Kevin M. Hill
EDUC 5378
Case Brief #7
May 15, 2015
Case: Lett v. Klein ISD and Dr. Ronald R. Collins
Opinion: 14th Court of Appeals of Texas
Appellant: Robert Lett
Appellee: Klein ISD and Dr. Ronald R. Collins
Case Summary:
Crystal Lett was a student who received a low grade in choir which made her father question the
reasons for said grade. He requested to KISD to give him all documents concerning his complaint, to
include correspondence of certain named people. KISD requested to the attorney general a general
review of the legality of releasing all the requested documents. The attorney general found 64 pieces of
correspondence that was releasable under the Texas Open Records Act (ORA).
KISD stated that internal correspondence was not releasable because it constitute interagency
memoranda or letters and fell under the policy of policy making. It was found that policy making
functions correspondence does not include administrative or personal correspondence.
KISD appealed to the 14th circuit court asking for an interpretation of the ORA and that the
personal correspondence were not disclose able under the protection of personal privacy against
unreasonable intrusion.
Judgment:
The court ruled in favor of Lett on the basis that the documents don’t create a new policy but
only enforce existing policy. Personal correspondence was in enforcing the current policy.
Kevin M. Hill
EDUC 5378
Case Brief #7
May 15, 2015
Case: Porter v. Ascension Parish School Board (2004)
Opinion: U.S. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit
Appellant: Adam Porter
Appellee: Ascension Parish School Board
Case Summary:
This case highlights the difficulty of school administrators to balance school safety with
student’s constitutional rights.
Adam Porter, 14, drew a picture of his school under siege with obscenities and racial epithets
present. This drawing was done in his own home. He showed his mother, brother, and other
housemates. The drawing pad was placed in a closet. Two years later his bother drew a photo of a
llama on an opposing page and brought it to school where he showed a friend on the bus. The friend
found the previous photo and showed the bus driver who confiscated the drawing pad. The principle
called a meeting to discuss the earlier drawing.
During this meeting Adam’s backpack was searched and a box cutter with other materials
pertaining to sex, drugs and gang signs were discovered. His mom was called in and it was
recommended that an expulsion was in order. He was told to stay at home until the expulsion hearing.
The school police officer obtained a warrant for his arrest because the box cutter was found. He spent
four days in jail. Adam’s mom was given the choice of an expulsion hearing or to waive the hearing and
have Adam enrolled in an alternative school. She chose the latter.
Adam returned to his previous school the following year but shortly dropped out. His mother
filed a suit against the school district claiming that Adam’s 1st, 4th, and 8th amendments were violated
and that due process and equal protection rights were violated. The district court, without objection,
dismissed the 4th and 8th amendments as well as the due process and equal protection claims. As for the
1st amendment issue, the court ruled that there was no violation because of the content of the drawing
created a threat to the school. Adam’s mother filled a timely appeal with the 5th District Court of
Appeals.
Judgement:
The 5th District heard the case and ruled in favor of the appellee, Adam Porter, based on the fact
that the drawing was drawn in his own home, he showed his parents, the drawing was stored for years,
was not intended to be brought to school, and it happened to appear at school by accident.
Simultaneously, the court ruled that the principle was immune to judgement because she exercised
reasonable judgment in seeing the action as a possible threat to the school.