LANEY & BOLLINGER
LAWYERS
600 ASH STREET, PLAINVIEW, TEXAS 79072-8093
(806) 293-2618 PHONE
(806) 293-8802 FAX
WWW.LANEYBOLLINGER.COM

KELLY HOLLINGSWORTH

TROY BOLLINGER

DON SNODGRASS

KELLY@LANEYBOLLINGER.COM

COLLEGE OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS
TROY @LANEYBOLLINGER.COM

DON@LANEYBOLLINGER.COM

- OF COUNSEL

- MARK W. LANEY

MARK@LANEYBOLLINGER.COM
BOARD CERTIFIED TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
COLLEGE OF STATE BAR OF TEXAS
PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL LAW, SINCE 1982
CHARTER MEMBER, SINCE 1983
CIVIL TRIAL LAW, SINCE 1982
FELLOW, SINCE 1995

November 23, 2015
Via email: tpatel@irvingisd.net
Via Facsimile (972) 215-5296
Tina R. Patel
Chief Legal Counsel, Irving ISD
P.O. Box 152637
Irving, Texas 75015-2637
Re:

Notice of Claims and Demand regarding the unlawful detention, interrogation,
arrest, and public mistreatment of Ahmed Mohamed by administrators and
teachers of the Irving ISD

Dear Ms. Patel:
Our firm has been retained by Mohamed Elhassan Mohamed to represent his son, Ahmed
Mohamed. As you know, until a short time ago, Ahmed was a student at MacArthur High
School in the Irving ISD. I am writing to provide Irving ISD with notice regarding the events of
September 14, 2015, involving Ahmed, in which several Irving ISD personnel – among many
others – deliberately disregarded and violated Ahmed’s rights under 42 U.S.C. §1983, Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Texas Juvenile Justice Code, Irving ISD’s policies and
procedures, and Texas tort law.
I am relatively new to this engagement, so please do not take the list of rights violations
in this letter as exhaustive of the possible causes of action which may attach on these facts. You
should take the notice herein as notice of our intent to pursue full vindication of all of Ahmed’s
rights in relation to the events at issue.
Statutory Notices
Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code (“CPRC”) – the Tort Claims
Act – requires that certain notices issue in relation to some of these claims. Our primary position
on this matter is that the Irving ISD has actual of Ahmed’s injuries and their causes, and that
additional, formal notice is unnecessary based on CPRC §101.101(c). Furthermore, nothing in
this letter should be construed as an election of remedies under the Tort Claims Act. Internal
email communications produced by the City of Irving demonstrate that the Irving ISD has actual
notice of Ahmed’s claims and damages.

 Tina R. Patel
November 23, 2015
Page 2
In an abundance of caution, however, please accept this as Notice under CPRC
§101.101(a) [and Irving City Charter ART. III §8] of the injuries and damages sustained by
Ahmed as a result of the violations of his rights by Irving ISD and its employees, acting in
concert and participation with the City of Irving and its employees. Further, these notice
requirements relate only to Irving ISD as a “governmental unit.” No such notice is required with
respect to the individuals involved, who also will be defendants if resolution is not reached.
The Incident
Ahmed Mohamed is a fourteen year-old American citizen of Sudanese origin – just like
his parents. It is well-known by Ahmed’s fellow students and his teachers that he is an
electronics enthusiast. When he was at Sam Houston Middle School, Ahmed participated quite
successfully in a robotics team competition. In his room at his Irving home, Ahmed has tons of
gadgets and the soldering and assembly tools necessary to work with them.
As a freshman who was new to MacArthur High School, Ahmed was looking for a way
to demonstrate his technical abilities to some of his new teachers. The Friday before the
incident, he told some of his teachers – including both Mr. Kelton Lemons (whom Ahmed calls
his “engineering teacher”) and Ms. Erin West (his English teacher) – that he was going to build
something over the weekend to show them and bring it for them to see on Monday. This very
much comports with Ahmed’s personality. He loves what we used to call “show and tell” –
bringing a unique or interesting item to school and showing it to his friends and teachers as a
conversation piece.
Sunday night, Ahmed used some spare parts and scrap pieces he had around the house to
assemble a digital clock. He routed the circuitry to run through a motherboard and enclosed his
creative contraption in a little locking pencil case with the dimensions of approximately 8.5 x
5.75 x 2.5 inches. These Vaultz brand lockable cases are advertised by Target, Walgreen’s, CVS
and other major retailers as “school supplies.” They come in numerous decorative colors and
themes. Some are pink with big hearts on the front of them; some are “tie dye” pattern with a
peace sign. Ahmed’s had a tiger hologram on the front of it.
September 14, 2015
On Monday, September 14, 2015, Ahmed took the clock to school. Early in the school
day, Ahmed showed the clock to Mr. Lemons. When Mr. Lemons saw the clock, he told
Ahmed, “That’s really nice,” but Mr. Lemons also advised Ahmed to keep the clock in his
backpack for the remainder of the school day. During Ahmed’s English class in the late
morning, the alarm clock accidentally sounded when Ahmed plugged it in to show it to a friend.
Ms. West noticed the alarm, but did not identify where it came from. Ahmed turned the alarm
off without incident.
As Ahmed was leaving at the end of class – after most of the other students were already
gone – Ahmed reminded Ms. West that he said he was going to bring her something and asked
her if she wanted to see the clock he had built. Ms. West responded that she did want to see it.
When Ms. West saw the clock, she told Ahmed it looked like a bomb, immediately confiscated

