Michael McIntosh appeals from a superior court order denying his application for an arrest warrant for Heather Gordy, the assistant principal at the school attended by McIntosh’s son. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. The record shows that McIntosh applied for an arrest warrant of Gordy under OCGA § 17-4-40 b. The superior court held a hearing in which McIntosh and Gordy were provided an opportunity to present evidence from which the trial court could determine whether probable cause existed for the arrest of Gordy. See OCGA § 17-4-40 b 5.
In the hearing, McIntosh asserted that Gordy committed the following crime in connection with a disciplinary hearing to determine whether his son should be suspended: “It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly . . . to engage in misleading conduct toward another person with intent to . . . cause or induce any person to . . . be absent from an official proceeding to which such person had been summoned by legal process.”1 OCGA § 16-10-93 b 1 B iv. In support of his claim, McIntosh presented evidence showing that a disciplinary hearing was scheduled in connection with his son. McIntosh obtained subpoenas from the local school board chair for several students present in the classroom at the time of an alleged incident involving his son. McIntosh’s wife requested that she be allowed to accompany Gordy when she delivered the subpoenas to the students, but Gordy declined this request. The document issued by the school board chair was titled a “subpoena” and ordered the respondent to appear “under penalty of law.”