Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 19, 2026

by  • 

— In Louisiana, the United States Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling against a school resource officer who assisted school officials in “removing (a) mother from school office.”  In a case involving suspected child endangerment, social workers “contacted the high school and ordered the school not to release the girl to the (parents’) custody.  The school then began locking all exterior school doors to prevent the (parents) entry.  The school also contacted (the school resource officer) and asked him to report to the school’s front office.  The school informed (the SRO) that it had been instructed not to release the girl to the (parents), and that an agent of the Department was on his way to the school.”  Once at the school the mother “became angry and used profanity.  The school secretary warned (her) that she would have to leave the office if she continued to use profanity.  Shortly afterward, (the mother) stepped partially outside the office to talk to her husband. She then re-entered the office.  Following (her) exchange with her husband, (the SRO) asked (the mother) to step outside the office.  But (she) refused to leave without her daughter.  Surveillance footage depicts her gesturing angrily while speaking to (the SRO).  (The SRO) grasped (her) arm and pulled her toward the door.  When (she) refused to move, (the SRO) pushed her a few inches through the office doorway.  The appellate court reversed because “a constitutional violation does not occur every time an officer touches someone… Under the circumstances, we cannot say that such de minimis force was “clearly” excessive and unreasonable.  (The SRO) knew that the (social worker) was investigating potential child abuse and that it had instructed the school not to release the girl to the (parents’) custody.  (The mother) was visibly upset, demanded custody of her child, and refused to comply with (the SRO’s) instructions.  For the safety of everyone involved, (the SRO) removed (the mother) from the office.  Once (she) was outside, (the SRO) ceased all force.  We hold that the force used by (the SRO) was de minimis, and that (the mother) suffered no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court thus erred.”  Carter v. Dupuy

— In Florida,  the legislature enacted a law that expands the school guardian program to Florida colleges.  Under the provisions of House Bill 757 “teachers and staff will be able to carry weapons after training with the sheriff’s office. The law also requires annual security risk assessments at every campus to find safety flaws and make improvements.”

— In Oklahoma, the legislature has enacted House Bill 2979.  Called the “Talyn Bain Act,” the goal of the law is to improve safety for students “by establishing lower speed limits on certain highways near schools.”  The provisions of the law direct “the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) to create 45 mph school zones on portions of state highways upon request from a local jurisdiction, provided specific safety conditions are met. These include highways with speed limits of 65 mph or higher that run within 150 yards of a school and lack a direct exit ramp into the school zone.”

— In Texas, Senate Bill 546 has been enacted to improve school bus safety.  It’s provisions require “all public school buses to have three-point seat belts by 2029. Three-point seat belts include a shoulder belt and a lap belt, as opposed to a two-point belt, which only goes across the lap.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 17, 2026

by  • 

— In Texas, the United States District Court upheld school discipline against a student who “refused to surrender his cell phone to school personnel prior to taking the PSAT test, and (a student who) refused to surrender his phone to be placed (along with all his other classmates’ phones) in a blue pouch during the pendency of a teacher’s class.”  School policy “allows students to carry cell phones in school for safety purposes, (but) they are not to be used during testing.  Additionally, teachers are empowered to collect phones so that they do not disrupt class.  More importantly, students are instructed that they shall not fail to comply with directives given by school personnel.”  The students argued that schools “cannot regulate cell phone usage on its campus” because “the right to possess a cell phone is a sacrosanct right that supersedes all other provisions of the Code or other directives of an instructor.”  The court held that “there is no constitutional right to possess a cell phone in class.  Furthermore, to temporarily deprive a student of his cell phone during a class or a test and return it to them after the class or test is completed (or even at the conclusion of the school day) is not a constitutional violation.” Therefore the Court found that neither (student) has any legally cognizable claim regarding their respective cell phone scenarios.  Brown v. Splendora ISD

— In Kentucky, “the Kentucky Education Association (KEA) is urging all Kentucky school employees, both certified and classified, to share their experiences in a safety and student behavior survey.  Following the passage and signing into law of Senate Bill 101, landmark legislation aimed at addressing assaults against educators, the KEA wants every public school teacher and school employee in Kentucky to take part in a new, anonymous School Behavior Support survey, designed to capture real-world data on school safety and student behavior.

— In Minnesota, “Democrats in the Minnesota House of Representatives voted down GOP school safety legislation (HF 3493) that included additional funding, local options for school districts to create an anonymous threat reporting system, and would let schools suspend students for longer.”

