Judicial Report and Case Summary, 2001-2002

June, 2002

To: The University Community
From: Student Judicial Board
Re: 2001-2002 Judicial Report and Case Summary

This report provides summary information pertaining to cases adjudicated by the Student Judicial Board (SJB) during the 2001-2002 academic year. A listing of the summaries of all the cases adjudicated by the SJB may be found at the end of this report.

Judicial Violation Data

During this reporting period, there were 212 cases/incidents adjudicated by the SJB involving 373 people and 490 alleged violations of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. This data represents a 5% decrease in the number of cases adjudicated and an 8% increase in the number of violations compared to the 2000-2001 academic year. During the current reporting period, 14% of our student population was processed through the judicial system as a result of alleged policy violations. Eleven percent of the individuals involved in violations of policy during the reporting period are "repeat offenders" -- having at least one prior reported violation, or at least two separate violations of policy during the reporting period. The percentage of repeat offenders was relatively low during this reporting period. If this trend continues, it may be a sign that the judicial process is helping students to better understand their responsibilities under the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. The following table provides comparative data on cases adjudicated by the board over the past four years:

Of the violations that occurred during this reporting period, 33% were for alcohol/drug policy violations, 15% were for violations of departmental regulations, and 14% were for property violations. The most common violations during the 2001-2002 reporting period are indicated below:

This data indicates that the number of alcohol/drug violations has decreased by 9% compared to last year. This decrease is somewhat unexpected and may be attributed to the increased attention to, and campus dialogue about, the University's alcohol policy in the aftermath of the Spring 2001 Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Task Force report. During this reporting period, there were a total of 144 alcohol policy violations (54% of these were underage possession/consumption violations), and 17 drug violations. Alcohol was a factor in 56% of the cases adjudicated by the Board.

The number of departmental regulations violations increased significantly during this period. Most of these cases involved violations of the social event ("party") policy. The incidence of vandalism on campus was consistent with levels observed in prior years, but the increase in the number of property violations may be attributed to students being in restricted areas (i.e. construction sites) without authorization. The behavioral standards for wood frame houses that were implemented last year, seem to be effective in helping students to be more cognizant of their obligations as neighbors to others students and Middletown residents - the number of privacy & tranquillity violations dropped by 10% this year.

Judicial Sanction Data

In response to these violations, the SJB has continued to employ a combination of punitive and educational sanctions. Sanctioning tends to be progressive in nature. That is, a minor violation by a first-time offender will typically result in a disciplinary warning; a second violation results in disciplinary probation; and so on. The distribution of sanctions given during the reporting period is as follows:

This distribution of sanctions is consistent with previous reporting periods. During this period, the Board implemented a simplified procedure to address minor, first-time alcohol violations. This procedure was effective in reducing the number of hearings conducted by the Board, and decreasing the amount of time needed to resolve minor alcohol cases. The Clerk of the SJB also began sending judicial letters electronically during this reporting period in order to improve response time and efficiency of the office.

Four of the suspensions issued during the current reporting period were issued to students involved in physical assaults. The remaining two suspensions were issued to students who were driving under the influence of alcohol on and adjacent to campus.

With respect to alcohol and drug violations, the Board has continued the utilize the following general sanctioning guidelines for AOD violations:

First Offense

For minor violations, the student may receive a disciplinary warning. For serious violations, the student may receive sanctions as outlined under "Second Offense".

Second Offense

The student may receive a period of disciplinary probation, an educational assignment, and parental notification.

Third Offense

If such an offense occurs during the probationary period, the student may be suspended for at least one semester. If the offense occurs after the probationary period, the student may receive an extended period of disciplinary probation, an educational assignment and community service.

A summary of each of the cases adjudicated by the Board during the 2001-2002 academic year follows this portion of the report. These summaries are presented in an effort to share information about the types of cases, violations, findings, and sanctions issued by the SJB during the reporting period. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact the Office of the Dean of Student Services in North College.

2001-2002 Case Summaries (listed by regulation)

Regulation 1 - Privacy and Tranquility The intentional infringement upon the right to privacy of any member of the community is prohibited. The persistent interruption of a reasonable level of peace and quiet is also a violation. (Note: A total of three complaints made to Public Safety about noise from a particular site, whether accumulated on a single date or over several dates, typically results in judicial charges.)