 Tina R. Patel
November 23, 2015
Page 3
the clock and reported Ahmed to the school principal’s office. During the exchange with Ms.
West, Ahmed started what would become his refrain for the day: “It’s an alarm clock. It’s only
an alarm clock.” The basis for Ms. West’s actions is unclear. She certainly did not treat the
clock as though it were dangerous. Ms. West initially placed the clock on her desk.
Right around 2:00 p.m., during Ahmed’s AVID class, Principal Daniel Cummings and an
Irving police officer appeared and escorted Ahmed out of his class. They took Ahmed into
another room where four more Irving police officers and Assistant Principal Patrick Smith were
awaiting Ahmed’s arrival. Immediately upon Ahmed entering the interrogation room, Irving
Police Officer Charles Taylor commented, “Yep. That’s who I thought it was.” Ahmed found
this to be quite unnerving because he had never had any prior contact with Officer Taylor.
The on-campus detention and 7-on-1 interrogation went on for approximately one hour
and 25 minutes. Ahmed asked nearly immediately if he could contact his parents – which as you
know, is his right under the Texas Juvenile Justice Code. His request was refused: “No. You’re
being interrogated, so you cannot talk to your parents.” No one involved treated the clock as a
potential explosive or incendiary device. The City of Irving’s own documents support that the
on-campus detention and interrogation lasted so long because the police were walking the
decision about whether to arrest Ahmed up the chain of command. They were stretching the
interrogation as long as possible, so they could find someone willing to take responsibility for
arresting Ahmed. The decision to arrest apparently was made by the Assistant Chief.
Throughout the on-campus detention and interrogation – which was recorded on the
iPhone of the one female officer present during the interrogation – Ahmed constantly was
pressured to sign a written statement admitting that he intended to bring a “hoax bomb” to
school. As if the pressure of having five uniformed Irving police officers were not enough, Mr.
Cummings was threatening that if Ahmed did not sign the confession, he would be expelled.
That is a huge threat for a kid like Ahmed. He rated MIT’s interest in having him as a student as
more exciting than meeting the President of the United States.
The detention, interrogation, search of Ahmed’s belongings, and the arrest all occurred
despite there being no reasonable suspicion to believe that Ahmed had committed or was about
to commit any crime. Through the entire ordeal, Ahmed steadfastly maintained that the only
reason he brought the clock to school was to show it off to some of his teachers. City and school
personnel commented later to the press that Ahmed was not forthcoming during the inquisition.
It seems not to have dawned on any of them that he was scared to death.
No one who saw Ahmed’s clock that day thought it was a bomb. Ahmed did nothing to
support the inference that he intended to cause alarm, or any reaction at all (other than his
teachers’ approval), in anyone. The police quickly determined that the clock was not dangerous.
One easily could infer that the police kept escalating the situation because they were frustrated
that they failed to coerce Ahmed into signing a false confession. Undeterred, the police arrested
Ahmed anyway. When they took him out of school in handcuffs, Ahmed remembers the look of
bewilderment on the face of his school counselor, who Ahmed said “knows I’m a good boy.”

