Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 4, 2025

by  • 

— In Tennessee, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, affirmed the dismissal of a case involving an injury to a student that both the trial court and the appellate court declared to be “an unfortunate, but unforeseeable accident.”  The injury to the student occurred when “when a classmate, who was not aiming at the injured student, threw a pencil that ricocheted off a surface and hit the student in the eye.”  The injury was a serious one.  The pencil “hit (the injured student’s) eye, fully penetrating her eyeball.  (The injured student) underwent multiple reconstructive surgeries to try to remedy her injuries. (But the injured student’s) vision was permanently impaired, and she will be required to seek continual medical treatment to manage her injuries.”  The injured student filed a lawsuit “asserting that the classroom teacher was negligent and that the School System was, accordingly, vicariously liable.”  The governing rule of law states that “a risk is foreseeable if a reasonable person could foresee the probability of its occurrence or if the person was on notice that the likelihood of danger to the party to whom is owed a duty is probable.”  The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the student “was not injured by an inherently dangerous instrumentality but by a pencil, which a high school student can be expected to wield without teacher supervision…(and that) “a mechanical pencil is obviously capable of inflicting injury, but is not, in and of itself, a dangerous instrumentality and is used routinely in classrooms.”  Therefore, because neither the teacher nor the school district had “sufficient notice to anticipate that (the injured student) would be injured in this way… circumstances of this case present a freakish and unfortunate accident that simply could not have been foreseen.” Hammers v. Clarksville-Montgomery County Schools

— In Texas, officials in the Austin ISD are “asking Waymo to fix safety issues after its cars pass stopped school buses.”  Texas law requires vehicles to remain fixed in place when a school bus stops.  “Waymo said there was a software issue that led to the AVs passing the school buses, but during the incidents, the AV only proceeded when no people were in front of the car. It also said it worked quickly to fix the software issue.”

— In Arizona, officials in Coconino County are deploying a $500,000 grant to improve campus safety.  The focus of the safety upgrades falls upon “county’s county’s Accommodation District (which) serves students who face significant academic and personal challenges, including youth involved in the juvenile justice system and students experiencing trauma or instability. Many come from communities with high rates of poverty, and half of all students live within the Navajo or Hopi tribal nations.”  The Superintendent announced that the grant “allows us to address long-standing security gaps with a comprehensive, sustainable plan that protects both students and staff.”

— In Virginia, officials in the Charlottesville City Schools “are moving ahead with plans to bring police officers back to campuses next year, and they are revising key documents governing how officers will interact with students.”  Despite criticism of the policy from some in the community, the majority of the school board believes that students “should be able to come into school each morning and be focused on learning, and teachers should be focused on teaching; not whether they’re physically safe or whether there are fights or threats or safety incidents.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 3, 2025

by  • 

— In Massachusetts, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that the juvenile court has the authority to divert juvenile cases involving weapons possession on campus to a program in order to “avoid attaching to juveniles the stigma of a criminal.”  The case arose out of a student search when “administrators at the Dearborn School in the Roxbury section of Boston learned that a student might be in possession of a weapon. School administrators performed an administrative search, which revealed that the juvenile possessed a nine millimeter Glock pistol with six rounds of ammunition inside his “fanny pack” on his person. Consequently, Boston police officers arrived at the school and the juvenile was arrested and taken into custody.”  It was noteworthy that “although the juvenile did not possess a license to carry the firearm outside of his home or place of work, he did possess a valid firearm identification (FID) card.”  State law allows “a person from the age of fourteen to seventeen may apply for an FID card with a parent or guardian’s permission… to possess certain nonlarge capacity firearms and ammunition.”  Even so, however, a “delinquency complaint (was) issued in the Juvenile Court, charging the juvenile with unlawful possession of a firearm…;carrying a loaded firearm without a license…; and unlawful possession of ammunition.”  The student requested a formal diversion of the charges (Continuance Without a Finding (CWOF)) in which the court postpones a formal finding of guilt to allow the juvenile to successfully complete a probationary period with set conditions to justify dismissal of the case.  The juvenile court agreed that a CWOF was a lawful disposition of the case.  The government appealed.  On appeal the appellate court ruled that “the Legislature has granted Juvenile Court judges broad discretion to render individualized dispositions consistent with the best interests of the child…(such that) the aims of correction and redemption of delinquent children are to be accomplished in part by the very broad discretion allowed Juvenile Court judges with regard to disposition to avoid attaching to juveniles the stigma of a criminal.”  As to the CWOF diversion policy, the appellate court ruled that “a juvenile may request a CWOF upon tender of a plea or admission — unless the complaint alleges one of the enumerated offenses, which are all sex offenses.”  Therefore, the juvenile court judge “had the authority” to approve the diversion of the case.  Commonwealth v. Quahir Q.