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 1 of the Code. It was alleged that the students received noise complaints on numerous occasions. The Board found the students responsible for 2 of the 3 noise complaints, and therefore found the group not in violation of the Code.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 1 of the Code. It was alleged that the group received 3 noise complaints. The Board found the students responsible for 2 of the 3, and therefore found them not in violation of the Code.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 1 of the Code. The Board found one of the noise complaints not to be legitimate, and therefore found the group not in violation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 1 of the Code. It was alleged that the students violated the peace and tranquility on 3 separate instances. The Board did not find the students in violation as they believed that only one of the incidents was supported by the reports submitted.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code. It was alleged that the students received 3 noise complaints, and that during one of these instances, more than 50 people were present at the group's home, although no party form had been filed. The Board found the students not in violation for 1 of the 3 noise complaints, and not in violation of Regulations 1 and 15.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 1 of the Code. It was alleged that the students received 3 noise complaints. The Board found the students in violation of the Code, recommended disciplinary warning for them, and warned them of possible relocation should more noise complaints be filed against them.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that 2 students violated Regulations 1, 2 and 14 of the Code. It was alleged that a) the students had a musical performance on North Field, which elicited 3 noise complaints; b) the students were verbally abusive towards Public Safety; and c) the students refused to cooperate with Public Safety's request that they stop the performance. The Board found the students not in violation of Regulation 1 because the performance took place in a secluded area, not late at night. The Board found the students not in violation of Regulation 2 because the abusive actions were from the unruly crowd and not the two students brought before the Board. The Board found the students in violation of Regulation 14 because they failed to comply with Public Safety's request to stop the music. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the students be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulations 1 and 13 of the Code. It was alleged that the students received 3 noise complaints, and hosted an alcohol-free event at which they served alcoholic beverages. The Board found the students in violation and recommended that they be issued a letter of warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulations 1 and 15 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that these students threw a party that violated the party policy. The Board found the students in violation and placed them on probation until the end of the semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that several students had violated Regulation 1 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the students threw a loud party that disturbed a neighbor. The Board found that the students did indeed violate the Code, as the charges were uncontested. As a sanction, the Board recommended that: a) two students who had no prior history of violation be given a disciplinary warning and perform two hours of community service; and b) two students who had already been given warning be placed on probation until the end of the Fall 2002 semester, and perform two hours of community service.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 1 of the Code. Specifically, Public Safety had responded to confirmed loud noise/music on three occasions at a house. The Board found the students not in violation.

