Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 17, 2019

by  • 

• In Oregon, schools are battling a growing trend of teens using vapor-based tobacco products, or “vaping” on campuses.  Vaping has become so commonplace among teens; Oregon students and teachers say it happens on campuses and right in the classroom.

• In Alabama, Senate Bill 255 has become law.  Its provisions allow retired law enforcement officers to become armed school security personnel. The new school-based officers do not have to be certified by the Alabama Peace Officers’ Standards and Training Commission, as is currently required of school resource officers.

• In Illinois, the mayor of Chicago renewed her threat to remove police officers from public schools on the heels of a blistering audit that accused the Chicago Police Department of continuing to operate the program without oversight and training. 

• In New Mexico, the Rio Arriba County school resource officer, who tased an Española Valley High School student in the chest three times, never completed any of the training required for a school resource officer (SRO) in the Española School District.  The school superintendent said any future agreement with law enforcement will require officers to be trained before being placed on school campuses.

• In New Hampshire, the Hudson Police Department is deploying a canine – a 14-week-old female yellow lab –  to bring ease and comfort to students on campus.  A middle school resource officer will be the dog’s primary handler.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 11, 2019.

by  • 

In New York, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division held that in determining whether educators breached the duty to protect students from injuries caused by the acts of fellow students, “it must be established that school authorities had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused the injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated.”  Because of this ruling the court ordered school officials to disclose to an injured student the reports of prior incidents to determine whether school officials had actual or constructive notice of conduct similar to the assault he experienced at the High School. (M.C. v. City of New York)

In Louisiana, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana held that the single fact that an autistic child’s special needs warranted a high level of supervision at school  did not establish a claim for negligence when the student was seriously injured in a fall on stairs while at school.  The court ruled that additional evidence was needed to show that school officials and the paraprofessional did something wrong, or that their actions or any condition of the stairs caused the child’s injuries.  (Moore v. Choice Foundation)

In Texas, the United States District Court ruled that school resource officers were not to be considered a “school official” for purposes of resolving an excessive-force claim alleging Fourth Amendment violations.  Courts interpret the law to preclude claims against educators for corporal punishment on students. But the court held that parents could bring the claim against a school resource officer who tased and handcuffed, a 17-year-old special-education student.  (J.W. et al v. Katy Independent School District)

In Texas, the Governor signed into law several new school safety policies.  Senate Bill 11, instructs school districts to implement multi-hazard emergency operation plans, requires certain training for school resource officers, ensures school district employees — including substitute teachers — are trained to respond to emergencies, and establishes threat assessment teams to help identify potentially dangerous students and determine the best ways to intervene before they become violent.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 5, 2019.

by  • 

In Mississippi, the United States District Court held that a former student’s threatened acts of violence against a high school were not protected speech under First Amendment.  The court upheld the conviction after threats against a local High School were made on the “RuneScape” game.  The game developer forwarded the threats to authorities and reached out to the high school. The court ruled that his statements were not political speech or words that could be dismissed as mere hyperbole.  (Pillault  v. United States)

In Utah, the United States District Court held that school officials were not liable for the injuries suffered by a student in a single-incident assault by other students on campus.  The court ruled that a single occurrence of an assault does not give rise to liability when educators have no knowledge of the nature of the threat.  Liability requires that school personnel fail to take action with knowledge of a known risk generally and specifically to the student.  (Misty Cox v. South Sanpete School District)

In California,  the Marin County Civil Grand Jury is recommending the hiring of more school resource officers to ensure safe learning environments for students.  Its recommendation follows previous findings that “funding SROs to serve at schools in Marin County is a sound investment, because it prevents crime and teaches students to trust and work with law enforcement officers and other authority figures.”

