Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 2, 2025

by  • 

— In Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court interpreted “education record” as that term is used in FERPA and Nevada privacy laws to “exclude materials informally created in the ordinary course of business that a school possesses.”  The case arose out a request by the adoptive mother of a special needs student seeking “the education records of J.B., a student in a Clark County School District (CCSD) school… Believing that the materials CCSD initially provided in response were incomplete, (the adoptive mother) subsequently requested all emails mentioning J.B. that CCSD stored on a Google cloud server. CCSD refused the request.”  The lower court ordered the release of the information under an interpretation of FERPA that emails were “education records to which FERPA and the parallel Nevada statutes” authorized parental access.  The appellate court reversed.  The appellate court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court case of  Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo.  In Falvo the Court declares that the primary character of education records is that they “will be kept in a filing cabinet in a records room at the school or on a permanent secure database, perhaps even after the student is no longer enrolled.”  The Nevada Supreme Court relies upon Falvo to declare that student information must be purposely kept “in the same way the registrar maintains a student’s folder in a permanent file.”  As a result, the Nevada Supreme Court held that “education records therefore generally exclude materials informally created in the ordinary course of business that a school possesses but which do not rise to the level of institutional records.”  This means that “deliberate action to store such emails as institutional records is critical…(and) such intentionality is not present” in the case of the emails on the school district server.  The Nevada Supreme Court agreed that “an email may constitute an education record…(when) a school official retain(s) such emails in a deliberate fashion so that such information is preserved.”  Even so, however, the parental request of “all emails” mentioning a specific student presents a policy decision for school officials as to the disclosure. Clark County School District v. Eighth Judicial District Court

— In Minnesota, schools are implementing a less traumatic framework for active shooter drills in schools. Minnesota law now “restricts active shooter simulations with officers and staff to times when a majority of students aren’t at school. It also requires that districts provide advance notice of active shooter drills, lets families opt their children out of the drills and mandates that staff debrief students.”

— In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Justice “says tips to the state’s Speak Up, Speak Out threat reporting hotline were up 30% in the last school year…That follows a 40% increase in the 2023-24 school year.”

— In North Carolina, a statewide policy allowing armed personnel in private schools goes into effect. House Bill 193 allows private schools to permit employees and volunteers to carry concealed weapons on campus, a change proponents say will help budget-strapped schools afford security.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 28, 2025

by  • 

— In Louisiana, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana reversed the dismissal of a case involving a student who was injured during an after-school joyriding incident in the campus parking lot. The appellate court reversed because the school breached the duty of reasonable supervision when it violated its own policy.  The school rule required that school officials “should be responsible for the supervision of students during the school day and for a reasonable period of time before and after school.”  The student was injured “while sitting on the trunk of a car in motion… After football practice ended.”  Reversal and remand of the case for a trial is required because  “a school board policy that implicitly recognizes the capacity for harm in the absence of supervision, and several after-school activities—it is foreseeable that an accident in a school parking lot could occur. At the very least, the foreseeability of such an incident is a question of material fact properly left to the fact-finder for determination.”  Reed v. Lafayette Parish School Board

— In Arkansas, officials in Conway are preparing to deploy drones designed to stop school shooters.  The remotely controlled device “can respond in five seconds…be on the shooter in 15 seconds and …can degrade and incapacitate in 60 seconds.”

— In Missouri, a “St. Louis charter school has been ordered to stop in-person classes immediately after a safety audit uncovered major security and supervision failures.”  Among other things, the audit “found broken or missing door alarms, unmonitored security cameras and widespread supervision and emergency-preparedness issues.”

— In Ohio, officials in Wood County are implementing a new safety protocol “by integrating behavioral threat assessment and centralized digital case management, prioritizing proactive student wellness and prevention.”  “Using a centralized case management system, they will be able to recognize early signs of student distress, securely share information and intervene with care before challenges escalate into more serious events.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 14, 2025

