Uncategorized

Safety Law News for March 20, 2026

by  • 

— In New York, the New York Supreme Court ruled that school officials did not violate FERPA by disclosing the “academic, attendance, and disciplinary school records” of a student in connection with a pattern of concerning behaviors.  The case arose out of a decision by educators to file “an application for a temporary extreme risk protection order accompanied by a request for judicial intervention.”  In support of the request, educators stated the following: “[Redacted] is a student at [Redacted] High School. He was arrested this week for armed robbery, criminal possession of a weapon and attempted grand theft auto. The weapon used was a loaded 3-D printed fire arm and he was also in possession of an additional [additional] round of ammunition and zip ties. We have a report of him breaking into a student’s house and stealing an expensive jacket on the same day as the armed robbery. He is believed to be gang involved. He is known to be drug involved. Police were recently called to his home for a potential overdose. There is concern, given his likely gang involvement, substance use, poor decision making and access to weapons that he will bring a weapon to school and/or seek revenge against any student(s) who may be cooperating with police and/or school investigations.”  The court rejected the argument of the student that the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) was violated.  Among the arguments of the student was the claim that “here is not such (an) articulable and significant threat that exists, in that there was (not) an actual and active shooting scenario at the Respondent’s school in connection with the proceeding filed herein.”  The court focused squarely upon the FERPA exception that permits disclosures of education records  “in connection with an emergency, (to) appropriate persons if the knowledge of such information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other persons.”  The court ruled that the student’s argument “belies the (FERPA) regulations of the Department (of Education) and the explanations pertaining to same set forth in the Federal Register.”  First, the FERPA “regulations were altered in 2008 to provide more deference and flexibility to educators.”  Second, “there need only be a “rational basis” when taking into consideration “the totality of the circumstances” when making a determination if there is an articulable and significant threat to the health and safety of the student or other individuals.”  Third, “the term “articulable and significant threat” required only that a school official be able to express in words what (led) the official to conclude that a student poses a threat, and that when determining what could qualify as an emergency that an emergency could also be a situation in which a student gives sufficient, cumulative warning signs that lead an educational agency or institution to believe the student may harm himself or others at any moment.”  In other words, the court held that “when making a determination if an emergency or articulable and significant threat exists, the educators must examine cumulative warning signs and the totality of the circumstances which includes the Respondent’s performance at the School including academic, attendance and disciplinary records.”  Therefore, “the Application (for a temporary extreme risk protection order) sets forth allegations pertaining to the Respondent providing a rational basis for Petitioner, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, to determine an emergency to exist due to Respondent being an articulable and significant threat, due to his cumulative warning signs that led Petitioner to believe that Respondent may harm himself or others.”  P.P.S. v. C.J.G. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 6, 2026)

— In Minnesota, several new policy proposals on school safety are being discussed in the current legislative session.  The polices would “require schools to notify a safety incident to parents, add protections for employees who report safety concerns, allow schools to remove a student who disrupted a classroom for the rest of the day plus up to another full day and require more transparency around curriculum content and requires consent for sexual education instruction.”  Legislators also intend to provide funding to non-public schools.

— In Texas, several school districts are exploring a drone safety program for their campuses.  “The drones can distract with blinding lights and loud sirens, shoot powdered bullets or even fly into a target fast enough to knock a punching dummy to the ground.”

— In Maryland, the legislature is considering a proposal that would prohibit public and nonpublic schools from “hiring or retaining” employees charged with certain crimes. That includes, crimes of “moral turpitude”, “distribution” of drugs, certain “federal” crimes and “any felony.”  House Bill 1418 would also “require schools and vendors to keep workers with those pending charges out of roles that provide direct, unsupervised access to students.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for March 13, 2026