Regulation 2 - Harassment and Abuse Harassment and abuse, directed toward individuals or groups, may include at least the following terms: the use or threat of physical violence, coercion, intimidation, and verbal harassment and abuse. Harassment and abuse may be discriminatory or may be nondiscriminatory. Although all forms of harassment and abuse-both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory-are equally prohibited. Wesleyan University's commitment to nondiscrimination means that discriminatory may be punished more severely than nondiscriminatory forms of harassment.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A violated Regulation 2 of the Code. It was alleged that student A urged student B to flee from a Public Safety officer who was attempting to question student B. The Board found student A not in violation.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that six students violated Regulation 2 of the Code. It was alleged that the six were engaged in a physical altercation. The Board did not believe there was enough evidence to support finding students A and B in violation. The Board found students C, D, E, and F in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that student C be suspended for the term Spring '02, be placed on probation for one year, and be assigned 20 hours of community service. Students D and E were suspended for Spring '02. Student F was suspended for Spring '02 and was placed on probation for the following semester. Students C, D, E, and F were all encouraged to seek counseling for anger management.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A violated Regulations 2, 5, and 14 of the Code. It was alleged the student A was fighting with a non Wesleyan student; when student A was asked to provide his Wes ID, the student presented another person's ID. The Board found student A in violation of Regulation 5, for having presented false identification. As a sanction, the Board recommended that student A be issued a letter of disciplinary warning. The Board found student A not in violation of Regulations 2 and 14 because the students were "play-fighting", and because the students were not aware that Public Safety was calling them due to the noisy environment.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 2 and 14 of the Code. The Board found the student in violation of Regulation 14, because the student did not leave the scene of the incident despite repeated requests, but not in violation of Regulation 2. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student receive a disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 2 of the Code. It was alleged that the student verbally harassed and cursed at Public Safety officers when they attempted to disperse a large party. Although the student denied the charge, the Board found the student in violation, based on the documentation in the Public Safety report. As sanctions, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the semester and for Spring '02, and that the student complete ten hours of community service with the Public Safety officer.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A violated Regulations 2 and 14 of the Code. It was alleged that student A was "sucker punched" by person B, and then threatened to kill person B. In addition, student A failed to comply with Public Safety's request to calm down and to leave the scene of the incident. The Board found student A in violation of Regulation 14 but not in violation of Regulation 2. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A had violated Regulations 2, 3, and 4 of the Code, and students B and C had violated Regulations 2 and 4. Specifically, it was alleged that student A threatened student C with verbally abusive language of a sexual nature, harmed student C physically, and stole student C's property. It was also alleged that student B verbally abused student C and stole student C's property. Finally, it was alleged that student C harmed student A physically and threatened student B and C with verbally abusive language. The Board found Student A not in violation for Regulations 3 and 4 because there was not enough evidence, and in violation for regulation 2. As a sanction the Board recommended that student A be placed on probation until Spring '03, be referred to Office of Behavioral Health, and complete 40 hours of community service Fall '02. The Board found student B in violation for regulation 2 because there was evidence that student B did verbally abuse student C, the student was not in violation of regulation 4 because there was not enough evidence. For a sanction the Board recommended that student B be placed on probation until spring '02, and complete 20 hours of community service. The Board found student C in violation of regulation 2 because student C did threaten student A and B with abusive language; student C was not in violation of regulation 4 because there was not enough evidence. As a sanction the Board recommended probation until Spring '03 and referral to the Office of Behavioral Health.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A violated Regulations 2, 5, and 14 of the Code. It was alleged that student A physically assaulted student B, and then provided false information to Public Safety, by denying involvement in the assault. The Board found student A in violation of Regulations 2 and 5, but not in violation of Regulation 14, since student A complied with Public Safety's requests. As sanctions, the Board recommended that student A be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of Spring '03, and that student A complete 25 hours of community service by the end of Spring '02. The Board also recommended that student A continue counseling at the Office of Behavioral Health.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 2 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A was physically abusive to student B by pushing and spilling a drink on student B. The Board found that student A had indeed violated the regulation insofar as it prohibits intimidation. Because of this incident and a history of minor violations, the Board recommended that student A be placed on disciplinary probation through 5/31/04 and perform 25 hours of community service.

Regulation 3 - Sexual Abuse Sexual abuse, including, but not limited to, sexual harassment, coercion, and threats or use of force, is prohibited (see "University Policies-- Sexual Harassment" on page 114 of handbook).

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 3 of the Code. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Regulation, and as sanction recommended that the student receive a letter of warning.

Regulation 4 - Property The unauthorized use, or the abuse, destruction, or theft of property of the University or any of its members, guests, or neighbors is prohibited. This regulation covers the unauthorized appropriation or "borrowing" of common property for personal use. It also covers unauthorized use, abuse, destruction, or theft of property in Wesleyan's care or custody, such as materials covered by copyright or by specific agreements between the owner and Wesleyan.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students A, B, C, D, and E violated Regulations 4 and 12 of the Code. In addition, student A was alleged to have violated Regulations 5 and 16. It was alleged that the students had violated provisions of an SJB injunction, vandalized property, and disrupted educational and institutional processes. The Board found student A in violation of Regulations 4, 5, 12, and 16. The Board found students B, C, D, and E in violation of Regulations 4 and 12. As sanctions, the Board recommended reimbursement in connection with the vandalized property, placing the students on probation until the end of the academic year, and assigning the students community service (ranging from 10-50 hours).