by  • 

— In Louisiana, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana reversed the dismissal of a case involving a teacher who was “suddenly and violently attacked by minor child… who was a third grade student at the school.”  The injuries arose out of a series of concerning behaviors by a student who “was prone to sudden, unprovoked, angry, violent outbursts.”  On the same day the teacher was victimized, the student  “caused another student injury when he hit the student while eating, which caused the student’s cheek to be punctured with a fork.”  The teacher filed suit, alleging that “the Board was vicariously liable for the acts and/or omissions of its administrators and employees…(and) that the Board’s administrators and employees’ flagrant disregard for the risks posed by E.L. were intentional and within the ambit of their assigned duties.”  The lower court dismissed the case, holding that the school officials were entitled to immunity, namely, that the claims against the Board are barred by (state law), and (the teacher) has not alleged sufficient facts to make these claims fall under an exception and will not be able to do so.”  The appellate court reversed because  state law, effectively waives immunity “where the plaintiff’s petition alleged the defendants intended to injure him or should have known his injury was substantially certain to follow, the merit of his claim was a factual determination to be considered upon a motion for summary judgment or a trial on the merits.”  Therefore, the injured teacher “stated a cause of action against the Board.” Bernier v. St. Tammany Parish School Board

— In Michigan, schools across the state are suing the Michigan legislature for setting “aside $321 million for safety and mental health initiatives in local schools as part of the state budget approved last month, but (with) strings attached to the earmark.”  The lawsuit alleges that “legislators unconstitutionally leveraged essential funds by requiring schools waive certain legal protections to receive their cut of appropriations.”

— A new empirical study on behavioral threat assessments in schools reports that “nearly every public K-12 school in the United States used a behavioral threat assessment management (BTAM) team.”  However,  “many schools do not have supporting written materials.”

— Nationally, “Arkansas, Tennessee, and Utah are the first states to enact laws that require public schools to teach children as young as 5 the basics of gun safety and how to properly store guns in the home. Only Utah’s law allows students to opt out of the lesson if requested by parents or guardians.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 7, 2025

by  • 

— In Indiana, the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the conviction of a person who sent a Snapchat direct message “now that I’ve showered and washed my sins away I can go and shoot up a preschool.”  The prosecution arose when “Snapchat flagged the message and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Threat Operations Center (NTOC),2 who notified an FBI field office.”  Although the defendant agreed that “it was dumb to do” and that “he should not have sent the message,” he was charged and convicted of Level 6 felony intimidation.  On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him.  The appellate court agreed, ruling that “to prove (the defendant) committed Level 6 felony intimidation as charged, the State was required to prove that he communicated a threat with the intent that another person be placed in fear that the threat will be carried out, and the threat was to commit a forcible felony.”  The applicable rule of law is that “a “true threat” requires two necessary elements: that the speaker intend his communications to put his targets in fear for their safety, and that the communications were likely to actually cause such fear in a reasonable person similarly situated to the target… the statement must be transmitted in such a way that the defendant knows or has good reason to believe the statement will reach the victim.”  Therefore, the appellate court reversed the conviction, ruling that because the defendant  “sent the message to a private Snapchat group of about twenty individuals who exchanged what he described as dark humor, (and) there was no evidence that anyone in that Snapchat group had a connection to any preschool (such that) there was no … person associated with the nearby preschool – or for that matter any preschool – who was in fact placed in fear by the message.”  Lester v. State

— In North Carolina,  Wake County school officials are being trained on a new safety response system that replaces the ‘code red’ system.   The Standard Response Protocol “uses action words, such as “lockdown,” to make directions more clear.”

— In Washington State, the Seattle citizens approved City of Seattle Proposition No. 1.  “The 6-year, $1.3 billion levy will double access to affordable childcare, expand mental health and student safety services in schools, provide up to two years of free tuition at Seattle Colleges for all graduating seniors at public high schools, and expand career pathways to help more students enter the skilled trades.”

— In California, the legislature is enacting a new policy that expands disclosure for school employees known for endangering campus safety.  Senate Bill 848 will take effect January 1, 2026, requiring private and public schools to release employment records pertaining to “egregious misconduct.”  Previous law did not authorize disclosure unless and until an inquiry was made.  It also “requires an applicant for a noncertificated position at a school district, county office of education, charter school, state special school or diagnostic center operated by the department, or any position at a private school to provide their prospective employer with a complete list of every educational institution at which the employee has been employed.”        