— In Tennessee, “Knox County Schools is prohibiting the use of magnetic strips on classroom doors after a criminal trespassing incident at Hardin Valley campuses earlier this month.”  Officials say “individual classrooms have been using magnetic strips to allow students access in and out of classrooms during bathroom breaks.”  Going forward, “all district facilities are equipped with automatic door locks and all doors must remain locked during the instructional day.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 10, 2026

by  • 

— In Virginia, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a student’s case when the search of his phone revealed a sexually explicit photo of a classmate.  The 13 year old middle school student, who “received a sexually explicit photo from a female classmate…shared that photo with some other students during the school day. Teachers quickly caught wind of the matter and notified (school administration).”  An administrator, in the presence of the student and a school resource officer (SRO), “searched the photo gallery” of the student’s phone.  Eventually with the help of the student  the sexually explicit photo was revealed.  The student was charged with “possession of child pornography,” which was dismissed after he “completed the terms and conditions of the deferred disposition set by the juvenile court.”  The student filed a lawsuit “alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” e.g., that the questioning violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the search of his phone violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Much of the outcome of the case fell upon the role of the SRO and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the school district and the police department.  The appellate court emphasized that under the MOU “the principal or school staff must immediately report any criminal activity to the SRO.”  In addition, the MOU placed limits upon the SRO.  First, “while the SRO is authorized to take law enforcement actions at the school, he or she is not responsible for the enforcement of school rules or regulations.”  Second, an SRO is constrained in his/her ability to search a student “unless they have probable cause to believe the student is violating the law.”  Third, “the MOU further states that SROs ‘will not become involved in student or school searches which are conducted by school officials and are not supported by probable cause,’ and ‘will not encourage or request a school official to act as the SRO’s agent in conducting searches of students.’”  As to the questioning, the appellate court ruled that “a student simply being questioned by a principal would not generally qualify as a custodial interrogation.”  And “the record does not…indicate any coordination between the (school administrator and the SRO) to accomplish some unlawful, ‘conspiratorial objective.’”  As to the search, the court held that the administrator’s search “was both justified at its inception and reasonable in scope… given the circumstances justifying it (i.e., allegations of child pornography and the distribution thereof in school).”  And the SRO “sat by while (the administrator) searched (the student’s) phone; she did not search it with him.”  O.W. v. Carr

— In Minnesota, the legislature is considering “HF3753/SF390 to provide $4 million to the Department of Public Safety to implement a pilot project using the technology at eight schools across the state… The technology uses a combination of cameras, radar and artificial intelligence to spot weapons like guns, even if they’re concealed in a backpack or pocket, as soon as someone carries them on campus.”

— In Kentucky, Senate Bill 101 has been enacted.  It establishes “statewide standards for how schools respond to assaults against staff, require(s) incidents to be reported to law enforcement and ensure(s) accountability in situations where reporting requirements are not followed.”  The provisions of the text of the law require that “students in grades 6 through 12 who cause or attempt to cause injury to school staff are required to be expelled for a minimum of 12 months.”

— In Virginia,  H 592 has been enacted allowing “any school employee (to) wear a panic button that they can use to alert authorities if there is an emergency that requires an immediate response like for a school shooting.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for March 27, 2026

by  • 

— In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication of a student who was charged with Fourth Degree Sexual Assault, despite the fact that “his statements should have been excluded because they were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.”  The violation occurred when the student was “questioned … at school in a small office used by the school resource officer” after “a classmate reported that (the student) had touched him in the groin.”  During the questioning, “a second, fully-uniformed officer stood in front of the door.”  Later in the day, the officers “continued to question him a short while later as he sat in a school-suspension cubicle. While under interrogation, (the student) admitted that he accidentally hit the other student.”  The Court ruled that the rights of the student were violated in obtaining the statement because the student was in custody and “the officer did not provide Miranda warnings to (the student). She never told him that he was free to leave, that he did not need to answer questions, or that he could call his parents.”  Applying the rule of law from the case of  Miranda v. Arizona, the Court stated that “many courts have applied Miranda in the school setting… a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis… special care we must take when analyzing the interrogation of children. It is a commonsense reality and beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave… Second, courts consider the role of police versus school administration; the more police officers are present, and the more they play a role in questioning, the more likely a student is in custody.”  Even so, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the “harmless error rule”  which states that “an error is harmless if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.”  Here, the Court reasoned “the school resource officer’s testimony about (the student’s) statements was duplicative of other testimony, unnecessary for a finding of intent, and went unmentioned during the State’s closing. We conclude that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rational factfinder would have found (the student) delinquent even without his statements while under Miranda custody.  State v. K.R.C.

— In Georgia, school safety legislation is moving toward the Governor’s desk that will require weapons detection systems in all public schools.  House Bill 1023 would also require every student to be checked for weapons when arriving at a public school each day.

— In Missouri, HB 3174 has been introduced to require that public and charter school employees wear a “panic alert device that allows the school employee to communicate with others inside the building and immediately contact emergency services.”  The legislation also “includes provisions for a school-wide emergency notification system, including automated strobe lights, direct connections to the intercom or public announcement system, and automated computer displays.”

— In Minnesota, a school bus safety bill sits on the Governor’s desk after passage by the legislature.  HF 4063 requires “vehicles to stop for a school bus once its red lights begin flashing, regardless of whether its stop sign arm has been fully extended.”   “It also includes language that says a bus’s flashing amber lights serve as a warning that flashing red lights are coming soon.”  The bill includes $8.4 million in grants for school districts to install stop-signal arm cameras.

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.”