Historically, public school officials have often reacted arbitrarily and capriciously in the exclusion of students from school for out-of-school offenses. The case law that deals with such suspensions and expulsions has not been established by the Supreme Court, but the lower Federal and State courts seem to hold for the student if the public school officials do not adhere to the Constitution in a reasonable and prudent manner. In the Texas case of Caldwell v. Cannady four high school students who had been suspended for possession of drugs off school property brought action seeking a permanent injunction restraining school officials from interfering with or prohibiting the students' attendance at school. The court held for the students. In a similar case, Howard v. Clark in New York, the court held that the school officials had exceeded their power in suspending the students on the grounds that they had been accused of possession of drugs off campus. In many instances, school officials have excluded students from school for off-campus offenses pending criminal charges. This issue has been addressed in several State court cases and by Attorneys General from the States of Wisconsin and Nevada. The Superior Court of New Jersey, in the case of R.R. v. Board of Education, ordered the board to show cause why a high school student was not given a preliminary hearing or a full hearing before he was suspended. The student was involved in an off-campus stabbing incident. In this case, the court ordered readmission of the student to the school. From these decisions it may be inferred that a student cannot be excluded from school for shoplifting, using drugs and alcohol, and other offenses off campus unless school officials have reasonable cause to believe that the student's presence constitutes a threat of danger. Ten references are included. (Author abstract modified)