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 6, 2025

by  • 

— In Mississippi, the Supreme Court of Mississippi, affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the family “of a school resource officer, who was struck and killed by a vehicle while directing traffic in course of his employment.”  The incident involved “a motorist, who was driving northbound and over the posted speed limit, who collided with the back of (the officer’s) car, which had been parked in the roadway to help direct traffic” at the end of the school day.  The job description included this daily task.  The collision resulted in (the officer) being struck by his vehicle and severely injured.” He “was taken to a hospital, where he died a few days later.”  The family filed a negligence claim against the state, “alleging that it had failed to maintain, inspect, and repair the traffic signal and that it had failed to warn of a dangerous condition.”  The appellate court affirmed the dismissal because of the long-standing rule of law that work-related injuries covered by workers compensation preempt negligence lawsuits.  This form of immunity “applies to all state government entities … if the employee … of any state governmental entity … is injured in the course and scope of his employment and the state governmental entity for which the injured employee worked at the time of the injury provides worker’s compensation benefits for the injury.”  The court reasoned that it was not unconstitutional for the legislature to make the workers’ compensation act the exclusive remedy of injured workers. Neither the Remedy Clause of State Constitution nor the Equal Protection Clause canceled the state policy.  The court opined that “(the family is) only entitled to the remedy afforded to (the officer) if he had survived. Since (state law) provides him no remedy, so it also prevents a suit by his heirs.”  Patterson v. State ex rel. Fitch

— In North Carolina, “Wake County high schoolers will be asked their opinions on school safety in a survey set for next month.  The survey … will ask students about how schools can be safer, whether they feel safe now, and whether they’re likely to report concerns using existing reporting channels, such as the Say Something reporting app.”

— In Ohio, the legislature has earmarked “$9 million in grants for safety-related projects for the 2026-2027 academic year.”  The funds may be used for “certification training for school resource officers, active-shooter response training or equipment…(and) training to identify and assist students with mental health issues.”

— In North Carolina, “every SRO in Nash County will have access to a breaching shotgun, a weapon designed to break through locks and reach students quickly in an emergency.” “The addition of breaching shotguns is part of a broader push in Nash County to give school resource officers more tools to protect students. All SROs in the district were recently trained on ballistic shields as well.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for October 31, 2025

by  • 

— In Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the arrest and conviction of a person who “refused to leave the school as directed to by police.”  The dispute arose when the person  went to the school “to speak to the principal and deliver paperwork to make the school administration aware of the change in masking requirements, stating that the mask requirement was unconstitutional… (The person) was asked to put on a mask, but refused… (the person) refused to leave the building…(stating that) he had a right to be inside the school because he paid taxes.”  The school resource officers “viewed (the person) as a possible safety threat… and began to escort (the person) out of the school, telling him multiple times that he would have to leave the premises.”  One officer “attempted to pull (the person) out the door while (the person) pushed back and attempted to remain inside. (The person) attempted to get back into the school and began wrestling with the two officers.”  It took both officers “to take (the person) to the ground outside the building… (where he) was handcuffed and informed that he was under arrest.”  The person challenged “the authority of the school police officers to arrest him, the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, and also claims that the guilty verdicts (were) contrary to the weight of the evidence provided.”  The appellate court, affirming the “convictions for resisting arrest, defiant trespass, disorderly conduct, and harassment,” ruled that the person “was not removed from the school building because he refused to wear a mask; he was removed from the building because he did not have an appointment with any school personnel and thus had no legitimate reason to be on the premises.”  As to the duties of school resource officers, the appellate court held that a “school police officer appointed under section 1302-C(b) shall possess and exercise all the following powers and duties: (1) To enforce good order in school buildings, on school buses and on school grounds in the respective school entities.”  The appellate court summarized the rule of law for trespass onto school property: “(a person) may have thought that he had a right to be on the property, but once he was told that he could not remain in the building without an appointment, any right to remain clearly ceased.”  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bettis

— In Florida, the Columbia County School Board is deploying a K-9 team from the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office to its high school.  The canine is “uniquely trained in the detection of basic explosives, gunpowder, gun oils, and gun parts.”

— In New York, officials in the New York City are “launching the nation’s first Emergency Alert System that links schools directly to 911, ensuring help can be initiated within seconds.”  The new protocol will provide each school “with multiple fixed buttons and wireless lanyards that can trigger a hard lockdown alert. Once activated, a signal goes directly to 911 dispatch in under 10 seconds, straight to the NYPD’s real-time operations.”

— In Texas, officials in the Boerne ISD are deploying drones to enhance response times in an active shooter situation.  Officials state that “when the drones are deployed, a team of highly skilled pilots uses virtual reality and cameras to navigate around a school.”  As to response, “the goal is for the drones to confront a school shooter within 15 seconds.”  The drones are equipped to “use loud sirens, flashing lights, pepper balls and even direct strikes to distract a threat.”