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.”

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.”