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code. It was alleged that the student was in a University building without permission after the building's operating hours. The Board found the student in violation and recommended disciplinary warning as sanction.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A set off an alarm and was caught in room over break. The student pled in violation and the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A and student B stole two leather chairs from the University. The Board found that students A and B had indeed violated the code because they had indeed taken the two chairs. As a sanction the Board recommended a disciplinary warning. Chairs were returned.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had stolen wood from a construction site on campus clearly marked "Danger" and "No Trespassing." The Board found the student in violation because of his admission and a detailed report from Public Safety, which the student did not disagree with. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student organization had violated Regulations 4, 13f, and 15 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the organization registered a party as a non-alcoholic event but served alcohol at that party and then left a big mess for janitors to clean up the next morning. The Board found that the organization had indeed violated regulations 13f and 15 because these violations were acknowledged by the accused. However, the Board found that failing to clean up a mess by the next morning did not constitute a property violation under regulation 4. As a sanction the Board recommended that the organization be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of the fall '02 semester, without stripping the organization of its host privileges.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A and B had trespassed a prohibited area on campus. The Board found that students A and B were in violation of the code after they admitted to violating the code and based upon the evidence. As a sanction the Board recommended disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the three students had been spray-painting the walls of residence halls tunnels. The Board found the students in violation because of the weight of the evidence against them. As sanctions, the students were given disciplinary warnings.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 and 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that Student A was in Olin Library after hours and did not immediately give Public Safety his ID when he was asked to show it. The Board found that student A had indeed violated the Code based on Public Safety's account. As a sanction student A was given a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the two students were in Olin Library after hours. One student agreed that they were in the library after hours. The Board recommended that the students be placed on disciplinary warning. The other student said she didn't know the library closed at 2 pm and wasn't in violation. The Board found her in violation because there are signs stating the hours of the library. The Board recommended disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had set off the alarms in a residence hall. The Board found the student in violation upon her own admission. As a sanction, the Board recommended disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A had set off a burglar alarm when trying to enter his residence over winter break. The Board found that student A had violated the code because he admitted to being in his residence when he was not authorized to do so. As a sanction the Board recommended disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A broke into his/her residence during winter break. The Board found that student A had indeed violated the code because the evidence was clear and uncontested. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student perform three hours of community service by the end of the '02 spring semester, because the student had already received a disciplinary warning prior to the incident.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students violated Regulations 4, 14, and 15 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the students broke into their residence over winter break to retrieve an item and in the process, damaged their door. The Board found that the students had indeed entered the premises but probably did not damage their door. As a sanction the Board recommended that the students receive a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that students A, B and C had been in a University building after its closing time. The Board found students A, B and C in violation because their actions constituted unauthorized use of University property. The Board recommended that students A, B and C receive disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 4 of the code of non-academic conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student entered a residence hall during break when the halls were closed. The student did not contest the charge and was found in violation by the Board. The Board recommended that the student be given disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had entered a residence hall illegally and set off the burglar alarm. The SJB found him in violation based upon his own plea of "in violation." As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code involving stolen property. The Board found that the student had not violated regulation 4, as it was his friend who stole the amplifier. The Board recommended that the student's friend be banned from campus.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 4 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A entered University property without permission during winter break. The Board found that Student A had indeed violated the Code because he had entered the building without authorization. As a sanction the Board recommended that student A receive disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A violated Regulation 4 and 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A broke into Student B's room and stole hundreds of dollars worth of items. Also, it was alleged that student A violated a University order instructing student A not to contact student B. The Board found student A had indeed violated both regulations-14 because there was essentially no question that student A willfully contacted Student B through a friend, which violated the order; 4-because there also was no question that student A took student B's property. The question was whether the theft was a prank, which may have implications for sanctioning. As a sanction, the Board recommended that student A be placed on disciplinary probation; perform 100 hours of community service by May 31, 2002; be prohibited from all official senior events, including senior cocktails, senior week, and graduation ceremonies; be required to leave campus within 24 hours of his last exam; and be prohibited from returning to campus until June 1, 2002.