 Tina R. Patel
November 23, 2015
Page 4
After Ahmed was removed from school in handcuffs, the Irving Police took him to a
juvenile detention center where he was fingerprinted, photographed, and illegally questioned –
again – without his parents present. This narrative is sufficient to frame most of Ahmed’s claims
against the school and school officials. We will take up the rest of Ahmed’s treatment that day
with the City of Irving. Unfortunately, several Irving ISD employees’ subsequent actions made
the impact on Ahmed and his family even worse.
The Suspension
Shortly after 7:00 p.m. that night, Ahmed’s dad received a call from a “blocked” number
from Assistant Principal Patrick Smith. With numerous kids who had been educated in Irving
ISD, Mr. Mohamed was puzzled by the fact that the call did not come from the familiar Irving
ISD area code and exchange: (972) 600. Mr. Smith stated that the decision had been made to
suspend Ahmed from school for three days. Mr. Mohamed rightfully stated that he did not have
any verification that Mr. Smith was who he claimed to be, and that if he did not receive written
notice from a school official of the suspension, Ahmed would be attending school the next day.
Only after being prompted by Mr. Mohamed, did Mr. Smith send an email saying that
Ahmed was being given off-campus suspension. The Student Code of Conduct provision to
which Mr. Smith referred as the basis for the suspension was the “Possession of Prohibited
Items” provision on page 6. A review of that section of the Code of Conduct reveals that Ahmed
was not in possession of any of the “prohibited items” listed in that rule. Ahmed was suspended
for nothing. The school – chiefly Mr. Cummings and Mr. Smith – needed to justify the circus
they created by disregarding Ahmed’s rights.
Principal Cummings’ and Leslie Weaver’s Statements
Internal communications make clear that the City of Irving and Irving ISD were upset
that news of their mistreatment of Ahmed received so much well-deserved scrutiny. On the
morning of September 16, 2015, Mr. Cummings came over the MacArthur High School intercom
system, and in relation to the Incident, said the following:
Right now the media has only one side of the story. Understand that the
school district cannot release our statements or facts without written
consent from the parents. And we have a very different version of what
happened than what you are seeing from the media. Today the district will
ask for written permission to release the facts.
By this statement, Mr. Cummings – the highest ranking official on the MacArthur campus –
directly defamed both Ahmed and his family by calling them liars. There is no legitimate reason
to even make a statement to the student body on these issues. Doing so violated Ahmed’s
confidentiality rights. There is no relevant “other side of the story.” What is described above
happened, and there is no excusing it. Mr. Cummings, in fact, tried to coerce a confession out of
Ahmed, and he enlisted the help of the Irving Police in wrongfully detaining him, wrongfully
interrogating him, and wrongfully searching him and his belongings. Mr. Cummings knows the

 Tina R. Patel
November 23, 2015
Page 5
proper procedures and safeguards that Texas law provide for students in this situation. He
consciously decided to violate them anyway.
Irving ISD spokeswoman Leslie Weaver repeatedly gave the media a false impression of
events. At different times she referred to the pencil case as a “briefcase” and a “suitcase.” This
fed the false impression – bolstered by the first picture of the clock the Irving PD released – that
the clock is many times larger than it is. Ms. Weaver also repeatedly called the reporting on the
story “unbalanced.” This, again, is tantamount to calling Ahmed and his family liars. They are
not.
Ms. Weaver also implied to the press that the reason for Ahmed’s suspension was the
Irving ISD’s “zero tolerance” policy. In order for the Texas zero tolerance standard to apply, the
incident must have involved (1) a weapon, (2) drugs or alcohol, or (3) threats of harm to
someone. There was no weapon. There were no drugs and alcohol involved. And the only
person threatened that day was Ahmed. Ms. Weaver stated about the incident that the District
was “doing everything with an abundance of caution to protect all of our students in Irving.”
That day, there was one student whose safety was of no concern at all: Ahmed’s.
Violations of Irving ISD Policies
Irving ISD and its employees knowingly disregarded the district’s written policies and
procedures by detaining, interrogating, and attempting to coerce a confession from Ahmed.
Irving ISD’s own policy prohibits discrimination, including harassment, of students on the basis
of race, national origin, and religion. Prohibited harassment includes, but is not limited to, verbal
and nonverbal conduct that “affects a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from an
education program,” or “otherwise adversely affects the student’s educational opportunities.”
During the Incident, Mr. Cummings and Mr. Smith intentionally harassed and singled out
Ahmed for undue punishment based on his race, national origin, and religion. During the oncampus detention and interrogation, Ahmed was verbally harassed. Mr. Cummings brought to
bear every measure of pressure he could find to coerce Ahmed into providing a false confession
to Class A misdemeanor. Apparently frustrated that he could not extract a criminal confession –
even with five Irving police officers helping him – Mr. Cummings covered himself by
suspending Ahmed. Mr. Cummings stayed by his decision even after Irving Chief of Police
Larry Boyd called the entire ordeal a “naive accident.” Between the suspension and publicly
calling Ahmed and his family liars, Mr. Cummings and Ms. Weaver rendered it impossible for
Ahmed to pursue further education opportunities in the manner in which he was accustomed.
Mr. Cummings and Mr. Smith flagrantly violated Irving ISD’s policies on parental
notification. When a law enforcement officer interrogates a student at school, Irving ISD policy
requires the student’s parents to be notified unless an officer raises a valid objection to the
notification. There was no valid objection because by the time of the interrogation, it was clear
there was no potential harm to anyone at the school – except, of course, Ahmed. Just as he
requested, and as required by law, Ahmed’s parents should have received timely notification of
the incident.

