Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 24, 2024

by  • 

— In New Mexico, the United States District Court refused to dismiss claims brought by parents of a student who alleged that “when she was a fourteen-year-old freshman…a senior student …raped her.”  The gist of several claims is that “the school and its employees enabled (the senior student’s) predatory behavior, protected him from being held accountable, and failed to protect victims from his abuse.”  The court seized upon the parent’s claim based upon the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, holding that neither the individual school officials nor the school district were entitled to dismissal as to the equal protection claim.  The legal standard for this claim is that a “school district’s liability for sexual harassment under the Equal Protection Clause (requires the plaintiff to) show that the harassment was the result of municipal custom, policy, or practice…In the absence of an official policy, a municipality may still be liable for the widespread and persistent practice of sexual harassment which constitutes a custom.”  Under the custom standard, the case must go to a jury because the parents alleged that the school officials and the school district were “on notice and failed to properly address, over a sufficient period of time, student and staff concerns that (the senior student)  was sexually harassing female students… (and) he was allowed to return to (school), all while the individual Defendants downplayed his actions.”  The court ruled that the individual school officials were not entitled to qualified immunity as to the equal protection claim because they “repeatedly failed to enforce remedial measures they knew were necessary to keep female students safe.”  The school district was unable to assert state statutory immunity because while state law “provides immunity from tort claims to governmental entities and public employees acting within the scope of their duty… immunity does not apply to liability for damages resulting from bodily injury, wrongful death or property damage caused by the negligence of public employees while acting in the scope of their duties.”  Doe v. Taos Municipal Schools

— In Kentucky, “The Kentucky Office of the State School Security Marshal released a report on the security of Commonwealth schools. The annual School Safety Risk Assessment Report shows 99.8 percent of Kentucky’s more than 1,300 schools comply with regulations.” Its contents include, among other requirements, that schools “must have electronic-locking front doors, surveillance, locked classroom doors, and classroom window coverings.”

— In Michigan, the Fenton Area Public Schools are installing state of the art technology to avert active shooter incidents.  The ZeroEyes AI Gun Detection and Intelligent Situational Awareness Platform, a collaboration between the school district and the technology provider is designed such that “if a gun is identified, images are instantly shared with the ZeroEyes Operations Center…If these experts determine that the threat is valid, they dispatch alerts and actionable intelligence — including visual description, gun type, and last known location — to local law enforcement and the district’s school resource officers as quickly as 3 to 5 seconds from detection.”

— In Oklahoma, state officials are urging parents and students to “download the ProtectOK app” to provide an additional layer of communication surrounding school safety.  “The ProtectOK app allows users to report suspicious activity and threats anonymously and have it sent to the proper authorities.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 20, 2024

by  • 

— In Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the adjudication of a student for “possession of a firearm with an altered manufacturer’s number, possession of a firearm by a minor, and possession of a weapon on school property.”  The weapon was “a loaded 9-mm pistol, which had its serial number filed off.”  The student challenged the evidence against him, claiming that he was not ever in actual possession of the firearm.  The facts showed that “a school resource officer…received a report of a student possibly carrying a firearm inside the school… when (the SRO) arrived at the reported location, other security officers removed (Student A) from a classroom. (who) admitted he had a gun…(that) he got it from a backpack in the vice principal’s office…(The SRO) learned that earlier that day, at approximately 11:50 a.m., a teacher had sent (the adjudicated student) to a vice principal’s office because he failed to display or show his school identification…(video evidence showed the adjudicated student) was carrying the backpack at the time… Videos from around 12:00 p.m. showed (the adjudicated student’s girlfriend) approach and interact with (Student A)… Videos also showed (Student A) go into the office without a backpack and then leave the office with the backpack.”  The court ruled that “where a juvenile is not in actual possession of the prohibited items, the Commonwealth must establish that he had constructive possession to support the conviction.”  The standard for constructive possession relies upon “facts from which the trier of fact can reasonably infer that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the contraband at issue…. Knowledge of the existence and location of the contraband is a necessary prerequisite to proving the juvenile’s intent to control, and, thus, his constructive possession.”  Affirming the adjudication was appropriate because the “evidence provided a reasoned basis for the court to infer that (the adjudicated student) had arranged for someone to take the gun and bookbag out of the office.”  In the Interest of: A.G.-M., A Minor

— In Texas, House Bill 3, enacted by the legislature, requires an armed guard on every school campus.  Even so, a survey discloses that less than half of Texas school districts are in compliance.  HB 3 gives each campus $15,000, plus $10 per student.

