The original Amended & Substituted Request for Due Process Heaing raised the question of the District's failure to transfer Maurice's educational records, as required by IDEA, when school officals engaged in "reporting a crime" to law enforcement. The December 4 ruling concluded the District officials did not report a crime and were not required to transfer Maurice's educational records.

Appellant argues that the December 4 finding was a mistake of law. The District challenges that virtually any contact with law enforcement by school officals which may result in an arrest constitutes "reporting" a crime. They argue that the school must intend to report a crime before the requirement is triggered.

District officials called law enforcement for assistance in controlling Maurice's behavior when he was out of control and extremely disruptive for an extended period of time. Appellant argued that many of the documented events and stated times regarding April 11 incident were inconsistent and lead to the conclusion that the District must have requested police to arrest Maurice or at least "reported" a crime. The ALJ was not convinced.

For a incident to be considered "reporting a crime," it must be determined from all known facts that school officials intended to knowingly "report a crime." School officials must have wanted police to make an arrest, or conduct an investigation leading to an arrest for a crime, before the school is required to transfer educational records to juvenile authorities.

A review of the issues and relevant portions of the record have not resulted in the ALJ changing his conclusions rendered in the December 24, 2001, decision.