough to call a police officer shows that the youngster was guilty of a serious disruption.
"A teacher ought not to have to wait for more violence to invoke the assistance of the juvenile justice system," he wrote.
But Justice Stanley Feldman said simply calling the police over some event doesn't make it a crime.
"Our laws do not make criminals out of adults or juveniles just because they act offensively or rudely or lack respect and control," he said.
The ruling is likely to have statewide implications.
This isn't the first time school officials have attempted to use arrest - or the threat of arrest - to deal with disruptive youngsters.
The court decision will likely restrict criminal prosecution to the most serious cases of misconduct.
Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley said he disagreed with the high court ruling. "I think that decorum in a classroom is one of the most important elements and should be preserved," Romley said.
Court records show the boy, age 15, was a student at an alternative middle school for children who are not successful in regular schools due to behavioral problems.
The boy did not comply with the school uniform requirement and talked, laughed and giggled during a morning class.
He also ignored the principal's request to talk to her outside the classroom, cursed at her and then kicked over a chair.
No one was struck by the chair.
Prosecutors filed charges and a juvenile court judge concluded his behavior was sufficiently disruptive to support the charge.
"We do not condone the type of behavior in question, but must keep in mind the difference between civil and criminal conduct," Feldman wrote.