— In California, the legislature failed to enact Assembly Bill 2441.  The provisions of the legislation would allow teachers to decide to call the police if a student possesses or uses controlled substances.  Also, school officials would no longer be allowed to charge students with a crime for willful disturbance.  “The bill is opposed by law enforcement organizations that fear a breakdown in their relationships with schools in the community. Further, it would make reporting mandatory only in a few specific situations involving a “major” injury to a teacher or the sale (but not possession) of drugs at school.”

— In Florida, HB 1473 now requires all schools to keep classroom, building and campus entrances and exits closed and locked when students are present. Under the provisions of the law entrances and exits that are open or unlocked must be actively staffed

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 17, 2024

by  • 

— In Colorado, the Colorado Court of Appeals, upheld the adjudication of a student who challenged the search of his backpack, in which educators found “a bag containing a loaded pistol.” An SRO then took over the search. In addition to the gun, the SRO found an extended magazine and two loose nine-millimeter rounds.”  The student asserted that his rights under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution were violated because “because the tip and photograph on which (the school) relied were anonymous and stale.”  Initially, an outside detective informed the SROs that the student was a person of interest in the investigation of a campus incident.  Believing that a current student was involved in the incident, the detective “sent a photo to the SROs showing two individuals pointing guns toward the camera.”  The school police and two administrators “recognized (the student) as one of the individuals in the photo… escorted him to (Administrator’s) office…to search his backpack.”  The appellate court agreed that the motion to suppress was properly denied because after New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) “the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.”  The appellate court also ruled that “the tip and photograph were not from an anonymous source,” affirming that “the juvenile court did not err by concluding the tip and photograph provided the (school officials and the police officials) with reasonable suspicion to conduct the search.” People In Int. of A.H.H.

— In Georgia, the State School Superintendent is proposing additional state funding for school safety initiatives after the campus shooting at Apalachee High School.  The legislature will be asked to provide funding for a school resource officer and a crisis alert system in every Georgia school.

— Ohio, the legislature is being asked to require staff at public and charter schools to wear panic warning devices starting next school year.  The provisions of Senate Bill 313 require that “the alarm system must be integrated with technology used by local law enforcement to route 911 and school lockdown calls.”

— In Texas, officials in the Dallas ISD are revising safety policies in response to concerns and incidents at sporting events.  There will be “more officers patrolling the games and (using) metal detectors at entrances.”  Students will be required to display an ID badge for entry “if they attend district-hosted games without a parent or guardian.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 10, 2024

by  • 

— In New York, the United States District Court approved the request of a group of parents suing an elementary-school administrator for “dozens of counts of child abuse,” to add on claims against others as well as the school district itself in failing to “sound the alarm.”  The court applied the “bystander” theory of liability.  This form of liability reaches beyond the misconduct of the school employee to others who fail to respond to the misconduct.  The rule is “even where the direct tortfeaser was not acting within the scope of her employment when she commits the predicate tort, an employer may nonetheless be liable under a theory of respondeat superior if other employees, acting within the scope of their employment, negligently respond to the direct tortfeaser.”  The court is allowing the amended claim after finding that an “Assistant Principal… testified at (the Principal’s) criminal trial that she saw signs of (child) abuse yet did not report them.”  Doe v. Hilton Central School District

— In Arizona, Arizona Superintendent Tom Horne has extended the Department of Education’s agreement with the entity, Off Duty Management, “to make sure students, educators and staff are protected by armed and uniformed School Safety Officers.” Off Duty Management “was founded by former law enforcement officers (and) works directly with local law enforcement agencies and school districts to fill vacant School Safety Officer positions.”

— Nationally, school cell phone bans are being discussed in different ways after the Georgia shooting.  “The Georgia school shooting that left four dead and nine injured last week was every parent’s worst nightmare, and one that highlights potential downsides to efforts among states, school districts and federal lawmakers to ban or restrict access to cellphones in classrooms.”

