Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 18, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In California, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that school officials violated a high school student’s procedural due process rights by extending his suspension without informing him of new misconduct.  The case involved a “lunchtime fight,” after which “(a)ll students involved—after each meeting with various administrators and submitting a written statement about the incident—were suspended for fighting at school and sent home that day.”  Of these students, K,J, was suspended for three days after receiving notice and providing his side of the circumstances surrounding the fight as one of self-defense.  School officials, after watching surveillance videos of the incident, determined that K.J. “did not just participate in the fight but “willfully caused serious injury” to another person not in “self-defense.””  The outcome of school discipline was amended, “extending K.J.’s school suspension from three days to five days,” and recommending him for expulsion.  K.J. was sent suspension/expulsion paperwork.  “At no point did school officials communicate with K.J. about the extended suspension.”  The appellate court quoted from the landmark student rights case of Goss v. Lopez that clearly established law “requires that school officials provide him with (1) oral or written notice of the charges against him, (2) “an explanation of the evidence the authorities have, and (3) an opportunity to present his side of the story.  K.J.’s rights under the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution were violated, “because (school officials) never informed K.J. of the new charges and new evidence that formed the basis of the extended suspension, he did not have a meaningful opportunity to present his side of the story regarding those charges.”  K. J. by & through Johnson v. Jackson

— In Utah, a new bill in the Utah state legislature would teach firearm safety in the classroom as early as kindergarten. Under 4HB 104 (The Firearm Safety in Schools Amendments), “public school students would receive mandatory instruction throughout their K-12 years on how to respond if they encounter a gun. The lessons, which could be presented in a video or by an instructor displaying an actual firearm, would demonstrate best practices for safely handling and storing a gun to prevent accidents.” Supporters of the legislation say, “it’s aimed at preventing accidental shootings by and of young children.”

— Nationally, the “Senate Judiciary Committee… is leading bipartisan lawmakers…to reintroduce the EAGLES Act to prevent acts of mass violence. The bill, named after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School mascot and introduced on the seventh anniversary of the tragic school shooting in Parkland, Florida, would expand the U.S. Secret Service’s National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) to include a greater focus on preventing targeted violence, including school violence.”

— In Kansas, the Kansas State Board of Education approved an updated at-risk program list for use by local school boards and local districts who are required to support evidence based practices by implementing assessments of concerning behaviors by students.  “Beginning with the 2026-27 school year, districts will be required to submit at-risk accountability plans.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 13, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Arkansas, the Court of Appeals of Arkansas, upheld the delinquency adjudication of a student, who twice spoke the words to school officials, “this school needs to blow up.”  The student argued on appeal that the words were not expressions of intent and that the words were “not directed at anyone in particular and that none of the evidence presented suggested that he had a propensity toward violence.”  The appellate court applied Arkansas law that prohibits threats “to cause physical injury or property damage to a teacher or other school employee acting in the line of duty.”  The court ruled that “the conduct prohibited by the statute is the communication of a threat with the purpose of terrorizing another person.”  On this interpretation, the delinquency adjudication was affirmed.  “We hold that the record before us contains sufficient evidence to support the circuit court’s finding that a reasonable person would have taken (the student’s) statement as a true threat made with the purpose of terrorizing the school officials. Evidence of (the student’s)  angry and combative behavior and the loud volume of his voice indicating an intent to be heard supports (the school official’s) testimony that he took the threat very seriously. Likewise, because (the student)  was yelling, being physically and verbally combative, and willing to repeat his comment that the school needed to blow up, (the school resource officer’s) concern was not unreasonable. He specifically stated that he felt the school, students, and staff were threatened and that he believed (the student)  “was coming back to do something.””  Minor Child v. State of Arkansas

— In Texas, the legislature is proposing an increase in funding for campus safety.  “Both the House and Senate’s proposed budgets for 2026 and 2027 would increase school safety funding by $400 million over the next two years.”  Senate Bill 598 is the first step in this direction.

— In Wisconsin, “(t)he Wisconsin Department of Justice Office of School Safety has released the second edition of its Comprehensive School Safety Framework.  This framework identifies model school safety practices and is designed for all Wisconsin school leaders to use as a guide and to adapt to fit their needs locally.”