Regulation 5 - False Information Knowingly furnishing false information to a University officer or member of any hearing Board acting in performance of his/her duties is prohibited, as is the failure to provide University personnel with adequate identification upon request.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 5, 13, and 14 of the Code. It was alleged that student A consumed alcohol underage, and presented a false ID to Public Safety. The Board found student A in violation of the Regulations, as the student admitted to guilt. As sanctions, the Board recommended that student A write a letter of apology to the Public Safety officer and that the student receive a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 5 and 13 of the Code. The Board found that the student had indeed violated these Regulations. As sanctions, the Board recommended that the student receive a disciplinary warning and write a letter of apology to the Public Safety officer who reported the incident.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 5, 13 and 15 of the Code. The Board found the student in violation, and as sanction recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the academic year.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 5, 13, and 14 of the Code. The student was found in violation of regulation 5 by initially lying to the Public Safety officer. The student was also found in violation of Regulation 13 as she admitted to purchasing alcohol underage. She was not found in violation of Regulation 14. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student receive disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student and an organization violated Regulation 5 of the code of non-academic conduct. Specifically, it was alleged that student A and organization B provided false information to public safety and to the Student Judicial Board. The Board found student A and organization B in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended that student A be placed on probation until the end of spring 02' and organization B be placed on probation until the end of spring 02'.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 5 and 14. Specifically, it was alleged that student A verbally gave public safety false information about a Wesleyan student being his guest from home. The Board found the student not in violation because the student never provided false information. His friend provided the false information and he was never questioned by the public safety officer.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 5 and 13 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student had been recklessly driving around campus under the influence of alcohol, endangering students walking on street sidewalks. In addition, it was also alleged that the student had initially refused to present identification upon request of Public Safety, and had initially told Public Safety that he hadn't been the driver of the vehicle in question. The Board found the student in violation of both regulations. As a sanction, the Board recommended suspension for the Fall 2002 semester. The Board also recommended that the student provide verification that he has seen a counselor regarding his problems with alcohol.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 5, 13b, 13d and 14 of the Code. The Board found that the student had indeed violated all regulations and as a sanction recommended a disciplinary warning.

Regulation 6 - Misuse of Documents Forgery, alteration, or the unauthorized possession or use of University documents, records or instruments of identification is prohibited.

Regulation 7 - Tampering with Locks and Duplication of Keys Tampering with locks in University buildings, unauthorized possession or use of University keys, and alteration or unauthorized duplication of University keys are prohibited.

Regulation 8 - Fire Protection Systems Tampering with fire extinguishers, fire alarm boxes, or smoke or heat detectors anywhere on University property is prohibited.

Regulation 9 - Restricted Items/Fire Hazards The possession or use of items designated as fire hazards is prohibited within any University-owned or operated facility. See page 103 of Student Handbook.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulations 9 and 14 of the Code. It was alleged that the students were setting off fireworks, and failed to open the door when Public Safety knocked. The Board found two of the students in violation of Regulation 9, and none of the students in violation of Regulation 14. As a sanction the Board recommended that the two students be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Regulation 9d of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that students A, B, and C were setting off fireworks at Andrus Field. The Board found students A and B had violated the Code as they had indeed set off fireworks. The Board found student C not in violation as there was not enough evidence that the student had violated the Code. As a sanction the Board recommended that students A and B be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 9c of the Code, specifically it was alleged that the student was not in compliance with the fire safety regulations in the residence hall. The student had a toaster and a coffee maker. The student was sleeping when someone used the oven and didn't turn it off. A fire broke out in the oven and the smoke set of alarms around the residence hall. The Board found the student in violation based on the belief that it was the unauthorized toaster which caused the damage and the fire in her room. The Board recommended that the student reimburse for the cost of the fire marshall and be placed on disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 9 and 13b of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student who is underage was drinking alcohol and set off a bottle rocket in a dormitory. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the code, as the student accepted responsibility. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until May 31, 2003; be required to meet with a counselor at Behavioral Health by the end of spring semester, 2002; complete 50 hours of community service by August 15, 2002; and contribute $25 to the Good Clean Fund.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that 4 students had violated Regulations 9d and 13a of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that four students set off fireworks on Foss Hill and were in possession of empty alcohol bottles while under age. The Board found that the students had indeed set off the fireworks, but there was insufficient evidence to suggest they had actually consumed alcohol. As a sanction the Board gave three of the students probation until the end of fall '02; the Board gave one student probation until the end of spring '03 because that student had previously been found in violation of the Code for regulation 4.