— In Illinois, a “Chicago Public Schools (CPS) policy allows illegal immigrant students excused absences if they or their family members are afraid of federal immigration enforcement activities in the area.”

— In Tennessee, Wilson County are reporting lower levels of citations and arrests arising out of school incidents.  This is a continuing statistical trend from prior school years.  One official states that  “the goal is to always have a decrease in the number of arrests and citations issued and to focus on proactive prevention and de-escalation, so I believe that number reflects the great work that the school resource officers are doing.”

— In California, a revision in state policy now “criminalizes targeted threats to institutions, buildings and campuses.”  The old policy “was ambiguous as to whether someone could be criminally prosecuted if the threat was made against an institution rather than a specific person.”  Going forward, schools are protected against threats “even if an individual person is not specifically threatened.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for December 2, 2025

by  • 

— In Nevada, the Nevada Supreme Court interpreted “education record” as that term is used in FERPA and Nevada privacy laws to “exclude materials informally created in the ordinary course of business that a school possesses.”  The case arose out a request by the adoptive mother of a special needs student seeking “the education records of J.B., a student in a Clark County School District (CCSD) school… Believing that the materials CCSD initially provided in response were incomplete, (the adoptive mother) subsequently requested all emails mentioning J.B. that CCSD stored on a Google cloud server. CCSD refused the request.”  The lower court ordered the release of the information under an interpretation of FERPA that emails were “education records to which FERPA and the parallel Nevada statutes” authorized parental access.  The appellate court reversed.  The appellate court relied heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court case of  Owasso Independent School District v. Falvo.  In Falvo the Court declares that the primary character of education records is that they “will be kept in a filing cabinet in a records room at the school or on a permanent secure database, perhaps even after the student is no longer enrolled.”  The Nevada Supreme Court relies upon Falvo to declare that student information must be purposely kept “in the same way the registrar maintains a student’s folder in a permanent file.”  As a result, the Nevada Supreme Court held that “education records therefore generally exclude materials informally created in the ordinary course of business that a school possesses but which do not rise to the level of institutional records.”  This means that “deliberate action to store such emails as institutional records is critical…(and) such intentionality is not present” in the case of the emails on the school district server.  The Nevada Supreme Court agreed that “an email may constitute an education record…(when) a school official retain(s) such emails in a deliberate fashion so that such information is preserved.”  Even so, however, the parental request of “all emails” mentioning a specific student presents a policy decision for school officials as to the disclosure. Clark County School District v. Eighth Judicial District Court

— In Minnesota, schools are implementing a less traumatic framework for active shooter drills in schools. Minnesota law now “restricts active shooter simulations with officers and staff to times when a majority of students aren’t at school. It also requires that districts provide advance notice of active shooter drills, lets families opt their children out of the drills and mandates that staff debrief students.”

— In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Department of Justice “says tips to the state’s Speak Up, Speak Out threat reporting hotline were up 30% in the last school year…That follows a 40% increase in the 2023-24 school year.”

