Uncategorized

Safety Law News for October 11, 2024

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Illinois, the United States District Court is sending a student’s injury claim to a trial jury based upon the allegation that school officials were deliberately indifferent prior to an attack by another student.  The injury to the student arose when the eighth-grade student reported a pattern of bullying, threats of physical violence, and racially offensive comments by another student, including “on social media platforms such as Snapchat.”  Up the chain of reporting, “the school did not intervene or discipline the (other student),” except “the assistant principal met with the (other student) and disclosed (the victim’s) complaint.”  That same day, the other student “physically attacked and severely injured (the victim) during school hours on school property.”  Finally, “the (other student) was suspended for two days.”  The standard of law announced by the court is  that  “racial harassment must be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it]undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, and that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities… (having) a ‘concrete, negative effect’ on the victim’s education, which may include dropping grades, becoming homebound or hospitalized due to harassment, physical violence, or physical exclusion from a school resource.” (Title IX), (Davis v. Monroe County. Board of Education).  The court denied the request of the school district to dismiss the case because “the Court can reasonably infer the attack was motivated by racial animus. And as alleged, the harassment had a concrete, negative effect in that it caused (the victim) to receive hospital treatment and miss class.”  Further, the court noted that “a school administrator is deliberately indifferent when his indifference, at a minimum, causes students to undergo harassment or makes them liable or vulnerable to it.”  Therefore, “because the assistant principal was a school administrator who likely had the requisite control”  the case will go to trial to determine liability.  Sojda on behalf of Sojda v. Chicago Board of Education

— In Oregon, “students with Portland Public Schools are taking a stand against gun violence in their communities.  Students spoke at (a) school board meeting…after they gathered 250 signatures for a petition, demanding district and state leaders to prioritize school safety.  Over the past month at campuses … there have been a number of threats and incidents involving guns on or near school property.”

— In Michigan, the Governor “signed legislation … that will give a $125 million boost to school safety and mental health programs, early next year.  School districts can spend the money in a variety of ways, according to their needs. Options include hiring school resource officers or upgrading alarms.” HB 5503 bill also “secures one million dollars to support a tip line for students to anonymously report improperly stored firearms that were accessible to a minor.” (HB 5503 HERE).

— In New Mexico, the Albuquerque Public Schools are partnering with the entity C1 to deploy a safety platform known as 911inform.  The technology “integrates seamlessly with APS’s existing infrastructure, enabling real-time data sharing with emergency responders and providing comprehensive visibility across all district sites.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for October 4, 2024

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Arkansas, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed that two school resource officers were not entitled to dismissal nor qualified immunity for arresting two students “at the direction of the school principal.”  The students, who “were both cadets in the … High School Air Force Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (“ROTC”),” came to school “in military-style tactical vests.”  After searches of the students “revealed they were not armed or in any way threatening, the Officers nonetheless decided to arrest both (students) at the direction of the school principal.”  The lower court noted that administrators testified that the student’s “vests did not violate the … High School dress code.”  And the records reflects that prior to the (students) wearing their vests to school “at least two white students had worn similar tactical-style vests to school and were not disciplined. One of these students wore a full military uniform including a bullet-proof vest, a nerf gun, and a helmet.”  The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity on the basis of having probable cause to arrest the students for disorderly conduct under State law.  The appellate court agreed that, “in today’s climate of school shootings, school officials and police officers are justified in having heightened concern around attire that might suggest a student is armed. But context matters, and schools have many mechanisms to discipline students….(especially when educators) had previously tolerated students wearing military gear, without discipline.”  Therefore, “because the district court did not err in denying the Officers’ motion for summary judgment and qualified immunity on the (student’s) unlawful arrest claim, we affirm.  Evans v. Cabot School District

— Nationally, a proposal in Congress, the “School Safety Notification System Act,” would require school districts to develop emergency response and parental notification procedures for certain threats and emergencies. (View Legislation)

— In New York, the Schenectady Board of Education “approved a resolution to provide weapon detection measures for the district’s schools.”  Officials disclosed that its schools need “a more advanced type of metal detection system that has an AI capability that’s looking for objects and certain things that it learns over time.”