Regulation 10 - Parking Parking is prohibited in areas marked "tow zone," on all sidewalks, lawns, terraces, breezeways, loading areas, and in any other University-designated restricted areas.

Regulation 11 - Pets Uncaged pets are not allowed in any University housing facility, including unfurnished rentals. In addition, pets are not permitted in such University facilities as classrooms, libraries, offices, laboratories, studios, sports facilities, food service areas, administrative spaces, and public meeting areas.

Regulation 12 - Disruptions The ground rules for political freedom on campus are excerpted from the "Academic Freedom and Civil Liberties of Students in College and University" booklet, published by the American Civil Liberties Union in 1970. See page 104 of Student Handbook for relevant excerpt.

Regulation 13 - Drugs and Alcohol The University prohibits the unlawful possession, use, or distribution of illicit drugs and alcohol. See the Student Handbook, p. 104 for details.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students violated Regulation 13b of the Code. The Board found the students not in violation, because of insufficient evidence.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 13 of the Code. The Board found that the student had indeed violated the Code, and recommended that the student receive a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that eight students violated Regulation 13 of the Code. It was alleged the students had been in possession of alcohol. The Board found the students not in violation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that five students violated Regulations 13 and 15 of the Code. It was alleged that the students held a non-registered party with more than 49 guests in attendance. The Board found the students in violation of Regulation 15 because there were clearly more than 49 people present, and no attempts were made to clear the area. The Board found the students not in violation of Regulation 13. As sanction, the Board recommended that the students be put on disciplinary probation for the rest of the semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students violated Regulation 13c of the Code. The Board found the students in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended disciplinary warning to two of the students. The third student was assigned three hours of community service to be completed by the end of the semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulations 13 and 14 of the Code. The student, who was underage, was found to be under the influence of alcohol. The Board therefore found the student to be in violation of Regulation 13, but not in violation of Regulation 14. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning, since this was a first-time offense.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 13 of the Code. It was alleged that the under-aged students were in possession of alcohol. The Board found the students in violation, and recommended that they be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 13 of the Code. It was alleged that the underage student was in possession of alcohol. The Board found the student in violation, and recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until the student turns 21, and that the student complete 20 hours of community service by the end of the 2001/2002 academic year.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 13 of the Code. It was alleged that the student was in possession of a marijuana bong and two pipes. The Board found the student in violation, as the student admitted guilt. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of the fall 2001 semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 13 of the Code. It was alleged that the student was in possession of alcohol, and drove under the influence. The Board found the student in violation, as the student admitted responsibility. As sanctions, the Board recommended disciplinary probation until the student's 21st birthday, and referral to the Office of Behavioral Health.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that 2 students had violated Regulation 13b of the Code. Student A was found in violation because he pled in violation. As a sanction the Board recommended a disciplinary warning. Student B, who did not attend the hearing, was not found in violation due to lack of evidence.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that 2 students who are underage were taking part in drinking games with alcohol. The students were never around the alcohol or observed possessing alcohol. The Public Safety report never mentioned them as being involved with the game. The Board did not find them in violation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A had violated Regulation 13 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A was consuming alcohol and was under 21 years of age. As a sanction, the Board recommended that student A disciplinary warning.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A had violated the code based upon the evidence that the student was in possession of marijuana. As a sanction, the Board recommended that student A be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of spring 03', complete 100 hours of community service by the beginning of Fall 02', and continue seeing a therapist.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13c and 13f of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that a student had purchased and been responsible for kegs at a party that had been registered as alcohol-free. Party guests, including minors, allegedly drank from the keg. The Board found that the student had indeed violated both regulations-13f-because the student knowingly furnished alcohol to numerous guests on fraternity property, even though the student lacked a permit-and 13c-because the student supplied alcohol to minors. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation through May 2002.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulations 13 and 14. Specifically, it was alleged that an underage student was observed to be in possession of alcohol. Thereafter, the student entered his room and would not open the door upon being requested to do so by a Public Safety Officer. The Board did not find him in violation because Public Safety did not positively ID him.

