A federal Judge from the District of New Jersey has denied a request for injunctive relief brought by St Patrick High School, which had been banned by the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association from participating in the playoffs.
Specifically, the court found that St. Patrick had an opportunity to be heard and that the actions of the association, which involved hiring a private investigator, did not constitute an illegal search.
St. Patrick is based in Elizabeth, New Jersey, and serves a predominantly African-American and Latino population. The court noted that the school has had an outstanding and successful basketball program for the last two decades.
The NJSIAA, meanwhile, is headed by a governing body known as the Executive Committee, which is composed of 21 public high school representatives, four non-public high school representatives, 12 ex officio representatives and 12 at-large representatives.
The controversy erupted when the NJSIAA barred St. Patrick from competing in the state basketball tournament after determining that St. Patrick’s coach, Kevin Boyle, convened and attended several open gym sessions prior to the official start of the 2009-2010 season, in violation of league rules. The investigation began in response to the complaints of a parent that two students (his sons) had improperly transferred to St. Patrick HighSchool to participate in athletics, in violation of Article V § 4(D) of the NJSIAA’s bylaws. During the investigation, possible violations of a NJSIAA ban on out-of-season coaching were uncovered. The NJSIAA learned of Boyle’s conduct through the reports of a private investigator who was hired by the association to ensure compliance with league rules. On several occasions, the private investigator entered the premises of St. Patrick to investigate an alleged rules violation.
The plaintiff claimed that the NJSIAA’s hiring of the PI violated various constitutional rights associated with due process and unreasonable searches and seizures, leading to the bid for injunctive relief.
Addressing the plaintiff’s due process claim, pursuant to § 1983, the court looked at the “two basic due process requirements: notice, and an opportunity to be heard. See e.g., Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 575, 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1975).
The plaintiff zeroed in on the appellate process as “insufficient to satisfy the dictates of its right to due process. Specifically, (the plaintiff charged) that the hearing/appeals process was inadequate as a result of (1) the timing of the appeal process, and (2) the admission of improper evidence at the hearing.”
Addressing the “timing” argument, the court wrote that “the NJSIAA made efforts to permit the plaintiff to be heard without upsetting the timing of a state-wide tournament involving many schools.”
Turning to the argument that “the NJSIAA improperly permitted evidence to be considered at the hearing,” the court again sided with the defendants.
“Even if there was a significant question regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained by NJSIAA’s private investigator, it would not be dispositive on the outcome of this case,” wrote the court. “In any event, the Court finds that the hearings/procedures provided by the NJSIAA were sufficient to provide due process to St. Patrick High School and its student-athletes.
“The Court finds that the plaintiff is unlikely to prevail on the merits of its due process claim, and therefore, injunctive relief is inappropriate.”
Turning to the “unreasonable search and seizure” claim, the court noted that for a proper evaluation, it must balance “two key considerations: an individual’s legitimate expectations of privacy and personal security, and the government’s need for effective methods to deal with breaches of public order. Falter v. Veterans Admin., 632 F. Supp. 196, 212 (D.N.J. 1986) (quoting New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 337, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985).
“In weighing the balance here, I am satisfied that the NJSIAA did not violate the right of St. Patrick students to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
“This is not a case where students were interviewed, had their personal property and/or lockers searched, or were required to submit to some type of invasive test. Here, the team held an ‘open gym’ session with the stated purpose of gaining exposure and showcasing the students’ talents. In fact, it was represented to this Court that potentially hundreds of individuals came in and out of the school gym. Further, the school principal indicated that the gym was open to non-school organizations for various purposes. These facts are critical, as they demonstrate that St. Patrick’s student-athletes did not have a privacy interest in the gym sessions. Accordingly, the defendant’s viewing/recording of such events cannot be considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of St. Patrick’s student-athletes.”
St. Patrick High School v. New Jersey Interscholastic Athletic Associations et al. ; D.N.J.; Civil Action No. 10-cv-948 (DMC); 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17993; 3/1/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff): Kevin Harry Marino, Marino Tortorella & Boyle, PC, Chatham, NJ. (for defendants) Michael J. Herbert, Herbert, Van Ness, Cayci & Goodell, PC, Princeton, NJ.
