Uncategorized

Safety Law News for October 21, 2025

by  • 

— In Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the denial of immunity to school officials for the failure to maintain a safe learning environment.  The case arose from a sexual assault on campus that occurred during an after-school program when “a male student approached (the victim) while she walked down the hallway during a District after-school program. The student invited (the victim) into the men’s restroom, where he sexually assaulted her.”  The student “sued the District for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress,” arguing that “that District had a duty to protect (her) from harm while (she was) under the District’s supervision.”  The school asserted immunity, arguing that it had “no duty to protect students from unanticipated harm from fellow students.”  The trial court denied the assertion of immunity.  The appellate court agreed.  “The relevant question is whether the District realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created where a third party could commit a crime against (a student).”  The rule of law is that “one well-settled common-law duty is a school’s duty to maintain a safe environment for students.”  Applied to these facts, the appellate court ruled that immunity did not apply.  “The District held an after-school program, at which it represented it would supervise the attending students, and thus should have taken reasonable steps to protect (students) from harm.”  Moreover, the court ruled that “because the District was aware of three prior incidents, the District could foresee harm to (the victim).”  L.B. v. Leechburg Area School District

— In Michigan, “the Michigan State Police (MSP) Office of School Safety has released three new School Safety Toolkits.  Developed with federal funding, the toolkits are available online and aim to keep school communities informed, prepared and responsive.”

— In North Carolina, officials in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools “announced on that they would be implementing new safety protocols for certain games or athletic events.” The new procedures include “no tickets will be allowed for purchase at the game site, ticket caps, additional security personnel or law enforcement, limited entry or exit points, separate concession stands, and attendance limitations.

— In Wisconsin, officials in the Green Bay schools are revising school security procedures “after authorities discovered a student at Preble High School had a loaded gun in his backpack… One of the new security measures included clear backpacks for middle and high school students.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for October 17, 2025

by  • 

— In Ohio, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the adjudication of a student for possessing “a deadly weapon in a school zone,” discovered by a non-sworn SRO “while performing a hand-held wand scan and pat down of his person as part of the school’s standard entry procedure.”  The student argued that the evidence should suppressed as an unlawful search constrained by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  The high school “had a written policy for daily weapons searches in order to protect students and staff.”  Ordinarily, “students walked through a security checkpoint that included a bag check and metal detection screening.”  One the day of the arrest, “the school’s metal detector was inoperable.”  The so-called SRO, a non-sworn staff member, instead set out to “simultaneously pat down each student while performing the hand-held wand scan.”  The SRO “discovered a firearm in (the student’s) waistband while performing a hand-held wand scan and pat down of his person…(the weapon was) in (the student’s) waistband from the pat-down search.”  Both the lower court and the appellate court upheld the search, refusing to suppress the evidence.  Applying the rule of law in the seminal case of New Jersey v. T.L.O., the appellate court admitted that “there was no individualized suspicion that led (the) SRO … to search (the student’s) person.  Even so, however, the court held that “this search falls within the general category of “administrative searches,” as it was conducted as part of a general regulatory scheme in furtherance of an administrative purpose, rather than as part of an investigation to secure evidence of a crime or violation of a school rule.”  The standard for evaluating this type of school search policy comes from the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, and Board of Education v. Earls.  These cases validate the search because the policy “supports the compelling governmental interest in public school safety by helping to ensure the contents of students’ bags and what they carry on their persons are not dangerous and that students, teachers, and faculty are safe from physical harm.”  In the Matter of K.P.

— In Florida, the Hillsborough County School District is moving to shut down the Walton Academy Charter School for “ongoing and unresolved security failures.”  Numerous safety related failures have been documented by the school board and the Florida Department of Education including “failures in the emergency alert system, staff training, safety drills and the lack of designated “safe areas” for shelter during emergencies.”

— A new empirical study on behavioral threat assessments and school safety concludes that BTA “can support students and reduce exclusionary discipline practices, including disparities.”  The threat assessment teams must be properly trained and must commit to using the evidence-based science to assess concerning behaviors.

— In Arizona, audits by the Arizona Department of Education suggest that Arizona schools are failing state mandated safety plan standards.  “A new state audit shows many campuses remain dangerously unprepared for active shooter events, natural disasters and other emergencies.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for October 14, 2025

