Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 6, 2025

by  • 

— 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  • 

— 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.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 11, 2024

by  • 

— In Virginia, the Court of Appeals of Virginia denied the Prince William County School Board immunity in a lawsuit claiming gross negligence by campus educators.  The case arose out of injuries sustained by a victimized special needs student in high school.  A fellow-student with special needs with “a known, troubled record involving harmful, sexual, and abusive behavior… transferred from another high school”  with a notice that he “would pose a danger to other students.”  Even so, however, the parents alleged that the fellow-student “was placed in several (special needs) classes …sexually assaulted (the victim) by touching her breasts and legs, kissing her, and trying to take her outside of the school building to perform other sexual acts on her.”  Many of these acts occurred in the classroom and many of “the assaults occurred in open view of other people.”  The parents of the victimized student asserted “a single count of gross negligence against the School Board Employees in their official capacities only.”  The members of the school board argued that a lawsuit “against them in their official capacities amounted to a suit against the School Board (and that) the School Board is entitled to sovereign immunity.”  The lower court agreed, dismissing the lawsuit.  On appeal the appellate court reversed, sending the case to trial to “to determine whether the alleged actions taken by the (school) amounted to gross negligence.”  The appellate court made three points.  First, under Virginia law  “Virginia school boards should be considered municipal corporations rather than arms of the state…. not entitled to a claim of sovereign immunity.”  Second, ““Official capacity” suits are effectively suits against the entity for whom the individual works and are separate and distinct from “individual capacity” suits where the individual is sued for the actions he took while acting within the scope of his employment.”  Third, a school board “should be immune for acts of simple negligence, but should not be immune for acts of gross negligence or intentional misconduct. Immunity cannot be asserted when gross negligence, rather than simple negligence, is alleged.”  At trial, the parents must prove that school officials “acting in their official capacity, committed gross negligence because they were aware that a violent student had been accepted into the intellectual disability class, as well as evidence that the abuse (the victim) suffered occurred in plain view of the teacher in the classroom.”  Drasovean v. Walts

— In Arizona, a study released by state auditors revealed areas in which school safety was lacking.  “State auditors said not a single one of the schools they reviewed had fully implemented their emergency operations plans, a failure that a new report says could affect their ability to protect students in emergencies.”

— In Michigan, the Michigan legislature has approved a series of new polices to implement stronger school safety requirements and mental health assessments.  The legislation also addresses the response of schools during an emergency.  House Bill 5659 and House Bill 5660 “(codify) a School Safety and Mental Health Commission (to) specifically examine and make recommendations to improve school safety measures and mental health support.”  “Under House Bills 4095 and 4096, all schools in Michigan would be required to adopt uniform terminology for emergency response starting in the 2026-2027 school year.”

— In Texas, the legislature has introduced has introduced House Bill (HB) 62, that authorizes the use of remote-operated aerial drones to enhance school security.  “According to the bill text, “Requirements … can also be met via at least one remote-human-operated aerial device … deployed or contracted by the district at each district campus providing less lethal interdiction capability by means of air-based irritant delivery or other mechanisms for every 200 students enrolled at the district.””

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 9, 2024

by  • 

— In New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by parents of children who were injured by a fellow-student during rides on the school bus.  The case involved students from kindergarten through second grade who were victimized by a male student “who rode the bus with the (students), and included, inter alia, exposing himself to them, touching the genitals of one of the (students), asking one of the (students) to touch his genitals, and attempting to have sex with one of the (students), or rubbing his body against hers.”  The parents claimed that the school district “failed to protect students from the fellow student’s sexual misconduct” under a clearly established rule of law that “schools are under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their charge and they will be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision (and a) school bus operator owes the very same duty to the students entrusted to its care and custody.”  The appellate court agreed, holding that liability depends on whether or not the school “had sufficiently specific knowledge or notice of the dangerous conduct which caused injury; that is, that the third-party acts could reasonably have been anticipated.”  The case could not be dismissed.  The claims of the parents were appropriate for a jury to determine whether school officials “had actual or constructive notice of fellow’s student’s prior misconduct.”  Porschia C. by Melissa A.C. v. Sodus Central School District

— In Alabama, the Scottsboro City Schools Board of Education has approved a series of upgrades to its campus safety policy.  The details are kept confidential, although “getting a resource officer in each school (is) our immediate concern.”  In addition, special attention is being given to “small safety measures that have been slacked on, including keeping classroom doors locked and teachers wearing the proper identification …(because) it’s the little things that can make a big difference when you are talking about the safety of our children.”

— In Texas, officials in the Boerne ISD are removing hallway doors leading to restrooms at one of its high schools “in an effort to cut down on vaping incidents.”  “Possession of a vaping device is prohibited by state law for those under the age of 21. Possession or use of any e-cigarette device is also prohibited in public schools by the Texas Education Code and the BISD Student Code of Conduct.”  “All stall doors inside the restrooms were left in place.”

— In Tennessee, the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) “wants to remind all parents and guardians that bringing firearms onto school property is illegal.”  According to a social media post by the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office, a fourth arrest this school year has been made in connection with firearms on campus “involving a parent.”  Tennessee’s concealed carry law allows most citizens to carry a loaded handgun without a permit, as long as they meet certain requirements.