She noted there were several of the students who indicated they did not think anything of the messages Polley sent to them and said many of them appeared to be messages checking in on the students and their sports activities. 'Had Defendant invited some of those students over to his house or engaged in sexually charged discussions with them, this may be a different analysis.' 'There are some similarities between the prior acts and the current acts, but those similarities are not strong enough to demonstrate a common scheme or plan,' Hormann wrote. She wrote it was never alleged that Polley invited students to his home while a teacher at Woodbury, and there was no allegation that he had sexual intercourse with any of the students from the Woodbury High School.' 'Again, some of the messages are not appropriate for a teacher to be sending a student, however, they are not similar enough to the conduct in the current case to be relevant to explain Defendant's intent,' Hormann stated. She wrote the closest message to anything suggesting a romantic intent was one where Polley stated, 'Low key, I love you.' While text messages may be inappropriate for school staff to have with a student, they were not sexual in nature, she said. 'The court is not convinced by the state's argument that the text messages he sent to other females at his previous place of employment shows his intent to engage in sexual penetration with the victim in this case,' Hormann said. She also ruled that the evidence was not relevant and material to the state's case and that to be so, it should be similar to the charged offense. In this case, she said the prosecution did not clearly indicate what the evidence would prove. She states that evidence of other crimes or wrongdoings 'is generally not admissible, as there is a concern it will be used improperly as character evidence of evidence of a propensity to commit crimes,' but it can be admitted if it is used for purposes such as proving 'identity, intent and absence of mistake.' In reviewing whether the investigative evidence could be submitted as evidence of Polley's prior bad acts, Hormann said the prosecution did not meet all of the necessary requirements to be allowed to do so. She ruled that all of the information except for the district's investigative files should be suppressed. Polley's lawyer, Patrick Cotter, motioned to exclude the evidence from the South Washington County School District investigation, arguing that the search warrant to obtain Polley's HR file from the district had not been legally obtained.Īfter reviewing the case and arguments from both the prosecution and defense, District Court Judge Christy Hormann ruled the files seized went 'far beyond the justifications of the investigation' and should have been limited solely to disciplinary and investigative files, not Polley's entire employment file. The files showed reported text messages between Polley and female students at Woodbury High School, as well as interviews with the students and school staff. He signed a resignation agreement and release of all claims.Īlbert Lea police issued a search warrant with South Washington County Schools for the 'employment records for (Polley), investigation files, disciplinary action and other documentation that may be in the personnel file.' Court documents state the school investigation found evidence to support the allegations and also found that Polley had falsified parts of his district job application and that he had actually been asked to resign from the South Washington County Schools district because of misconduct to avoid termination. After allegations emerged, the Albert Lea school board voted to terminate Polley from his position after an internal investigation.

Woodbury bowl