Teaching Certificate Criminal Case.

California’s Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) maintains a policy of reviewing all teachers who are arrested or convicted of an offense. The CTC maintains that the commission needs to evaluate the impact of the teachers’ criminal cases as this review is not always mandatory in order to proceed with an assessment of what potential effect their conduct may have on their fitness to teach. Another point is to investigate if the conduct in question results in a recurrence of a prior criminal offense and whether the conviction makes it necessary to assess if the teacher remains fit or whether they had previous convictions that may now come into question. In order to determine if the teacher remains fit to teach in public school, the CTC considers the following factors when reviewing a fitness case:

• Recurrence risk;
• Motives;
• Aggravation, mitigation, and publicity.

If the CTC finds that the teacher had an impediment to keeping their license, their credential will be terminated, revoked, or a long period of suspension will be mandated. However, such credential discipline and school district employment decisions are separate proceedings, and they may involve different stages of the process and lead to different outcomes. It is also important to distinguish California’s arrest review process from California’s conviction-based credential discipline. The arrest review is the first stage of the process, and it is triggered by a report to the CTC. The CTC makes a preliminary assessment of whether the conduct in question warrants an investigation. The conviction-based credential discipline is the next stage, and it is triggered by the outcome of the criminal case. In either case, the impact on the teacher will depend on the type of offense, the teacher’s career history, and the nature of the findings.

When Must Michigan Teachers Report an Arrest or Conviction?

Michigan school employees charged with certain specified crimes must report the charge within three business days after arraignment, and employees who plead guilty or no contest or are found guilty must immediately disclose their school employment to the court and provide the required form to specified officials. According to the Michigan page, this includes the Michigan Department of Education and the teacher’s school district. Michigan prosecutors also have a reporting duty, although it is not as broad as the reporting duty that teachers have. The cited Michigan provisions require the employee to report specified charges after arraignment and provide for department notification of convictions to school districts. According to the Michigan page, failing to report an arrest can result in termination of employment in addition to the criminal charges that are already pending or the potential for new criminal charges: “If a person who is employed in any capacity by a school district, intermediate school district, public school academy, or nonpublic school... is charged with a crime listed in section 1535a(1) or 1539b(1)... the person shall report to the department and to the school district... The person shall submit the report within 3 business days after being arraigned for the crime. If the person enters a plea of guilt or no contest... the person immediately shall disclose to the court... that he or she is employed by... a school district...” This underscores the importance of understanding Michigan teachers’ reporting duties as distinct from prosecutors’ reporting duties. The purpose of the revised system is to ensure that criminal case outcomes are reported promptly to school districts, which will then allow all school districts to properly assess whether a teacher’s conduct warrants denial of their teaching certificate or termination of their employment. Thus, teachers can face consequences for either prosecutors’ or their own failures to report. However, Michigan teachers have different reporting requirements than educators in other states, and the reporting requirements can be complex. Consequently, Michigan teachers facing criminal charges should speak with an experienced Michigan teacher defense lawyer to learn more about their reporting obligations in a criminal case.

Which California Convictions Trigger Mandatory Credential Consequences?

California Education Code section 44010, California Education Code section 44011, California Education Code section 44424, and California Education Code section 44425, among others, all address the loss of a teacher’s teaching credential due to criminal conduct. Specifically, California Education Code section 44010 and section 44011 address eligibility to be a teacher in California. While these statutes appear to restrict those applying for their first teaching credential, they also apply when individuals who have already obtained teaching credentials lose their eligibility to teach. The following sections explore how these two statutes relate to credential discipline in California.

1. CA Ed Code § 44424 and § 44425: Specified Criminal Conduct, Convictions, and Credential Consequences

California Education Code section 44424 and California Education Code section 44425 both address credential consequences. Specifically, section 44425 requires immediate suspension and, when the conviction becomes final or imposition of sentence is suspended, revocation of a credential for specified sex and controlled-substance offenses, with permanent revocation limited to particular felony offenses. This means that, unlike the outcomes of their employment cases, which can depend on many factors (including the educator’s previous work experience and any prior commendations), the consequences of an educator’s criminal case can sometimes be mandated by law. Unfortunately, these consequences can result in a permanent loss of an educator’s livelihood.

2. CA Ed Code § 44010: Specified Sex Offenses, Not Every Criminal Offense

One common misconception is that California Education Code section 44010 triggers mandatory credential consequences for every criminal offense that makes an individual “morally unfit” to teach. However, section 44010 only concerns specific offenses. It identifies the specific sex offenses covered by the credential statutes, and the applicable credential consequences depend on whether the conviction falls within those statutorily defined offenses. The consequences of a conviction under section 44010 are focused on certain types of conduct, as opposed to any criminal offense.

3. CA Ed Code § 44011: Specified Drug Offenses, Not Every Criminal Offense

Similarly, California Education Code section 44011 does not trigger mandatory credential consequences for every offense related to the use, possession, distribution, manufacture, sale, or importation of controlled substances. Rather, section 44011 addresses specific drug-related convictions. Individuals convicted of these specified crimes may be ineligible to obtain or maintain teaching credentials, subject to statutory exceptions. Like section 44010, section 44011 also focuses on specific types of offenses, and not every drug-related offense has an automatic impact on an educator’s credential. Individuals charged under these statutes will need to speak with California teacher defense lawyers to understand the impact of their criminal cases, and they should speak with educators’ rights attorneys to understand the impact of their criminal cases.

How Are California Credential Cases Investigated, Heard, and Appealed?

In California, a no-contest plea is treated as a conviction for purposes of teacher discipline. As the California account notes, “A plea of nolo contendere (no contest) to a criminal charge results in a conviction which must be disclosed.” Moreover, expungement under Penal Code section 1203.4 does not prevent discipline, and even if a criminal charge was diverted, it can still trigger action by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. California credential discipline proceedings can include informal inquiries, formal reviews, accusations, and administrative hearings. While an informal inquiry involves the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) requesting information about a teacher’s conduct, a formal review involves the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) issuing a Statement of Issues and requesting a Notice of Defense. As California’s page explains: - The Notice of Defense is required within 15 days of the mailing of the Statement of Issues;

• After receiving the Notice of Defense, the CTC will determine whether there is cause to file an Accusation; and,
• If an Accusation is filed, an administrative hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) will address whether credential discipline is warranted, subject to the Commission's final decision. If the Commission issues a final adverse decision after an OAH hearing, an aggrieved party may seek review through administrative mandamus. According to the California account: “Where the writ is issued for the purpose of inquiring into the validity of any final administrative order or decision made as the result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken, and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in the inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or officer, the case shall be heard by the court sitting without a jury. The inquiry in such a case shall extend to the questions whether the respondent has proceeded without, or in excess of, jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion. Abuse of discretion is established if the respondent has not proceeded in the manner required by law, the order or decision is not supported by the findings, or the findings are not supported by the evidence.... Where the court finds that there is relevant evidence that... could not have been produced... it may enter judgment... remanding the case to be reconsidered... The court shall enter judgment either commanding respondent to set aside the order or decision, or denying the writ. your case in California.” We understand the stakes involved, and we approach your California credential defense with our usual tenacity and resolve. We will fight to protect your career and your livelihood in California We will also protect you against the fallout of your criminal case

Speak With a Federal Defense Lawyer

If you are dealing with any part of what this article describes, the next step is a conversation with a lawyer who handles these cases. Spodek Law Group is a second generation criminal defense firm practicing since 1976, representing clients nationwide from offices in New York, Brooklyn, Queens and Los Angeles. Call 888 348 8028 to speak with our team.