— In Colorado, “the family of a Denver teenager who was sitting in his car outside his school last year when he was shot and eventually died has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the school district.  In the lawsuit, the family of 16-year-old Luis Garcia claims Denver Public Schools, the school board and East High School failed to protect him in February 2023.  The complaint highlights that under the Claire Davis School Safety Act, the district and school weakened the environment’s safety by removing school resource officers in 2020. Denver Public Schools removed all Denver police school resource officers from their buildings by the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 27, 2024

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In California, the California Court of Appeal upheld the order of a trial court “granting a workplace violence restraining order” in favor of school officials and the school district against a former student.  The former student posted over a series of years comments online that she was “ the next school shooter.”  After a sibling reported to a school resource officer that a recent visit was conducted “to assess how to commit a mass shooting,” the court issued the workplace violence restraining order.  Under state law, a school district may protect the campus from violence by obtaining a workplace violence restraining order when an employee “has suffered unlawful violence or a credible threat of violence from any individual, that can reasonably be construed to be carried out or to have been carried out at the workplace, may seek a temporary restraining order.”  The court must find “by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent … made a credible threat of violence.”  The appellate court ruled that “in those tweets, she repeatedly expressed her animosity toward the school and her former classmates… several of her tweets referenced her desire to take revenge on the school as well as her former classmates… Viewed in the context of these earlier tweets, the trial court reasonably concluded that J.H.’s subsequent tweets that she was “the next school shooter” and that she would “kill you all” placed a reasonable person working at her former high school in fear for their safety.”  Applying the U.S. Supreme Court case of Counterman v. Colorado, the  appellate court ruled that the speech was not protected under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  “Any threatening statement that a reasonable listener would understand, in light of the context and surrounding circumstances, to constitute a true threat is not protected speech.”  San Ramon Valley Unified School District v. J.H.

— In Michigan, the legislature rejected Senate Bill 1005, a proposal “to restore nearly $302 million in school safety and student mental health care funding that was cut in the new state budget.”  The source of the restored funding would be taken from the General Fund.  The sponsor of the legislation laments, “a 92% reduction in school safety and student mental health funding is set to take effect… These are not partisan matters, and no community is immune from the risks of violence or the challenges posed by untreated mental health conditions.”

— Nationally, a study from RAND finds most teachers don’t think active shooter drills are effective for school safety.  “The survey specifically asked whether such drills made teachers feel more or less safe and prepared to respond to active assailant events and teachers’ perceptions of their students’ feelings about such drills, as well as whether supports were available to students and staff during and following drills. Survey results indicate that more work is needed to understand the impact of drills on staff and students and what schools can do to better support the well-being of students and staff who are required to participate in these activities.”

— In Michigan, officials from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, and Michigan State Police are celebrating the OK2SAY student safety program in the 10th year of its operation.  “The program allows students, parents, school staff and educators to report acts and behaviors that include internal harm such as suicide attempts and drug use as well as external threats such as bullying or planned attacks such as shootings on an educational facility all while maintaining their anonymity. The program is accessible for all schools in Michiganregardless of whether they are public, private or charter schools.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 24, 2024

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In New Mexico, the United States District Court refused to dismiss claims brought by parents of a student who alleged that “when she was a fourteen-year-old freshman…a senior student …raped her.”  The gist of several claims is that “the school and its employees enabled (the senior student’s) predatory behavior, protected him from being held accountable, and failed to protect victims from his abuse.”  The court seized upon the parent’s claim based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, holding that neither the individual school officials nor the school district were entitled to dismissal as to the equal protection claim.  The legal standard for this claim is that a “school district’s liability for sexual harassment under the Equal Protection Clause (requires the plaintiff to) show that the harassment was the result of municipal custom, policy, or practice…In the absence of an official policy, a municipality may still be liable for the widespread and persistent practice of sexual harassment which constitutes a custom.”  Under the custom standard, the case must go to a jury because the parents alleged that the school officials and the school district were “on notice and failed to properly address, over a sufficient period of time, student and staff concerns that (the senior student)  was sexually harassing female students… (and) he was allowed to return to (school), all while the individual Defendants downplayed his actions.”  The court ruled that the individual school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity as to the equal protection claim because they “repeatedly failed to enforce remedial measures they knew were necessary to keep female students safe.”  The school district was unable to assert state statutory immunity because while state law “provides immunity from tort claims to governmental entities and public employees acting within the scope of their duty… immunity does not apply to liability for damages resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage caused by the negligence of public employees while acting in the scope of their duties.”  Doe v. Taos Municipal Schools

— In Kentucky, “The Kentucky Office of the State School Security Marshal released a report on the security of Commonwealth schools. The annual School Safety Risk Assessment Report shows 99.8 percent of Kentucky’s more than 1,300 schools comply with regulations.” Its contents include, among other requirements, that schools “must have electronic-locking front doors, surveillance, locked classroom doors, and classroom window coverings.”

— In Michigan, the Fenton Area Public Schools are installing state of the art technology to avert active shooter incidents.  The ZeroEyes AI Gun Detection and Intelligent Situational Awareness Platform, a collaboration between the school district and the technology provider is designed such that “if a gun is identified, images are instantly shared with the ZeroEyes Operations Center…If these experts determine that the threat is valid, they dispatch alerts and actionable intelligence — including visual description, gun type, and last known location — to local law enforcement and the district’s school resource officers as quickly as 3 to 5 seconds from detection.”