by  • 

— In North Carolina, the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied immunity to school officials arising out of the sexual assault of a student who participated in an after-school program by an outside organization that rented the school facility.  The outside organization “provided after-school language programming to students.”  School officials conducted “a criminal background check on (the organization), which showed (that one member of the organization) had been accused of multiple other assaults on both children and adult women between 1993 and 2009. The background check also revealed (that the same person) had previously been extradited to Georgia because of an investigation for allegedly sexually assaulting a child there.”  Despite this, school officials permitted the outside organization to provide after-school services to students and “failed to inform its principals and students’ parents about the results of their investigation and background check.”  After a student was assaulted numerous times, a lawsuit was filed.  The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the lower court that neither the school district nor any of the individuals school officials were entitled to immunity.  The ruling relied upon the rule of law that in North Carolina that “a school board may waive governmental immunity are by purchasing liability insurance, or when engaging in a proprietary¸ as opposed to governmental, function.”  As a result, the school district, “when allowing (the outside organization) to use its facilities was engaged in a propriety function, thereby waiving governmental immunity.”  As to the individual school officials, the rule is that “immunity is a judicially created doctrine which shields public officials from personal liability for claims arising from discretionary acts or acts constituting mere negligence, by virtue of their office, and within the scope of their governmental duties.”  Therefore, the individual school officials “were not acting as public officials and are therefore not entitled to its protections.”  The appellate court concluded that the school district and the individual school officials “essentially stepped into the shoes of a landlord renting property to a company when it allowed (the outside organization) to operate its business on school property.”  Brady v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

— In Michigan, Metro Detroit school districts are hiring armed security guards.  “Fortis Security is contracted by 15 schools and school districts across Metro Detroit and provides armed security for 50 school buildings. Most of their employees are retired law enforcement officers.”

— In Florida, “(t)he most recent safety assessment for Broward County schools found deficiencies in security camera coverage – particularly in outdoor areas and some blind spots in buildings.”

— In South Carolina, “(a)t least 153 unvaccinated students exposed to measles in South Carolina schools are quarantining, according to local health officials. In a media briefing… officials confirmed these students were exposed contacts without immunity, leaving them to be excluded from school until the period of potential disease transmission has ended.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 26, 2025

by  • 

— In California, the United States District Court ruled that a special needs student could not assert a Fourth Amendment claim for “the warrantless search and seizure of the information” shared with police when he was arrested on campus.  The case arose when “at the end of the school day (a special needs student) went to the principal’s office to retrieve a water toy that had been confiscated earlier that day.”  School officials refused to return the item.  The student responded in a manner that caused a disruption.  The parents argued that school officials “were supposed to use de-escalation strategies, contact a (special needs) teacher, and not contact the police.”  Instead the police were called.  The police took the student to the police station along with “a copy of (1) a “Person Summary Report [“PSR”] that contained (the student’s) personal identifying information, including his student ID and contact information,” and (2) “a Behavior Detail Report [“BDR”] that details (the student’s)  behaviors exhibited at (school) since 9th grade.”  The parents of the student argued that “(r)ather than deescalate an interaction … (school officials) called the police—leading to his arrest—and later searched (the student’s) education records and disclosed private information with the police to be used for a potential prosecution.”  The court dismissed the case for several reasons.  First, the court declared that this was not a case the outcome of which is governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) because “because FERPA’s nondisclosure provisions fail to confer enforceable rights.”  Second, the court held that the Fourth Amendment claim of the student “must be dismissed because he has not plausibly alleged that he has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the school records at issue sufficient to trigger the Fourth Amendment and its warrant requirement.”  This is because under the “third party doctrine” of the Fourth Amendment, “an individual’s expectation of privacy in voluntarily disclosed records about them that are kept by others in the ordinary course of business, is reduced.”  Finally, the court concluded that “even if (the student’s) disclosure was partially involuntary, it does not appear that the records at issue are sufficiently sensitive or private to give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy that would trigger the Fourth Amendment and its warrant requirement.”  K. C. v. Town of Atherton

NOTE: It is important to note that federal law specifically agrees stating: “Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prohibit an agency from reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability to appropriate authorities or to prevent State law enforcement and judicial authorities from exercising their responsibilities with regard to the application of Federal and State law to crimes committed by a child with a disability…An agency reporting a crime committed by a child with a disability shall ensure that copies of the special education and disciplinary records of the child are transmitted for consideration by the appropriate authorities to whom the agency reports the crime.”  20 U.S.C. 1415(K)(6)(A-B).

— In Texas, officials in the Manor Independent School District have AI-powered weapons detection systems on its middle and high school campuses. The “Gateway” system “utilizes advanced bi-directional configurable screening and proprietary sensors to accurately distinguish everyday items in individuals’ pockets and backpacks such as laptops, three-ring binders, keys, and cell phones, from potential threats.”

— In New Mexico, the Santa Fe Public Schools are ramping up campus “drills to get to a safe place in case of an active shooter…Teachers are preparing by using RhinoWare locks that barricade classroom doors.”

