On The Front Lines
Rutherford Institute Files Petition for Rehearing with Va. Supreme Court in Case Involving Honor Student Expelled for Shooting Plastic ‘Spitwads’
RICHMOND, Va.— Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute have filed a petition for rehearing with the Supreme Court of Virginia, asking the Court to reverse the long-term suspension of a 14-year-old honor student for shooting plastic "spitwads" at school. In December 2010, freshman Andrew Mikel II was kicked out of Spotsylvania High School for the remainder of the school year under a charge that the "spitwad" incident constituted "violent criminal conduct" and possession of a weapon. School officials also referred the matter to local law enforcement for criminal prosecution. Although no one was harmed, the Spotsylvania County Circuit Court upheld the disciplinary action in May 2011. The Virginia Supreme Court refused to grant the Institute's initial request for an appeal. In asking the Virginia Supreme Court to reconsider hearing the appeal, Institute attorneys have asked the Court to find that Andrew's conduct did not constitute "violent criminal conduct" and that the school's actions were irrational and violated the constitutional guarantee of due process of law.
"In addition to being arbitrary and capricious, the actions of school officials violate fundamental notions of fairness and established principles of due process," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "I hope the Virginia Supreme Court will bring justice to bear for Andrew Mikel."
On December 10, 2010, Andrew Mikel, a freshman at Spotsylvania High School, was sent to the principal's office after shooting a handful of small, hollow pellets akin to plastic spitwads at fellow students during lunch period. Andrew, an honor student active in Junior ROTC and in his church, was initially suspended for 10 days and charged with criminal assault and possession of a weapon under the school's Student Code of Conduct. The Spotsylvania County School Board later upheld the suspension of Mikel for the remainder of the school year. School officials also referred the matter to local law enforcement, which initiated juvenile criminal proceedings for assault. Andrew was then placed in a diversion program, and had to take substance abuse and anger management counseling.
Decrying the school's actions as arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion, attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a petition with the Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania asking the court to overturn the School Board's decision, insisting that the Board's actions were arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. Although the Circuit Court ruled in favor of the school, it did acknowledge that it was "incongruous" that Andrew was suspended for the remainder of the year for spitwads while a student who punched someone in the eye could be suspended for only ten days.
In asking the Virginia Supreme Court to rehear the case, Institute attorneys challenge the school's characterization of Andrew's actions as "criminal" and the spitwads as "weapons," contending that there was no indication that Mikel intended to harm anyone and that the plastic tube and pellets did not rise to the level of "weapons" as defined by the school code. Furthermore, Institute attorneys insist that Andrew's conduct did not rise to the level required for expulsion or long-term suspension under the Student Code of Conduct.
