Chrystal McCadden thought she had done everything necessary to ensure an appropriate, safe educational environment for Cameron, her 7-year-old son who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In addition to obtaining appropriate professional services for her son, she also worked with the school district in Flint, Michigan, to develop an individualized education plan, or IEP. Over the course of 13 months, she also met repeatedly with the administrators of an after-school program run by the local chamber of commerce to discuss Cameron’s condition, needs, and strategies for addressing his disability-related challenges.
Nevertheless, on Oct. 12, 2015, when Cameron allegedly ran across bleachers and kicked a supply cart — conduct consistent with his disability — the afterschool program declined to follow protocols specified by the child’s IEP. Instead, a police officer was summoned. The officer encountered a little boy who was just shy of four feet tall and who weighed about 55 pounds. Cameron was immediately seized and placed in handcuffs.
When the afterschool program got around to calling Ms. McCadden, the fact that her son was in cuffs was mentioned almost in passing. She disregarded it, believing that the handcuffs must have been toys, part of Halloween activities or a game. When she arrived and learned to her horror that what was done to her son was no game, she vigorously demanded the removal of the restraints. She was then even more alarmed to learn that Cameron could not be released because the officer did not have the key. Almost a full hour passed before the child was finally released.
On behalf of Cameron, the ACLU of Michigan, the ACLU’s Disability Rights Program, and private cooperating attorneys against the Flint Police Department and the Flint Chamber of Commerce. The lawsuit asserts claims for Fourth Amendment and disability law violations.
In addition to requesting that the court declare Cameron’s handcuffing illegal, order that it never happens again, and award compensation to the McCaddens, the lawsuit and a large coalition of local grassroots community organizations demand the total withdrawal of police officers from Flint’s elementary schools. Against a backdrop of a water crisis that has had a demonstrable physical impact on school children throughout the city, members of the community believe money spent on police in elementary schools would be better spent on professionals who are trained and equipped to deal with the problems of Flint’s children. No one is satisfied with handcuffs as a response.
Unfortunately, Cameron’s experience was not unique.
Although students with disabilities are only 12 percent of the national public school student population, they account for 75 percent of students subjected to physical restraint in schools. In addition, while African-American students like Cameron are only 19 percent of students with disabilities, they account for 36 percent of students subjected to mechanical restraints like handcuffs.
More and more, schools in America are turning mundane disciplinary infractions and behaviors that should be addressed through IEPs or a conversation with a counselor into crimes. With the lawsuit, the McCadden family has said enough is enough. No child deserves to have handcuffs slapped on them, especially when their behavior is an expression of their disability. It’s disturbing that these words even need saying.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Montana Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
+2 Issues
Held v. MontanaHeld v. Montana
This case pending before the Montana Supreme Court asks, among other things, whether the claims of sixteen youth plaintiffs challenging Montana energy policy present a political question under the Montana Constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief arguing that the claims do not present a political question and, moreover, that state courts should not wholesale adopt the federal political questions doctrine. -
Texas Supreme CourtMay 2024
Juvenile Justice
State v. OchoaState v. Ochoa
This case in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals concerns the admissibility of a fourteen-year-old defendant’s confession following a Texas Ranger’s coercive interrogation. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Texas, filed an amicus brief arguing that the defendant’s confession was induced by positive promises, and is inadmissible, particularly given his juvenile status and the circumstances of the interrogation. In November 2024, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (the highest court for criminal appeals in Texas) ruled that Holland's interrogation of Ochoa was unconstitutionally coercive in violation of Ochoa's Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. -
Press ReleaseApr 2024
Free Speech
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic FreedomACLU Urges College and University Leaders to Protect Free Speech and Academic Freedom
NEW YORK — In response to the anti-war protests happening at colleges across the country, and the disturbing arrests that have followed, the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter to leaders at both public and private universities. The letter states: “As you fashion responses to the activism of your students (and faculty and staff), it is essential that you not sacrifice principles of academic freedom and free speech that are core to the educational mission of your respected institution.” Authored by ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero and National Legal Director David Cole, the letter offers university leaders five basic guardrails to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom are protected on campus: They must not single out particular viewpoints for censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. They must protect students from targeted discriminatory harassment and violence, but may not penalize people for taking sides on the war in Gaza, even if expressed in deeply offensive terms. They can announce and enforce reasonable content-neutral time, place, or manner policies on protesting activity, but they must leave ample room for students to express themselves. These rules must be applied consistently and without regard to viewpoint. They must recognize that armed police on campus can endanger students and are a measure of last resort. They must resist the pressures placed on them by politicians seeking to exploit campus tensions. The letter also informs university leaders of relevant Supreme Court precedent: “The Supreme Court has forcefully rejected the premise that, ‘because of the acknowledged need for order, First Amendment protections should apply with less force on college campuses than in the community at large.’” The letter strongly advises university leaders to be “cognizant of the history of law enforcement using inappropriate and excessive force in responding to protests, particularly against communities of color,” and that — as events of the past week have made abundantly clear — arresting peaceful protestors is likely to escalate, not calm, tensions on campus. The letter also reiterates that violence is never an acceptable protest tactic and that “physically intimidating students by blocking their movements or pursuing them aggressively is unprotected conduct, not protected speech.” -
PodcastJan 2024
Juvenile Justice
It's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's StoryIt's Time to End Solitary Confinement: Ian Manuel's Story