Appellants seek reversal of a decision of the local board of directors of the District finding that Marcus had violated the District's good conduct policy and punishing him accordingly. Several students of the District attended the state wrestling tournament in March. The "wrestlers' room" was the one assigned as sleeping quarters to Marcus and others from the team. A parent called the principal and informed him that some of the students had been drinking in the "wrestlers' room" during their stay. When questioned by the principal, Marcus denied his own involvement, but did implicate 4 classmates. He denied any illegal drinking or knowledge of the same by others.

Marcus was determined to be in violation of the "mere presence" portion of the District's good conduct rule. Appellants raised the arguments that the mere presence language of the policy was unreasonable, overbroad, vague and ineffective and that the rule was unreasonably applied to Marcus. The pertinent portion of the rule states that [s]tudents shall not ... attend a function or party where illegal drugs or alcohol are bieng used illegally by minors." There appears to be nothing vague about the overall intent of the above language.

This Board has previously ruled that school boards need not write rules that prohibit certain conduct "with the precision of a criminal code." In re Justin Anderson, et al., 14 D.o.E. App. Dec. 294,297(1977). The District's policy sufficiently puts its students on notice that if they are in a situation where alcoholic beverages are being consumed unlawfully, they should take steps to remove themselves from the situaiton or suffer the consequences.

As long as a decision rests upon "some evidence," [substantive] due process may have been satisfied. Brands v. Sheldon Community School, 671 F.Supp. 627(N.D.Iowa 1987). It was reasonable that the Board concluded that Marcus violated the District's good conduct rule.

That the decision of the Board of Directors of the Southern Cal Community School District made on April 24, 2003, finding that Marcus Kavanaugh violated the District's good conduct policy and punishing him accordingly, was affirmed.