In Pennsylvania, teachers and support staff from the Woodland Hills School District

protested proposed job cuts fearing that the cuts would come at the expense of “teaching, safety and the emotional needs of the students.”  The reductions would target 15 elementary teachers; more than 10 secondary teachers; 14 paraprofessionals; seven climate coordinators; five special education staffers; more than 2½ secretaries; two guidance counselors; and two school resource officers.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 29, 2019.

by  • 

In Connecticut, the United States District Court held that an educator does not become an agent of police when he telephones local police, informs them about a threatening e-mail, and thereafter responds to police inquiries by giving them information about suspected students.  The police investigation resulted in removing a suspected student from a school bus, arresting and detaining him for about an hour, and then releasing him, without further charge or action against him.  (Thais Ortolaza v. Capitol Region Education Council)

In New York, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division held that an assault on a student by a second student was an unforeseeable act for which school district could not be held liable.  The assault occurred while the two students were in the classroom, during start of class, during which the injured student walked by the second student and called him “fat,” and while classroom teacher was standing in hallway ushering other students into classroom or conversing with another teacher.  (Meyer v. Magalios)

In South Carolina, school resource officers will receive active shooter vests  that will stop a bullet from a high-powered rifle.  The vests are being donated by US Patriot Tactical, a company specializing in military and law enforcement gear and equipment.

Active shooter incidents tend not to involve a pistol or revolver but rather a high-powered rifle.

In Colorado, the Douglas County commissioners voted to allocate $10 million toward improving school security and mental health at the Douglas County School District.  The votes come three weeks after one student was killed and another eight were injured in a shooting at STEM School Highlands Ranch.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 24, 2019

by  • 

• In Georgia, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that the search of a student’s cell phone without a warrant by school officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment.  The lower court held that, “a school official’s search of a student’s cell phone on school property and during the school day still fits within the framework announced in T.L.O.” [Jackson v. McCurry]

• In Maryland,  the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland upheld the adjudication of a student for gun possession on campus after the search of a school resource officer discovered the weapon.  The court ruled that the student’s behavior, the odor of marijuana, and the SRO’s knowledge of the student’s previous possession of marijuana provided probable cause to search and arrest him.  The court refused to decide whether the lower standard of reasonable suspicion under New Jersey v. T.L.O., (469 U.S. 325 (1985)) applied to the searches by school resource officers. [Xavier Matthews v. State of Maryland]

• In North Carolina, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the adjudication of a student for disorderly conduct after being found leaving school during the school day without permission by a school resource officer.  The court held that directing abusive and profane language at a police officer in a boisterous manner and resisting the commands of the SRO supported an inference that such language could likely provoke retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of peace.  The use of profane language was not protected by the First Amendment in all circumstances.  [In The Matter of: A.R.-V.]

• In Oregon, the Portland City Council voted to provide $1.6 million to fund school resource officer programs in three of the city’s largest school districts.  The decision was supported by superintendents for all three districts although some students and community members disagree.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 14, 2019

by  • 

In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court ruled that parents of a disabled child could not bring a lawsuit against a school district for releasing information about the disability for a juvenile delinquency proceeding.  The court held that neither FERPA nor HIPAA create a private right of action, the Privacy Act of 1974 does not apply to state or municipal agencies, and IDEA provides for administrative procedures to enforce the rights it created which must be exhausted before a law suit can be filed.  (Howard v. Chester County Office of Juvenile Probation and Parole).

In Connecticut, the Superior Court of Connecticut ruled that school officials should have done more to prevent a 16-year-old student from stabbing to death a high school classmate.  The court refused to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit because notice given to administrators by the victim should have triggered mandatory school intervention procedures.  The court held that educators have a duty to protect school children from reasonably anticipated dangers. (Cimarelli-Sanchez  v. City of Milford Board of Education).

In California, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the probation condition prohibiting a student from possessing a smart phone after he was suspended and adjudicated for taking a video of a female classmate while using the toilet and posting it on the Internet.  The court ruled that the prohibition did not violate his rights because less sophisticated means of communication were still available to him, such as a non-smart cell phone, a landline phone, the mail, or in-person contact. The ban made it easier for school officials and the probation department to detect and supervise the student.
(In re N.T.)

In Colorado, officials in Douglas County agreed to allocate $10 million toward boosting security inside the Douglas County School District, less than a week after two students at STEM School Highlands Ranch shot nine of their classmates, one fatally.