— Nationally, a cybersecurity study publishes that an increasing number of schools surveyed are implementing multi-factor authentication (MFA) for students.  The Report also discloses that “74% of administrators believe a security incident is likely to impact their school system in the coming year, up from 71% last year. The number of surveyed administrators reporting cyber-attacks has also increased from 31% to 36%. Among school systems reporting incidents, phishing attacks remain the predominant threat – accounting for 87% of incidents, up from 73% last year.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 6, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Michigan, the United States District Court held that the suspension and expulsion of a high school student did not violate his First Amendment rights.  The case centers around a statement the student made at school regarding a recent shooting at another high school in Michigan.  The student was heard by his teacher saying to a classmate, “if you don’t shut up I will shoot this place up like Oxford.”  The Oxford reference was in relation to a campus shooting eight days earlier, where an Oxford High School student “brought a 9mm handgun to school and opened fire, killing four students and injuring seven others.”  The court applied the rule of law from the case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District: a student’s speech is not protected under the First Amendment if it “might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities.”  This rule of law translates into proactive authority for school officials.  The court opined, “(s)chool officials may restrict the student’s speech as long as the restriction is motivated by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.”  Finally, the court reasoned that,  “(i)n assessing the reasonableness of a school official’s decision to restrict the student’s speech, this Court considers temporal factors and recent events, and affords deference to the professional knowledge and experience of school administrators.”  Therefore, the court dismissed the case, stating that, “the School District Defendants reasonably believed (the student’s) statement could substantially disrupt Huron High School’s activities. (The student) made the statement at issue just eight days after the Oxford High School shooting. In the aftermath of this shooting, schools—especially in Michigan—were justifiably sensitive to threats or comments suggesting violence.”  Reedy v. Huron School District, No. 2:23-CV-10221, 2025 WL 400226 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2025)

— Nationally, the Trump administration has begun drafting an executive order that would diminish the U.S. Department of Education by shutting down all functions that are not written explicitly into codified laws.

— In Indiana, House Bill 1637 proposes a uniform approach to regulating school safety.  Its provisions create the Office of School Safety, placing it under the Indiana Department of Homeland Security.  “The mission is to make school safety more efficient.”

— In Georgia, the Georgia legislature is introducing school-safety legislation that “calls for improvements in information sharing among schools through a new anonymous app, increases penalties for those who make terroristic threats, and provides tax incentives to encourage gun owners to purchase firearm safety storage devices.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for January 27, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Illinois, the Appellate Court of Illinois reversed the lower court, upholding the right of a school board to expel a student for one year after school officials discovered a pellet gun in his backpack.  The student challenged the decision, asserting state law that requires school administrators to try alternative interventions wherever possible rather than suspensions or expulsions.  The lower court, applying state law, held that school officials “had not exhausted all appropriate and available interventions and that the District had impermissibly applied a zero-tolerance policy.”  The appellate court reversed, noting that “the disciplining of students is generally not the province of courts and is a matter that is normally left to the sound discretion of school officials and school boards.”  Moreover, “whether a student’s ongoing presence poses a safety threat or would impede the operation of the school shall be determined on a case-by-case basis by school officials.”  Finally, the appellate court reasoned that “it is entirely reasonable for the school officials to have taken the national school shooting landscape into consideration when deciding (the student’s) discipline… That analysis would logically include a consideration of the effect of (the student’s) presence on his classmates and their educational environment… Given the prevalence of school shootings in this country, it would be natural for (the student’s) fellow students to be wary and concerned about the presence of someone who brought a lookalike gun to school.”  A.A. by & through Pasillas v. Board of Education, Summit Sch. Dist. No. 104

— Nationally, the Trump administration disbanded The Federal School Safety Clearinghouse, assembled during the first Trump administration to serve as a resource on best practices to protect students.  Members on the Board included “school safety experts, alongside the parents of children who died in school shootings, advocates for civil rights and disability rights, superintendents, and leaders of organizations that represent[ed] school and district administrators.”

— In Michigan, new school safety laws require schools to have a behavior threat assessment and management team.  House Bill 5549 creates a new state commission on school safety and mental health, and adds new rules to make sure schools are able to respond effectively to safety threats.

— In Georgia, “Governor Brian Kemp announced this week that he will request an additional $50 million in state grants to improve security in Georgia schools, bringing the total funding for the current fiscal year to $158 million. The added funding aims to enhance safety measures in schools across the state, following heightened concerns after a tragic shooting at Apalachee High School last year.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 13, 2024