In a full hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13g of the Code. Specifically it was alleged that student A was driving under the influence of alcohol. The Board found that student A had indeed violated the Code because student A had been driving under the influence of alcohol. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student be suspended for Fall '02.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students had violated Regulation 13A and that one of the students violated Regulation 4. It was alleged that student A broke into his Intown house and set off a burglar alarm. Upon arrival, Public Safety and Middletown Police observed a bong in plain view. Student A was in his room and public safety asked him if there was any other drug paraphernalia in the house. Student A brought out two other pipes and all pipes tested positive for drug residue. The Board found student A in violation as he had broke into Intown and handed over the pipes which tested positive. As a sanction, the board recommended a disciplinary warning. Student B was found not in violation because he was home during break and was not involved in the incident.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13b and 14 of the Code. The Board found that the student had indeed violated Regulation 13b but did not violate Regulation 14. As a sanction, the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13b of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that alcohol was found in a duffel bag of an under-aged student. The bag was in plain view and was used to prop open a door in a residence hall. The Board found the student in violation. As a sanction, the Board recommended 5 hours of community service to be completed before the end of Spring '02.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the underage student was in possession of alcohol. The Board found that the student was not in violation because the documentation from Public Safety did not identify this student.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13b and 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that an underage student was in possession of alcohol and that he told public safety the beer was his and then said it wasn't. The Board found the student responsible for 13b and not for 14 because the student stated it wasn't his but he would take responsibility. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary probation until the end of spring '03.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13b of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A was underage and in possession of alcohol. The Board found that student A had violated the Code because Public Safety saw him with the alcohol. As a sanction the Board recommended that student A receive a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 of the Code. Specifically, he was caught with a cup of beer. The Board found him in violation and sanctioned him to two hours of community service in addition to getting a disciplinary warning. The community service must be completed by the end of final exams in the spring '02 semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13b of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A was drinking while underage. The Board found that student A had violated the code based upon the documentation in the Public Safety reports and the student did not attend the hearing to contest the charges. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student be put on probation until the end of spring '02 and be given 5 hours of community service which are to be completed by the end of exam period of spring '02.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13b of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student, who is not yet 21 years of age, was in possession of alcohol. The Board found the student in violation and recommended a disciplinary warning as a sanction.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13f of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A was distributing alcohol without a liquor permit. The Board found that the student was in violation of the Code. Because the student admitted violating the code, and there was enough documentation from the public safety report. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student receive a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13b of the Code. The student was picked up by Middletown Police (the officer knew the student as a freshman) and cited for possession of a 30 pack of Busch Beer and a 30 pack of Coors Beer. The Board found the student in violation and recommended that the student be placed on disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 13 and 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A refused a medical assessment for intoxication. The Board found that student A had indeed violated the code because there is enough evidence from the public safety report and the student did not show up at the hearing. As a sanction the Board recommended that the student receive a disciplinary warning.

Regulation 14 - Failure to Comply Members of the community are expected to comply with requests made by University personnel acting within the capacity of their responsibilities.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A violated Regulation 14 of the Code. It was alleged that student A failed to cooperate with a Public Safety officer during the officer's investigation of a possible drug violation. In the incident, two students fled into student A's room. It was alleged that, for several minutes, student A failed to comply with Public Safety's request to open the door. The Board found student A not in violation: apparently, student A had just woken up and therefore did not willfully fail to comply.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 14 of the Code. It was alleged that the student failed to comply with a request made by a Public Safety officer in order to defuse a hostile situation. The Board found the student in violation and recommended a disciplinary warning as sanction.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 14 of the Code. It was alleged that the students failed to open their door when Public Safety knocked. The Board found the students not to be in violation of the Code, since it was found that they were not home at the time of the incident.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student was interfering with Public Safety during an ID check. The student was found in violation and the Board recommended a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A had violated Regulation 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that student A refused to cooperate with Public Safety Officers by failing to give them her I.D and other information when they came to break up a party in her room. The Board found that student A had indeed violated the Code based on her own admission. The Board recommended she receive a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Regulation 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that students A, B, C and D refused to comply with Public Safety officer's requests. The Board found students A, B, C and D had not violated the code because there was no evidence that they had not complied with public safety.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student failed to comply with Public Safety-Regulation 14-by refusing to give his ID. The officer had entered his room because of a loud noise. The Board found that student A had indeed violated the Code because student A did not give the Public Safety officer his ID. As a sanction, the Board recommended that student A receive a disciplinary of warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that students had violated Regulation 14 and 15 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the students had not complied with Public Safety and the Physical Education Department rules. The Board found that the students were not in violation because it was not explicitly expressed to them that they did not have permission to proceed with their action; either from Public Safety or the Physical Education department.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 14 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student lied to Public Safety, claiming to be 21 and to own alcohol that may not in fact have belonged to the student. The Board found that the student did not violate the code, because the student was in fact 22 years old and there is no clear evidence that the alcohol did not belong to the student.