— In California, new laws placing constraints on ICE have been enacted.  Assembly Bill 49 “prohibits schools from allowing immigration enforcement officers on campus without a warrant.”  Senate Bill 98 “requires schools and higher education institutions to send community notifications when immigration enforcement is on campus, and prohibits immigration enforcement from entering certain areas without a judicial warrant or court order.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 19, 2025

by  • 

— In Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the denial of immunity for educators in a case involving a student-on-student assault.  The lawsuit arose out of an incident in which “three minor students (two male, one female) …were enrolled in special education and required supervision by the District employees. During a physical education class, the two males pushed and pulled (the victim) behind the gym bleachers, into a bathroom, and sexually assaulted her.”  The claims of the victim’s parents included a breach of the duty to supervise and protect and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  Educators argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds of immunity “because a third party, and not the District or its employees, committed the sexual abuse.”  In affirming the lower court refusal to dismiss, the appellate court declared that child protection reforms in state law remove immunity “if two conditions are satisfied. First, the plaintiff’s damages would be recoverable under common law. Second, the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the negligent acts of the school district or an employee thereof acting within the scope of his office or duties with respect to one of the nine categories of exceptions.”  The ninth category – the sexual abuse exception” – confirms the elimination of immunity “if the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by actions or omissions of the local agency which constitute negligence.”  Based upon this precedent, the appellate court affirmed, holding that educators were neither “absolutely immune for the harm caused by third parties” nor immune unless “the District or its employee commit sexual abuse.”  The legislative history of the Pennsylvania child protection reforms confirm that the legislature “intended to (1) hold public institutions accountable for enabling abusers to commit their crimes against children, and (2) expand a plaintiff’s right to sue to include such public institutions.”  L.F.V. by Varano v. S. Philadelphia High School

— In Oregon, “the Salem-Keizer School District will become the first in Oregon to install weapons detectors at all six of its comprehensive high schools.”  School officials say that “the district is likely to expand the technology to its middle schools as well.”

— In Wisconsin, officials from the Green Bay Public School District say that they are “enhancing safety protocols moving forward.  It comes after a loaded gun was found inside a student’s backpack at Preble High last week.  Students who contribute to what the district calls “unsafe acts”, such as fighting, assault, or possession/use of weapons, will face a multi-day suspension at a minimum, according to new protocols sent out on Thursday.  They will also be suspended from athletic teams and activities and will be subject to a no-trespass order.”

— In California, the legislature has enrolled SB 848.  Its provisions “would strengthen student safety in California by requiring schools to update their Comprehensive School Safety Plans with clear procedures for preventing, detecting, and addressing employee sexual misconduct. SB 848 also broadens mandated reporting requirements, enhances employee training, and revises relevant provisions in law to ensure stronger protections.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 12, 2025

by  • 

— In Rhode Island, the United States District Court disagreed with the parent of a middle school student who asserted in a lawsuit that school resource officers used excessive force in removing him from the interior of the school building during an arrest for disorderly conduct.  The court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the parent, ruling that video evidence did not support the excessive force claim.  The video supported the narrative that the parent “went to the school during school hours to remove his daughter (who had texted him for help with an issue with her clothing)…  As he entered, a school employee asked him to put on a mask to comply with Covid guidelines and he refused, threw the proffered mask in the trash and entered the building to sit in the school lobby… (when asked) to wait outside while his daughter was summoned, he refused, remaining inside the main lobby of the school… (The parent) began to become irate and belligerent, yelling loudly and using profane language directed at school officials.”  Efforts to deescalate the situation failed.  The SROs “used a head-to-head maneuver to safely finish pushing Plaintiff Mello out of the school lobby into the vestibule and take him to the ground in a controlled descent in the vestibule… A significant struggle followed before (the SROs) were able to apply handcuffs.”  The court denied the motion by the parent because, “having watched (the video) carefully, I find that the videos on which Plaintiffs rely do not utterly discredit Defendants’ version of the events; to the contrary… I find that these videos are susceptible of the interpretation presented by Defendants, including that (the parent’s) disorderly conduct was seriously disruptive and frightening, potentially endangering children and staff at a public school during school hours so that, although the crimes (disorderly conduct and possession of illegal knives) are misdemeanors, their severity in context was significant, and that (the parent’s) aggressive and persistent resistance during and after arrest justified the extent of the force that (the SROs) deployed.”  Mello v. Arruda

— Nationally, “A new security standard for schools from the nonprofit American National Standards Institute (ANSI) suggests a three-pronged approach (for K-12 schools) involving physical protection, behavior management and emergency operations planning.”

— In Georgia, “following a string of recent weapon-related incidents on school campuses, Gwinnett County parents packed the first School Safety Advisory Committee meeting of the year… demanding stronger security measures and more training for teachers to better protect students.”

— In Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Education “will now be required to partner with first responders to create threat assessment plans for schools across the state.”  Senate Bill 2057 authorizes “the Illinois State Board of Education and the Office of the State Fire Marshall to create new rules that guide school districts, private schools, and first responders on how to develop threat assessment procedures, rapid entry response plans, and cardiac emergency response plans.”