2
The first case that we will be looking at is Katrina Murray and Aquila F. Flynn, as Co-
Personal Representatives of the Estate of Jaylan T.R. Murray, Deceased vs. Indianapolis Public
Schools and Arlington Community High School. In February 2016, Jaylan Murray was shot and
killed after he left his high school without permission. Jaylan was a frequent runaway and had a
prior DCS (Department of Child Services) file. “A few days before he was murdered, he was
reported missing, and on the night before, he committed a pharmacy robbery. On the day of his
murder, he signed into school late, but then left early through an unmonitored school exit. Not
much is known about the details of his murder and there is conflicting evidence about whether he
left school to engage in a firearms deal or to buy marijuana.” [ CITATION Mur19 \l 1033 ]
The reason the school got sued for this case was due to the negligent and for failing to
properly supervise and monitor their students during school hours. “Children over the age of 14,
absent special circumstances, are chargeable with exercising the standard of care of an adult.’
Penn Harris Madison Sch. Corp., 861 N.E.2d at 1194. Here, Jaylan was sixteen. While his estate
argues that the specific reason for Jaylan's departure from school is unknown, no one contends
there are any special circumstances that would render Jaylan incapable of exercising this
standard of care. Thus, he is charged with exercising the reasonable care an adult
would.”[ CITATION Mur19 \l 1033 ]
While we don’t know the nature of why Jaylan chose to leave the school early, and may
never truly know why, it does leave someone speculating what could have happened. “The
Court of Appeals and Jaylan's estate make much of the fact that it is unknown whether he left
school to purchase guns or drugs. It is true that the facts surrounding why he left and what he
planned to do are unclear or conflicting, but there's no material dispute here. That is, there is no
dispute that: 1) he was involved in criminal activity (the pharmacy robbery) the night before his
murder; 2) he left school property to engage in some criminal act; and 3) he was found with a
large amount of money in an apartment complex known for criminal activity.”[ CITATION
Mur19 \l 1033 ] This also shows us that his plan to purchase either guns or drugs was not well
thought out. He also did not care to take his own safety into effect when doing so. “To be clear,
while Jaylan may not be solely or even primarily responsible for what happened, his negligence
was at least a slight cause of the unfortunate harm he suffered.”[ CITATION Mur19 \l 1033 ]
He may not have known or understood all of the danger that he was going to be facing,
he still should have had some sort of idea just how dangerous either of these tasks would be,
3
especially for a 16-year-old. While I do agree that the school is partially to blame for the actions
that occurred, they are not fully to blame. Jaylan had an agenda of his own on that day. He knew
exactly what he was going to do and the plan to do it. This case does show us just how important
security at schools are.
4
The second case we will be looking at is K.W.P By His Parent and Next Friend vs.
Kansas City Public Schools; Brandon Craddock, In his Individual Capacity; Anne Wallace, In
Her Individual Capacity. This case was brought to light by an elementary student who sued
Kansas City Public Schools. This student ended up suing the officer and Principal of their school.
“K.W.P., an elementary student, sued Kansas City Public Schools (KCPS), Officer Brandon
Craddock, and Principal Anne Wallace for violations of K.W.P.'s rights under the Fourth and
Fourteenth Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. K.W.P. alleged that Officer Craddock
unreasonably seized him and used excessive force by handcuffing him and failing to remove the
handcuffs. He alleged that Principal Wallace approved Officer Craddock's seizure by failing to
instruct Officer Craddock to remove the handcuffs despite K.W.P. posing no imminent threat to
anyone and complying with instructions.” [ CITATION KWP19 \l 1033 ]K.W.P primarily sued
the school system over the failure to train and supervise Officer Craddock. Specifically train and
supervise the officer on the use of handcuffs when it comes to elementary-age children.
“K.W.P., a seven-year-old boy in the second grade, attended George Melcher Elementary
School within the KCPS system. On April 30, 2014, while in Ms. Beverly Cole's class, a
classmate teased K.W.P. incessantly, distracting him from his school work. The classmate's
actions antagonized him to the point of frustration. In response, K.W.P. yelled at the classmate
and desired to physically confront him, stating that he ‘didn't get to push [the student], but [he]
wanted to."[ CITATION KWP19 \l 1033 ] After some back and forth between K.W.P and the
schools employees, Officer Craddock got involved. The officer had pulled K.W.P. out of his class
and into the hallway, this is when K.W.P got handcuffed. He then brought K.W.P. into the
principal’s office where Principal Wallace did not tell the officer to remove K.W.P.’s handcuffs.