Regulation 15 - Department Regulations Members of the community are expected to abide by duly established and promulgated nonacademic regulations. This is intended to cover the operating regulations of academic or nonacademic offices, laboratories, and departments.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 15 of the Code. It was alleged that student A hosted an unregistered social event in a wood-framed house. Student A was found not to be in violation of the Code because the guests had congregated in the yard without an invitation, and because the student assisted Public Safety in dispersing the crowd.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students violated Regulation 15 of the Code. It was alleged that the students held an unregistered social event at which more than 50 guests were in attendance. The Board found the two students not in violation of the charge.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a University organization had violated Regulation 15 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that this organization had violated the social event policy by hosting an unregistered party of about 70 individuals. The Board found that the organization had indeed violated regulation 15. As a sanction the Board recommended a suspension of party privileges until Oct. 31, 2002.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a group of students violated Regulation 15 of the Code. It was alleged that the students held an unregistered social event, to which more than the allowed number of guests attended. The Board found the students not in violation.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that two students violated Regulation 15 of the Code. It was alleged that a fight took place at a party hosted by the two students. Subsequent investigation revealed that the Party Policy had been violated, since student IDs were neither checked nor held at the door. The Board found the two students not in violation because they had made every effort to secure all exits from the venue aside from the main entrance where checks were being made.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that student A violated Regulation 15 of the Code. It was alleged that student A entered the Clark Hall construction site without permission. The Board found student A in violation of the regulation. As a sanction, the Board recommended disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student organization violated Regulation 15 of the Code. It was alleged that Public Safety noticed more than 50 people present at a non-registered party. The Board agreed with Public Safety's assessment of the situation, and found the organization in violation. As a sanction, the Board placed the organization on probation for the rest of the first semester.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student violated Regulation 15 of the Code. It was alleged that the student held an unregistered social event in a wood-framed house, and approximately 100 people attended. The Board found the student in violation, because the number of guests present exceeded the limit allowed for unregistered events. As a sanction, the Board recommended that the student be issued a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student organization violated Regulation 15 of the Code. It was alleged that the organization served alcohol at an event that was registered as alcohol-free. The Board found the organization in violation and recommended a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that three students had violated Regulation 15 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that these three students threw a party that resulted in three noise complaints within 38 minutes. The party was not registered and Public Safety estimated 80 people present. The Board determined that not all three noise complaints were founded, however, they were in violation of department regulations for throwing a party without registering it. Two of the students were given disciplinary warnings, and one student was put on probation for the rest of the semester because of a prior violation of departmental regulations.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that four students had violated Regulation 15 of the Code. The Board found that the students had indeed violated the Code, and recommended a disciplinary warning.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 15 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student hosted an un-registered social event at which about 120 people were found to be present. The Board found the student not in violation because the crowd was larger than intended and there was a reasonable effort made to disperse the crowd.

In a simplified hearing, the Board considered an allegation that a student had violated Regulation 15 of the Code. Specifically, it was alleged that the student hosted a party for over 50 people and the event was not registered. The Board found the student not in violation. As to the number of people present was a pure guess on the part of the officer. The student charged $1 for the party and at nights end collected $39.