by  • 

— In New York, the United States Court of Appeals held that the State of New York could sue the Niagara Wheatfield Central School District for failing to “address repeated complaints of student-on-student sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender-based violence and bullying.”  The case arose out of allegations by the New York Attorney General that “the School District’s lapses affected not only the student victims, but the School District’s community as a whole.”  The lower court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that the State of New York did not have authority to sue because “it had not successfully asserted that the School District engaged in a broader policy or practice of failing to protect student victims.”  The State of New York appealed, describing “how four of the School District’s students were subjected to sexual assault, sexual harassment, or gender-based violence and bullying by other students; how the four student victims and their parents repeatedly notified the School District and requested remedial action; and how the School District consistently failed to respond adequately…(and how) the School District knew of, but ignored, at least thirty similar incidents.”  The appellate court agreed and reversed the lower court.  It held that “a state suing in parens patriae must establish (1) an injury to a sufficiently substantial segment of the state’s population; (2) a quasi-sovereign interest; and (3) an inability for individual plaintiffs to obtain complete relief.”  As applied this case, the appellate court ruled that the State of New York “has adequately alleged that it is seeking to vindicate a quasi-sovereign interest—the health and welfare, of students exposed to gender-based violence and harassment whether as victims, perpetrators, or bystanders, and their families—and that the individuals on whose behalf it is bringing suit cannot obtain complete relief.”  The appellate court explained that, “the School District’s failure to act allowed more and more students to turn into harassers.  The broader alleged effects on the students in the School District—and, indeed, their parents—do not stop there… students had to contend with the fear that, if something comparable happened to them, the School District would also leave them unprotected.”  New York, by James v. Niagara Wheatfield Central School District

— In Florida, officials in the Lake County Schools are implementing a new pilot program to “employ smart sensor detection devices in restrooms and nearby areas to enforce a strict no-vaping policy.”  State law prohibits person under the age of 21 from possessing or using any tobacco products.

— In Utah, teachers and faculty in the Salt Lake City School District mounted a protest “over safety and security issues they say put them and students in danger.”  “A student being shot on campus last month originally spurred the teachers into taking action… Teachers said they were only made aware of the shooting from a police press release and not by the district or school officials.”

— In Florida, legislation is being introduced that will require all teachers to “receive basic, uniform training on how to prevent and respond to school shootings.”  House Bill 37 will “mandate that strategies and practices on identifying, preventing, preparing, addressing and responding to mass casualty incidents is included in all teacher and education preparation, certification and training programs.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 12, 2024

by  • 

— In Wisconsin, the United States District Court upheld the search and seizure of contraband in a student’s bag.  The case arose out of a report by a PE teacher of the student’s “possession of a vape during an off-campus bike ride.”   School officials then had a meeting with the student during the school day.  The student “denied owning the vape or knowing anything about it, even offering (educators) the opportunity to look through her bag.”  A search of the bag revealed “a keychain bottle of pepper spray and a flashlight stun gun…(that were) considered weapons and prohibited at school.”  The school officials called the student’s parents to disclose the meeting, the search, the items discovered, as well as verifying that the student “had a valid prescription (for medication found in the bag) and permission to keep it at school.”  The student “was given an in-school suspension for the rest of the day.”  The parents filed a lawsuit claiming that First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights of their child were violated.  The court declared that “none of (educators’) alleged actions violated (the student’s) constitutional rights.”  As to the Fourth Amendment, the school’s PE teacher “was entitled to observe things in plain sight on school business, even if his gym class was biking off-site.”  Moreover, under Wisconsin law and the U.S. Supreme Court case of New Jersey v. TLO, school officials “were within their rights as school officials to search (the student’s) bag, as well as speak with the (parents) over the phone about their findings…There was ample justification for (school officials) to examine the bag and its contents after (the student) admitted to keeping pepper spray and a stun gun on school grounds.”  As to the First Amendment, “possessing a vape…does not express an idea protected by the First Amendment, let alone a message capable of being readily understood by those observing it.”  Therefore, (the parents’) claim challenges nothing more than a school’s everyday interaction with a student being questioned about potential violations of school policy, with that student’s parents, and with law enforcement authorities. Accordingly, this case will be dismissed with prejudice.”  Wayne Evangelista v Krista Flanagan (W.D. Wis. Dec. 10, 2024)

— In California, the California Transportation Commission awarded “$7.9 million for the City of Salinas’… (to) provide meaningful connections to …local schools.”  The project is called the “John Street/Williams Road Safe Routes to School Project and Programming.”  It will include “buffered bike lanes and bicycle conflict striping, and pedestrian improvements, such as curb ramp enhancements and crosswalk improvements.

— In New York, the Syracuse school board passed a resolution to allow staff employees to carry guns on campus.  The policy will authorize the “director and assistant directors of public safety to carry guns in schools. The three administrators are retired police officers who have been issued special armed guard registration cards.”

— In Pennsylvania, Philadelphia schools are being equipped with artificial intelligence to enhance campus safety.  “New security procedures are underway at Upper Darby High School, Beverly Hills Middle School and Drexel Hill Middle School…Students must walk through a weapons detection system, powered by artificial intelligence, as soon as they enter the building.”