Restitution: Another Two-Way Street in School Cases?

Abstract

ON 16 October 2000, staff member at Southland High School, which is in small town in southeastern Minnesota, discovered bomb threat scrawled with marker on mirror in boys' bathroom. The administration immediately evacuated school and contacted local law enforcement authorities. After an investigation, during which student K.D.R. allegedly participated in scuffle or fight, school and police officials concluded that he was culprit. The district expelled him after providing requisite notice and hearing under Minnesota's Pupil Fair Dismissal Act. During K.D.R.'s expulsion, district provided him with tutoring, in accordance with this same statute, which requires school districts to provide alternative educational services to duly expelled students. In addition, county district attorney filed juvenile delinquency petition, charging K.D.R. with terroristic threats and fifth-degree assault. As plea bargain, juvenile court accepted student's admission of guilt for terroristic threats and dropped assault charge. During disposition hearing, school district requested restitution for its administrative costs in implementing expulsion (i.e., principal's and superintendent's time), its attorney's fees for expulsion proceeding, and tutoring costs for expulsion period. Minnesota law expressly states that victim of crime, defined for this purpose to include corporation, has right to receive restitution as part of disposition of criminal charge or juvenile delinquency proceeding against offender if offender is convicted or found delinquent. Minnesota's statutes also clarify that primary focus, although not sole determinant, of restitution is losses. Citing these statutes, juvenile court ordered K.D.R. to pay district $2,800 in tutoring costs and $1,500 in attorney's fees, but -- they were routine expenditures rather than out-of-pocket expenses -- not administrative costs. Via his attorney, K.D.R. filed an appeal. On 27 November 2001, Minnesota's intermediate, appellate court issued its decision affirming, by 2-to-1 vote, trial court decision.1 The appeals court relied on significant discretion afforded to trial courts in restitution cases, as well as previous, published Minnesota appellate decision.2 In previous decision, court had upheld award of restitution to district for extra janitorial costs and for $500 reward in wake of another student's bomb threat. The prior court interpreted restitution statute as requiring causation in broad sense; thus reward was covered even though it was discretionary for school board. As to K.D.R.'s questioning of direct connection between delinquent act and asserted costs, court reasoned by analogy that the expulsion, like reward in [the previous case], was sufficiently prompted by bomb threat to support an award of restitution for costs incurred in it. In response to K.D.R.'s alternative argument that tutoring costs were covered by Pupil Fair Dismissal Act's guarantee of procedural due process and mandate of alternative educational services, appellate court viewed intersection of this act with restitution statutes as policy matter that had been resolved by trial court without abuse of its discretion. The dissenting judge supported both arguments asserted by K.D.R. First, pointing out that restitution statutes require direct causation, he distinguished prior case from this one. In previous case, reward was, in his view, a necessary step in solving bomb threat, whereas in this case expulsion proceeding was an independent decision rather than direct result of incident, because district had discretion to forego any expulsion and seek different disciplinary penalty. …