M.M. that he was suspended and called his mother to pick him up. M.M was then instructed by the administrative dean to go to the indoor waiting room outside of her office. The school resource officer was-.contacted after M.M. continued to engage in disruptive behavior in the waiting room. Despite instructions from both the dean and the school resource officer that he must remain in the waiting area, M.M. walked outside into an adjacent open-air courtyard (near the back of the school campus), where he was arrested for trespass. M.M. argues that he cannot be found guilty of unlawfully entering or remaining on school property because he was expressly authorized (actually required) to remain on campus until his mother arrived. Cf. E.W. v. State, 873 So.2d 485, 487-88 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). In essence, M.M. argues that as long as he
holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that evidence was insufficient to establish that appellant remained unlawfully on school property because as a minor appellant could not leave school without parental consent holding trial court reversibly erred in not permitting appellant to withdraw his plea where court erroneously stated appellant could appeal motion was in fact not dispositive and appellant was entitled to rely on the courts statement holding that a students private school tuition should be reimbursed where parent did not unilaterally place student in private school because the school district tacitly consented to the private school attendance before proposing a different placement holding the tlo standard governs school searches when school resource officers  who although employed by the local police department are primarily responsible to the school district  are acting in conjunction with school officials