 Tina R. Patel
November 23, 2015
Page 6
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Ahmed also has claims against the Irving ISD and its employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
which permits claims against individuals who “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be
subjected, any citizen of the United States . . . deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution.” Section 1983 has been interpreted to allow suits for suits against
police officers and other state officials (such as school personnel) acting in their official
capacities. Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 112 S.Ct. 358 (1991); Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342
(9th Cir. 1992).
Liability also may be imposed on a school district if a policy or custom results in a
deprivation of a student’s rights or places a student in danger. City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik,
485 U.S. 112 (1988). Irving ISD officials have claimed repeatedly that in treating Ahmed as
they did, they were following Irving ISD policy. This means that Irving ISD as a governmental
unit is equally responsible for Ahmed’s damages.
As American citizens, all of us – even the ones with “Muslim-sounding” names like
Ahmed Mohamed – are entitled to have public officials with whom we come in contact to
respect our rights. Ahmed’s rights were clearly violated. He was detained and interrogated by
high-ranking employees of Irving ISD and the Irving Police Department, pressured to falsely
confess to a crime he did not commit (and that no responsible person believed he had
committed), and then interrogated again by the Irving Police Department at the juvenile
detention center, all without his parents being notified or present.
Title VI
Ahmed also has claims under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
states that , “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin,
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” A deciding factor in
private Title VI suits is whether "a challenged action was motivated by an intent to
discriminate." Elston v. Talladega County Board of Education, 997 F.2d at 1406. One of the
factors used to determine if discrimination intent exists is any departure, substantive or
procedural from the normal decision making process. Village of Arlington Heights v.
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp, 429 U.S. 252 (1977).
Ahmed clearly was singled out because of his race, national origin, and religion. Law
enforcement and school officials immediately determined that the clock was harmless. The only
reason for the overreaction was that the responsible adults involved irrationally assumed that
Ahmed was dangerous because of his race, national origin, and religion. Police and school
officials tried for an hour and a half to get Ahmed to sign a false confession, and then arrested
him on baseless charges they had already ruled out. This shows their intent to discriminate.
Let’s face it; if Ahmed’s clock were “Jennifer’s clock,” and if the pencil case were ruby red
bedazzled with a clear rhinestone skull and crossbones on the cover, this would never have
happened.

 Tina R. Patel
November 23, 2015
Page 7
The Aftermath
The Irving ISD and City of Irving Police Officers with whom Ahmed came in contact
that day were tasked with the same responsibilities toward Ahmed as they were for all the other
students. Ahmed never threatened anyone, never caused harm to anyone, and never intended to.
The only one who was hurt that day was Ahmed, and the damages he suffered were not because
of oversight or incompetence. The school officials and police knew what they needed to do to
protect Ahmed’s rights. They just decided not to. Their after-the-fact attempts to couch their
deliberate disregard of Ahmed’s rights as being motivated by concerns for the safety of the other
students has only added to the harm Ahmed and his family have suffered.
Some aspects of the damages Ahmed has suffered as a result of this are quite difficult to
quantify with certainty, though they are clearly severe. It is difficult to say how much monetary
damage is caused by any of the following:
-

Ahmed having his 14-year-old face superimposed onto a famous image of
Osama bin Laden – beard included – appearing below a blogger’s rant
against the “parents of this little terrorist in training;”

-

Ahmed being turned into Glenn Beck’s latest object lesson in how “this is
really kind of the final throes of weakening us to the point to where we
don’t ask any questions, to be ready for final confrontation, total
confrontation,” while Ahmed’s hometown mayor, Beth Van Duyne,
listens and nods, putting her imprimatur on Beck’s delusional conspiracy
theories;

-

Ahmed being portrayed as the “Clock Boy” on a Halloween costume
website;

-

having Ahmed’s name, and particularly his likeness, forever associated
with arguably the most contentious and divisive socio-political issue of
our time;

-

Ahmed feeling the burden of responsibility for his siblings being harassed
and scared to go to school, for his father’s business suffering greatly from
Mr. Mohamed’s absence, for one of his sisters being fired from her job,
and for neither of his older sisters being able to find schools in Qatar; and

-

the loss of security that goes with having Ahmed’s Irving home address
tweeted out, and being labeled on Beck’s show as “pawn” of the architects
of a “global jihad.”

