O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1181 (2019)
Disrupting operation of public school, school bus, or school bus stop; penalty; progressive discipline
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly disrupt or interfere with the operation of any public school, public school bus, or public school bus stop as designated by local boards of education. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a person convicted of violating this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. (b)(1) As used in this subsection, the term “complaint” shall have the same meaning as set forth in Code Section 15-11-2. (2) A local board of education shall develop a system of progressive discipline that may be imposed on a child accused of violating this Code section before initiating a complaint. (3) When a complaint is filed involving a violation of this Code section by a child not included in paragraph (4) of this subsection, it shall include information showing that the local board of education sought to: (A) Resolve the expressed problem through available educational approaches; and (B) Engage the child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian to resolve the expressed problem and that such individual has been unable or unwilling to resolve the expressed problem, that the expressed problem remains, and that court intervention is necessary. (4) When a complaint is filed involving a violation of this Code section by a child who is eligible for or suspected to be eligible for services under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, it shall include information showing that the local board of education: (A) Has determined that such child is eligible or suspected to be eligible for services under the federal Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act or Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973; (B) Has reviewed for appropriateness such child’s current Individualized Education Program (IEP) and placement and has made modifications where appropriate; (C) Sought to resolve the expressed problem through available educational approaches; and (D) Sought to engage the child’s parent, guardian, or legal custodian to resolve the expressed problem and that such individual has been unable or unwilling to resolve the expressed problem, that the expressed problem remains, and that court intervention is necessary.
History
Ga. L. 1976, p. 480, § 1; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1012, § 6; Ga. L. 2004, p. 621, § 4; Ga. L. 2010, p. 516, § 3/SB 250; Ga. L. 2016, p. 443, § 3-2/SB 367.
Annotations
Editor’s notes. Ga. L. 1994, p. 1012, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the Act shall be known and may be cited as the “School Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1994.” Ga. L. 1994, p. 1012, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, sets forth legislative findings and determinations for the “School Safety and Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1994.” Ga. L. 1994, p. 1012, § 29, not codified by the General Assembly, provides for severability. Ga. L. 1994, p. 1012, § 30, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the Act shall apply to all offenses committed on or after May 1, 1994. Ga. L. 2004, p. 621, § 9(b), not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment by that Act shall apply to offenses committed on or after July 1, 2004. Ga. L. 2010, p. 516, § 1/SB 250, not codified by the General Assembly, pro-
vides: “It is the intent of the General Assembly that the model policy regarding bullying that is required to be promulgated by the Department of Education under this Act shall be utilized as a resource for the benefit of local school systems and shall not be used as a definition of the exclusive applicable standard of care in any civil or administrative action.” Ga. L. 2010, p. 516, § 4/SB 250, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment of this Code section shall apply with respect to conduct on or after May 27, 2010, and conduct prior to that date shall continue to be governed by prior law. U.S. Code. Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, referred to in this Code section, is codified at 29 U.S.C. § 794. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to in this Code section, is codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. Law reviews. For survey article on education law for the period from June 1, 2002 through May 31, 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 237 (2003). For article on the 2016 amendment of this Code section, see 33 Georgia St. U. L. Rev. 139 (2016).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS No vagueness in statute. - Phrase “disrupt or interfere with the operation of any public school” contains words of ordinary meaning that gives fair notice as to the application of O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1181;
therefore, the statute is not vague. In re D.H., 283 Ga. 556, 663 S.E.2d 139, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 440 (2008). Qualified immunity for school resource officer. - School resource officer
ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUC.
who obtained a warrant to arrest a parent based on the parent’s conduct at a school event was entitled to qualified immunity as to a false arrest claim because arguable probable cause existed under Georgia law to arrest the parent for disrupting or interfering with the operation of a public school; witnesses stated that the parent grew angry, yelled, and stated multiple times that the event organizer should be shot in the head. Yates v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 687 Fed. Appx. 866, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 7919 (11th Cir. 2017). Evidence sufficient for conviction. - Evidence that the defendant and another student engaged in a fist fight just outside the front entrance of a public high school, that students were being dropped off to start the school day at the time, that the altercation drew a large crowd of spectators, and that approximately four administrators and a police officer were required to stop the fight support the defendant’s conviction for disrupting a public school. Pitts v. State, 260 Ga. App. 274, 581 S.E.2d 306, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 331 (2003). Adjudication of a 13-year old student as a delinquent for disrupting a public school, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 20-21181, was upheld on appeal because the
evidence established that the student disrupted a classroom while school was in session; the paraprofessional assigned to the classroom testified that the student was riling up the other children in the room to the point it was becoming uncontrollable. In the Interest of J.D., 288 Ga. App. 839, 655 S.E.2d 702, 2007 Ga. App. LEXIS 1309 (2007). Trial court properly found that a juvenile committed the delinquent offense of disrupting a public school under O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1181 due to the juvenile’s boisterous, irate, and loud behavior in a classroom that caused the class to stop until the juvenile’s removal and the juvenile’s subsequent disruption of office staff with similar behavior. In re D.H., 283 Ga. 556, 663 S.E.2d 139, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 440 (2008). Evidence insufficient for conviction. - Evidence was insufficient to show a violation of O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1181, disruption of a public high school, because although the evidence showed that the beating took place at Washington County High School, there was no direct evidence that the school was in fact public, and the juvenile court did not take judicial notice of this fact. In the Interest of Q. S., 310 Ga. App. 70, 712 S.E.2d 99, 2011 Ga. App. LEXIS 497 (2011).
OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Fingerprinting not required. - Offense arising from a violation of O.C.G.A. § 20-2-1181 does not appear to be an
offense for which fingerprinting is required. 2010 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 10-6.
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 75 Am. Jur. 2d, Trespass, § 168 et seq. ALR. Participation of student in demonstra-
tion on or near campus as warranting expulsion or suspension from school or college, 32 A.L.R.3d 864.