by  • 

— In New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a school district can be held liable for a teacher’s sexual abuse of a student.  The ruling reversed a decision by an appellate court that dismissed several cases, holding that a victimized student could not rely upon vicarious liability as a basis for damages against the school district.  In reversing, the New Jersey Supreme Court reasoned that comprehensive child protection reforms clearly established that “the Legislature abrogated (previous Tort Claims Act) immunities that would otherwise bar claims against certain public entities in an action at law for damages as a result of a sexual assault … or sexual abuse … being committed against a person which was caused by a willful, wanton, or grossly negligent act of the public entity or public employee.”  Applying  “a plain and ordinary reading of the reform statute,” the New Jersey Supreme Court held that based upon (the statute’s) the plain language and legislative history, other legislative action addressing child sexual abuse, this Court’s (prior) decision …, and the authority on which the Court relied in that decision, we adopt a standard for the determination of vicarious liability claims asserted against public schools pursuant to the statute.”  In other words, “when it enacted the Child Victims Act, the Legislature expanded the rights of child victims of sexual abuse”…providing “an exception to its broad grant of immunity for vicarious liability, providing that “a public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of a public employee within the scope of his employment.”  The litigation arose out of allegations by students in four separate cases “that New Jersey public school teachers sexually abused them when they were high school students.”  Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education

— In Kentucky, the legislature is considering a policy that would authorize educators to wear silent panic alert systems.  “House Bill 643 would establish the framework for schools to implement wearable, silent panic alert systems for staff… that sends a signal to the local 911 and emergency responders.”

— In Georgia, the legislature is proposing a policy that “would ban high school students from using cellphones during the school day.”  House Bill 1009 “has passed the Georgia House and is headed to the state Senate for a vote… Supporters say restricting phone use would help create a more focused learning environment.”

— In Maine, officials in Boothbay are distributing body shield backpacks to classrooms in the Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Central School District.  “Teachers and staff can use the bags as shields when evacuating or confronting a threat.  Boothbay police say the backpack can stop a bullet and protect someone from being stabbed.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 27, 2026

by  • 

— In Michigan, the United States District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the expulsion of a student for making a threatening remark about a gun while on campus.  The student “made a remark about a gun to several other students…At least four students perceived the remark as a threat and reported it to their parents and (school officials).”  The shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan, in which  5 students were killed, had occurred one week earlier.  School officials, based upon the disciplinary history of the student, “referred him to the Board for an expulsion hearing.”  The student argued, inter alia, that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment when searching his person, backpack, and school locker. The student also alleges that he was expelled “without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  The court held that as to the Fourth Amendment, school officials “do not need probable cause to justify a search of a student at its inception. Indeed, recognizing the difference between school and law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court describes the lesser standard to justify school searches as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing… Only unreasonable seizures violate the Fourth Amendment. Like searches, seizures are unreasonable if they are unjustified at their inception or unreasonable in scope.”  As to the Fourteenth Amendment and due process, the court explained that substantive due process requirements are violated “when discretionary government action is arbitrary and capricious, willful and unreasoning, conscience-shocking, or extremely irrational.”  Procedural process requirements are violated when a student shows that an expulsion occurs “without adequate process…(e.g.) when the individuals responsible for deciding whether to deprive a person of his interest are biased.”  The court dismissed the claims.  School officials “reasonably searched and seized” the student.  And no “reasonable juror” could conclude that (the student’s) expulsion shocks the conscience.”  Finally, “there is no convincing evidence in the record to support (the student’s) claim that the CCPS School Board prejudged him.”  The court opined that, the “Oxford shooting heightened the severity of student threats involving firearms at nearby Michigan public schools.” Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools (6th Circuit) Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools (District Court)

— In Washington, D.C., the U. S. Department of Education “released guidance to ensure that students in unsafe public schools can access safe alternatives.”  The Unsafe School Choice Option is “designed to ensure students in persistently dangerous schools are provided with an opportunity to attend a safe public elementary or secondary school, including a public charter school.”

— In Florida, the legislature has enacted a new policy expanding the scope of school safety regulations.  Senate Bill 1470 expands the state’s Guardian Program to include childcare centers.”