— In Oklahoma, state officials are urging parents and students to “download the ProtectOK app” to provide an additional layer of communication surrounding school safety.  “The ProtectOK app allows users to report suspicious activity and threats anonymously and have it sent to the proper authorities.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 20, 2024

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the adjudication of a student for “possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number, possession of a firearm by a minor, and possession of a weapon on school property.”  The weapon was “a loaded 9-mm pistol, which had its serial number filed off.”  The student challenged the evidence against him, claiming that he was not ever in actual possession of the firearm.  The facts showed that “a school resource officer…received a report of a student possibly carrying a firearm inside the school… when (the SRO) arrived at the reported location, other security officers removed (Student A) from a classroom. (who) admitted he had a gun…(that) he got it from a backpack in the vice principal’s office…(The SRO) learned that earlier that day, at approximately 11:50 a.m., a teacher had sent (the adjudicated student) to a vice principal’s office because he failed to display or show his school identification…(video evidence showed the adjudicated student) was carrying the backpack at the time… Videos from around 12:00 p.m. showed (the adjudicated student’s girlfriend) approach and interact with (Student A)… Videos also showed (Student A) go into the office without a backpack and then leave the office with the backpack.”  The court ruled that “where a juvenile is not in actual possession of the prohibited items, the Commonwealth must establish that he had constructive possession to support the conviction.”  The standard for constructive possession relies upon “facts from which the trier of fact can reasonably infer that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband at issue…. Knowledge of the existence and location of the contraband is a necessary prerequisite to proving the juvenile’s intent to control, and, thus, his constructive possession.”  Affirming the adjudication was appropriate because the “evidence provided a reasoned basis for the court to infer that (the adjudicated student) had arranged for someone to take the gun and bookbag out of the office.”  In the Interest of: A.G.-M., A Minor

— In Texas, House Bill 3, enacted by the legislature, requires an armed guard on every school campus.  Even so, a survey discloses that less than half of Texas school districts are in compliance.  HB 3 gives each campus $15,000, plus $10 per student.

— In California, the legislature failed to enact Assembly Bill 2441.  The provisions of the legislation would allow teachers to decide to call the police if a student possesses or uses controlled substances.  Also, school officials would no longer be allowed to charge students with a crime for willful disturbance.  “The bill is opposed by law enforcement organizations that fear a breakdown in their relationships with schools in the community. Further, it would make reporting mandatory only in a few specific situations involving a “major” injury to a teacher or the sale (but not possession) of drugs at school.”

— In Florida, HB 1473 now requires all schools to keep classroom, building and campus entrances and exits closed and locked when students are present. Under the provisions of the law entrances and exits that are open or unlocked must be actively staffed

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 17, 2024

by  • 

— In Colorado, the Colorado Court of Appeals, upheld the adjudication of a student who challenged the search of his backpack, in which educators found “a bag containing a loaded pistol.” An SRO then took over the search. In addition to the gun, the SRO found an extended magazine and two loose nine-millimeter rounds.”  The student asserted that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were violated because “because the tip and photograph on which (the school) relied were anonymous and stale.”  Initially, an outside detective informed the SROs that the student was a person of interest in the investigation of a campus incident.  Believing that a current student was involved in the incident, the detective “sent a photo to the SROs showing two individuals pointing guns toward the camera.”  The school police and two administrators “recognized (the student) as one of the individuals in the photo… escorted him to (Administrator’s) office…to search his backpack.”  The appellate court agreed that the motion to suppress was properly denied because after New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) “the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.”  The appellate court also ruled that “the tip and photograph were not from an anonymous source,” affirming that “the juvenile court did not err by concluding the tip and photograph provided the (school officials and the police officials) with reasonable suspicion to conduct the search.” People In Int. of A.H.H.

— In Georgia, the State School Superintendent is proposing additional state funding for school safety initiatives after the campus shooting at Apalachee High School.  The legislature will be asked to provide funding for a school resource officer and a crisis alert system in every Georgia school.

— Ohio, the legislature is being asked to require staff at public and charter schools to wear panic warning devices starting next school year.  The provisions of Senate Bill 313 require that “the alarm system must be integrated with technology used by local law enforcement to route 911 and school lockdown calls.”

— In Texas, officials in the Dallas ISD are revising safety policies in response to concerns and incidents at sporting events.  There will be “more officers patrolling the games and (using) metal detectors at entrances.”  Students will be required to display an ID badge for entry “if they attend district-hosted games without a parent or guardian.”