— In Tennessee, educators are becoming more rigorous in their response to students “making a threat against a school.” “Lawmakers and district officials said they hoped the significant punishments deter students from making those threats, which have to be treated as real even if there’s no plan or intent behind them.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 6, 2024

by  • 

— In Kentucky, the Supreme Court of Kentucky upheld the dismissal of a school resource officer who underperformed on the job, allowing the police department to act decisively in removing the officer.  The tenure of the officer on campus included two incidents. “He was involved in an altercation with a 13-year-old student…during which he struck (the student) in the face. He subsequently arrested (the student), charging him with two public offenses, but failed to read (the student) his Miranda rights.” And “He was involved in another altercation with a different student…during which he wrapped his arms around (the student) so tightly that (the student) lost consciousness.”  The Merit Board, the Circuit Court, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the termination.  The SRO argued, among other things, that “the Merit Board wrongly included expunged materials” in its consideration of his appeal despite the officer’s success in getting the criminal charges brought against him dismissed and his criminal record expunged in the records of the “police and other agencies outside of the court system.”  The SRO also  argued that his rights under the Due Process Clause were violated.  The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the termination, rejecting the expungement argument because “information contained in the (employment) file is neither a criminal record nor would it appear on a state-performed background check, (and therefore) is not subject to the expungement order.”  As to due process, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that although, “there are significant interests to both the individual and the public that are at stake in deciding how much process is due a terminated police officer in front of the Merit Board…(G)iven the significant safeguards already provided (in Kentucky law) to officers in matters before the Merit Board, the risk of error is relatively low.  As to the power of the Chief to discipline the officer the court held that, “(i)f we were to hold that the Chief could not terminate an employee for a violation of (a department policy) based on a violation of a law until that employee was formally convicted of the underlying offense, we would, in essence, be holding the Chief to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof. Practically speaking, a holding such as that … would also serve to prevent the Chief from finding a violation of (department policy)… until after a conviction, which, as is exemplified by this case, can take years. We refuse to require the Chief to either find a violation beyond a reasonable doubt or wait until a criminal conviction is final to find a violation. Probable cause that an employee has violated a law is sufficient to sustain a finding by the Chief of a violation of (a department policy).”  Hardin v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Government

— In Georgia, Barrow County officials say that a panic alarm “saved lives” at Apalachee High School during a shooting in which two students and two teachers were killed and eight students and one teacher were injured.  Centegix CrisisAlert ID technology “sent alerts of an active shooter at Apalachee High School to the Barrow County Sheriff’s office (and) also sent GPS coordinates of the person who triggered the alert.”  The response of the school resource officers “was very fast…saving a lot of lives.”  One teacher said, “I actually saw lockdown initiate before I even heard gunshots, so I had time to prepare.”

— In Wisconsin, officials in the Wausau School District are deploying new technology at school entrances to enhance campus safety. A visitor screening tool, Visitor Aware by Singlewire Software, screens and verifies guests and volunteers “to establish a standard check-in procedure for all guests and identify potential issues before (persons) can fully gain access to a school.”

— In Delaware, officials in Cape Henlopen are deploying weapons detection systems for football games.  The EVOLV System, identifies “potential weapons like guns and knives that could be entering the Cape Henlopen High School’s stadium.”  “This joins the school resource officer, constables and other Delaware State Police officers at each football game.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 3, 2024

by  • 

— In Michigan, the United States District Court upheld the authority of a school official to have “students take off…sweatshirts because the official interpreted the phrase as having a profane meaning.”  The students wore shirts that displayed the message “Let’s Go Brandon.”  In the context of the sporting event from which the phrase was taken, both the students and the school official “understood that the phrase referenced the profane chant at the NASCAR event…“F*** Joe Biden.”  The court ruled that “speech that is vulgar or profane is not entitled to absolute constitutional protection.”  The court concluded that school officials had “established that a reasonable interpretation of the phrase Let’s Go Brandon is that it conveys a profane and vulgar message with reference to President Joe Biden.”  Therefore, “if schools can prohibit students from wearing apparel that contains profanity, schools can also prohibit students from wearing apparel that can reasonably be interpreted as profane.” D.A. v. Tri County Area Schools

— In Pennsylvania, the Boyertown Area School District is announcing its decisions to allocate a $525,607 school safety grant.  The grant, the award by of the School Safety and Security Committee, will earmark “just under $45,000 to fund equipment that will further enhance security monitoring systems,” “$297,000 will be used to fund two police officers,” and “$182,000 is to be used for school mental health programming for students.”

— In Florida, St. Lucie Public School officials are implementing “higher security measures for football games.”  “The changes included random metal detector scans, banning large backpacks and not allowing entry after the first half of the game.”  The changes are in response to a gun-related incident that disrupted a high school football game last month.

— In North Carolina, Nash County Schools “will begin selecting elementary school students at random to walk through metal detectors.” Officials said that “administrators will also begin randomly screening elementary students with handheld wands.”  “The announcement said that the random screenings will be done to keep the schools free of weapons.”