— In Virginia, the Loudoun County Sheriff is seeking the expansion of the school resource officer program to include the 65 elementary schools.  The Loudoun County Sheriff Strategic Plan reflects the belief that “if you have any kind of significant incident at a school, unarmed security is not going to be able to do much … They’re not part of our emergency response team, so they’re not going to know who to call, whether you need fire and rescue out there, whether you have a medical emergency, and what kind of steps that we take to notify parents.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 12, 2026

by  • 

— In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court, refused to dismiss a case involving allegations that a teacher “repeatedly sexually abused” a student.  The claims, based upon “42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title IX, and Pennsylvania negligence law,” had the gravity of denying immunity for educators and establishing liability for the school district because “on this record, a reasonable jury could conclude that the District’s manner of responding to repeated concerns about (the teacher’s) conduct and boundary violations amounted to a well-settled practice.”  The court continued to declare that dismissal was inappropriate because “this practice reflected deliberate indifference to the risk of teacher sexual misconduct.”  The dispositive evidence in the case was the HR Director for the school district who “testified, unequivocally, that the system designed to protect students was not functioning as intended. She concluded that progressive discipline did not “appear” to have occurred, that the District lacked “fidelity” in responding to repeated concerns, and that administrators repeatedly “started over” rather than escalating consequences. In her words, the system was “not working”—and whether to credit that testimony is a question for the jury.”  The court concluded that “the record also includes evidence that key misconduct documents were kept out of the personnel file, undermining the District’s ability to identify patterns and escalate responses.”  Calderaio v. Central Bucks School District(E.D. Pa. Feb. 10, 2026).

— In Maryland, “Montgomery County Public Schools will be testing an artificial intelligence weapons detection system pilot program at three schools.”  School officials say that “the system picks … up in real time and notifies an administrator or a nurse or whoever is the right person for the right job to be notified and triage the situation.”

— In Congress, HR 6809 has been introduced to “establish national school safety standards” for protecting campuses.  The provisions of the legislation include “silent panic alarms that directly notify law enforcement during emergencies. The legislation authorizes “the Federal School Safety Clearinghouse to conduct research and tests on technology to help protect children in schools and districts across the nation.”

— In Ohio, school officials in the Springfield City School District are implementing a policy to “sweep all buildings before and after school each day.”  The policy is in response to “threats were made against several district buildings and other locations throughout the city.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for February 3, 2026

by  • 

— In Nevada, the Supreme Court of Nevada defined “education record” for purposes of FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), reversing an order of the lower court that required educators to release all emails mentioning a student, “including emails stored on a Google cloud server.”  The parent filed a lawsuit challenging decision making by school officials about the special needs of her child.  She “sought the education records.”  “Believing that the materials (educators) initially provided in response were incomplete, (the parent) subsequently requested all emails mentioning (the student) that (educators) stored on a Google cloud server. (Educators) refused the request, and the issue was placed before the district court, which granted (the parent’s request) and ordered (the school) to turn over all emails that referred to (the student).”  The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “not every email that mentions a student and is stored on a school’s email server constitutes an education record under FERPA and its analogous Nevada statutes.”  Appyling the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Owasso Independent School District No. I–011 v. Falvo, the Court held that “to be an education record, a document or other material must be an institutional record stored in a designated place that is, typically, overseen by a designated individual responsible for maintaining such records.”  The Court reasoned that, “deliberate action to store such emails as institutional records is critical The school district thus ultimately decides what materials constitute institutional records that are part of a student’s record and then ensures that those materials are protected and preserved.”  Reversal of the order was necessary because “emails…do not necessarily comprise a student’s education records simply by virtue of mentioning that student.”  Going forward, the Court ruled that, “an individual email may become part of a student’s education records when the school district or its agent takes affirmative and intentional steps to treat the email as an institutional record and stores it with a designated individual in a designated place.”  Clark County School District v. Eighth Judicial District Court,141 Nev. Adv. Op. 58, 581 P.3d 407 (2025)

— In Pennsylvania, “school safety officers on School District of Philadelphia campuses will be issued “personal ballistic protection,” including bulletproof vests and handcuffs, by the beginning of next school year… Philadelphia’s 350 school safety officers are not sworn law enforcement officers and they do not carry firearms.”

— In Pennsylvania, “bipartisan legislation…would authorize Pennsylvania school entities to voluntarily adopt later start times for secondary schools … in response to studies indicating that adolescents require an average of 8 to 10 hours of sleep per night for optimal academic and physical performance.”

— In Idaho, the West Ada School District Board unanimously authorized arming school staff employees.  “Known as “campus sentinels,” on school campuses throughout the district…are separate from police-administered Student Resource Officers, (and) will be allowed to carry firearms at schools. They’d also be equipped with “wearable alert technology” that would allow them to immediately alert authorities to school emergencies.”