K.W.P. handcuffs were not removed until his father went and got the officer himself. “K.W.P.
was handcuffed for a total of 20 minutes. For 15 of those 20 minutes, K.W.P. was seated in the
front office. The handcuffs made K.W.P.'s wrists tender and red. He also alleged that he suffered
mental and emotional distress.” [ CITATION KWP19 \l 1033 ]This case was later retired in
hopes that the courts would rule in favor of K.W.P, however, that was not the case. “Because we
hold that no violation of K.W.P.'s constitutional rights occurred, we necessarily hold that the
district court erred in denying summary judgment to KCPS on K.W.P.'s municipal liability claim
for failure to train and supervise its school resource officers on the use of handcuffs on young
children.”[ CITATION KWP19 \l 1033 ]
5
The third case we will be studying is Rachel Doucette, for herself and Minor Son B.D.;
Michael Doucette, for Himself and Minor Son B.D., vs. Georgetown Public Schools; Town of
Georgetown. This case is about the Georgetown Public Schools refusing B.D. the use of his
service dog which subjected him to a dangeours environment. “The Doucettes alleged that the
school district deprived B.D. of his service animal and subjected him to a dangerous environment
in violation of federal and state law, thereby causing B.D. to experience seizures and
hospitalization. They sought money damages for alleged permanent physical and emotional harm
to B.D., as well as for loss of consortium to the parents.” [ CITATION Dou19 \l 1033 ] The
school district is claiming that the parents failed to exhaust their federals claims thus resulting in
the denial of a free appropriate education.
B.D has a rare genetic disorder called Isodicentric Chromosome 15q Duplication
Syndrome. This disorder comes with a lot of symptoms, it also increases his risk of unexpected
death, primarily due to seizure activity. “In the fall of 2011, B.D. began working with a certified
service dog that assisted him with his anxiety and balance, and alerted his caretakers to an
impending seizure. In November of that year, the Doucettes requested that the school district
permit the dog to accompany B.D. at school as a disability accommodation. The school district
refused. When B.D.'s staring spells and anxiety increased, however, the school district offered
him at-school access to the service animal if the Doucettes agreed to a school policy regarding
the dog's handling. The Doucettes refused to sign this agreement, which they claim violated the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). They demanded that the district comply with the
ADA. The school district then denied B.D. access to the dog but ordered a behavioral
assessment, to take place the next fall (i.e., fall of 2012), to determine whether B.D.'s IEP should
be amended to include the service dog.” [ CITATION Dou19 \l 1033 ]
The following summer B.D. was placed in an unfamiliar building along with many other
unfamiliar things, this resulted in B.D. having a seizure that placed him in the hospital. After this
was when his mother requested to have his service dog at school with him. Their request got
denied, however, the school district would only grant B.D. permission to have the service dog if
his mother would act as the handler. “On September 5, 2012, the Doucettes returned B.D. to
Perley. That same day, he suffered a fifth tonic-clonic seizure, requiring hospitalization. After the
fifth seizure in a three-month period, the school district agreed to evaluate an out-of-district
placement for B.D. Subsequently, the district agreed to the new placement, where B.D. has made
6
‘developmental and educational progress.’ B.D. has experienced no seizures since his removal
from the school district.” [ CITATION Dou19 \l 1033 ] If the school district would have allowed
B.D. the use of his service animal, then there would be no need for the case. It would also reduce
the number of seizures he had faced while at that school. I personally feel as though after the first
seizure B.D. experienced while at the school, the district should have permitted him the use of
his service animal regardless of his mother being the handler. While service dogs can’t prevent a
seizure from happening, they could have helped alert the teachers and staff members in hopes
that the seizures wouldn’t be so bad.
7
Bibliography
Doucette v. Georgetown Public Schools. 18-1160 (United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit,
August 26, 2019).
KWP v. Kansas City Public Schools. 17-3602 (United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit ,
February 13, 2019).
Murray v. Indianapolis Public Schools. 128 N.E.3d 450 (Supreme Court of Indiana , June 18,
2019).
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