Other damages are more conducive to quantification. Ahmed and his siblings had the
right to a free and adequate public education, just like every other American child does. Ahmed
first attended Irving ISD in pre-K, and he and all of his siblings had gone to school nearly
exclusively in the Irving ISD. When, two days after the incident, Mr. Cummings went on to the

 Tina R. Patel
November 23, 2015
Page 8
MacArthur High School intercom system and called Ahmed and his family liars, he took that
opportunity away from Ahmed and all of his siblings.
Ahmed also has suffered severe psychological trauma during his involuntarily separation
from his grandmother and extended family. This trauma has since been amplified due to the
global media attention this incident has gathered. Ahmed and his siblings know that his life has
inalterably changed. Ahmed will now forever be associated with bomb making wholly without
basis. Many believe that Ahmed and his family are terrorists, similar to those responsible for the
September 11th attacks on the Twin Towers. This characterization brings both short- and longterm challenges. In the short-term Ahmed fears for his physical safety after receiving many
threatening emails.
In the long-term, we adults should know that – despite Ahmed’s efforts to be strong, and
to prove that he is “a good boy” – he will continue for the rest of his days to experience pain and
suffering. A large segment of potential employers will steer clear of Ahmed to avoid
controversy, despite his many obvious talents. There is no other way to put it: Ahmed’s
reputation in the global community is permanently scarred. One also would anticipate that
Ahmed, quite reasonably, will have a lifelong fear of the law enforcement and educational
establishments that have let him down so terribly.
Consider for a moment the true reason that Ahmed brought the clock to school. He was
trying to impress his teachers. Anyone who has been around teenage boys knows that they are
looking for leaders and mentors. They yearn to find acceptance in the results of their labors,
whether it is in sports, the arts, or something technical. Ahmed was reaching out that day. Irving
ISD unceremoniously slapped him away, then sought to cover its mistakes with a media
campaign that further alienated the child at the center of this maelstrom. What must that do to a
young man?
Finally, Ahmed and his family lost their home. The address that was tweeted out for the
entire world to see was the only home Ahmed and his five siblings had ever known. This family
left their home in Irving because of a very rational fear for their physical safety. On an elemental
level, the Mohamed family’s life as any of them had known it evaporated that day at the hands of
the Irving ISD and City of Irving. While many people online were gleeful to see them leaving
their home in Irving, Texas, U.S.A., Ahmed and his family miss Texas. They miss their friends.
They miss their grandmother. They miss their extended family. They miss their neighbors,
many of whom cried hugged them as the Mohamed’s left their home.
In ways that are virtually impossible to comprehend, this thing turned the Mohamed
family’s lives upside down. But even as the scale of the eruption became clear, rather than
trying to calm the waters, the Irving ISD and City of Irving launched a public relations campaign
against Ahmed. They stoked the flames. They tried to push responsibility off on the victim –
Ahmed. They have even implied publicly that what has come of this has been good for Ahmed,
as though the resilience of this fine boy and his fine family somehow excuses what they did. It
does not, for there is no excuse. As Justice Clarence Thomas once said: “This is a high-tech
lynching.”

 Tina R. Patel
November 23, 2015
Page 9
Demand
As a result of the above-described violations of Ahmed’s constitutional, statutory, and
common law rights, and the damages flowing from those violations, we demand the following:
1.

Five million dollars as compensation for the damages Ahmed suffered at the
hands of the Irving ISD and its employees.1

2.

A written apology from Irving ISD acknowledging that Ahmed Mohamed never
intended to threaten anyone, and that his detention, interrogation, and arrest were
wrongful and were made at a point in time when there was no reasonable
suspicion to believe that Ahmed had committed a crime or was about to commit
any crime.
If you fail to comply with the above demands within sixty days from the date of this letter, you
should expect that we will file a civil action addressing the causes of action and events described
in this letter.
As indicated, our hope is that before litigation there will be some discussion between us
regarding the possibility of settling before filing suit. I look forward to hearing from you.
Very truly yours,

Kelly D. Hollingsworth

1

This is not all of the damages Ahmed has sustained, and that will be reflected in our demand to the City of Irving.
This reflects a willingness on the part of my client to seek compromise with the Irving ISD.