— In North Carolina, a statewide policy allowing armed personnel in private schools goes into effect. House Bill 193 allows private schools to permit employees and volunteers to carry concealed weapons on campus, a change proponents say will help budget-strapped schools afford security.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 28, 2025

by  • 

— In Louisiana, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana reversed the dismissal of a case involving a student who was injured during an after-school joyriding incident in the campus parking lot. The appellate court reversed because the school breached the duty of reasonable supervision when it violated its own policy.  The school rule required that school officials “should be responsible for the supervision of students during the school day and for a reasonable period of time before and after school.”  The student was injured “while sitting on the trunk of a car in motion… After football practice ended.”  Reversal and remand of the case for a trial is required because  “a school board policy that implicitly recognizes the capacity for harm in the absence of supervision, and several after-school activities—it is foreseeable that an accident in a school parking lot could occur. At the very least, the foreseeability of such an incident is a question of material fact properly left to the fact-finder for determination.”  Reed v. Lafayette Parish School Board

— In Arkansas, officials in Conway are preparing to deploy drones designed to stop school shooters.  The remotely controlled device “can respond in five seconds…be on the shooter in 15 seconds and …can degrade and incapacitate in 60 seconds.”

— In Missouri, a “St. Louis charter school has been ordered to stop in-person classes immediately after a safety audit uncovered major security and supervision failures.”  Among other things, the audit “found broken or missing door alarms, unmonitored security cameras and widespread supervision and emergency-preparedness issues.”

— In Ohio, officials in Wood County are implementing a new safety protocol “by integrating behavioral threat assessment and centralized digital case management, prioritizing proactive student wellness and prevention.”  “Using a centralized case management system, they will be able to recognize early signs of student distress, securely share information and intervene with care before challenges escalate into more serious events.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 14, 2025

by  • 

— In Louisiana, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana reversed the dismissal of a case involving a teacher who was “suddenly and violently attacked by minor child… who was a third grade student at the school.”  The injuries arose out of a series of concerning behaviors by a student who “was prone to sudden, unprovoked, angry, violent outbursts.”  On the same day the teacher was victimized, the student  “caused another student injury when he hit the student while eating, which caused the student’s cheek to be punctured with a fork.”  The teacher filed suit, alleging that “the Board was vicariously liable for the acts and/or omissions of its administrators and employees…(and) that the Board’s administrators and employees’ flagrant disregard for the risks posed by E.L. were intentional and within the ambit of their assigned duties.”  The lower court dismissed the case, holding that the school officials were entitled to immunity, namely, that the claims against the Board are barred by (state law), and (the teacher) has not alleged sufficient facts to make these claims fall under an exception and will not be able to do so.”  The appellate court reversed because  state law, effectively waives immunity “where the plaintiff’s petition alleged the defendants intended to injure him or should have known his injury was substantially certain to follow, the merit of his claim was a factual determination to be considered upon a motion for summary judgment or a trial on the merits.”  Therefore, the injured teacher “stated a cause of action against the Board.” Bernier v. St. Tammany Parish School Board

— In Michigan, schools across the state are suing the Michigan legislature for setting “aside $321 million for safety and mental health initiatives in local schools as part of the state budget approved last month, but (with) strings attached to the earmark.”  The lawsuit alleges that “legislators unconstitutionally leveraged essential funds by requiring schools waive certain legal protections to receive their cut of appropriations.”

— A new empirical study on behavioral threat assessments in schools reports that “nearly every public K-12 school in the United States used a behavioral threat assessment management (BTAM) team.”  However,  “many schools do not have supporting written materials.”

— Nationally, “Arkansas, Tennessee, and Utah are the first states to enact laws that require public schools to teach children as young as 5 the basics of gun safety and how to properly store guns in the home. Only Utah’s law allows students to opt out of the lesson if requested by parents or guardians.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 7, 2025

by  • 

— In Indiana, the Court of Appeals of Indiana reversed the conviction of a person who sent a Snapchat direct message “now that I’ve showered and washed my sins away I can go and shoot up a preschool.”  The prosecution arose when “Snapchat flagged the message and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Threat Operations Center (NTOC),2 who notified an FBI field office.”  Although the defendant agreed that “it was dumb to do” and that “he should not have sent the message,” he was charged and convicted of Level 6 felony intimidation.  On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him.  The appellate court agreed, ruling that “to prove (the defendant) committed Level 6 felony intimidation as charged, the State was required to prove that he communicated a threat with the intent that another person be placed in fear that the threat will be carried out, and the threat was to commit a forcible felony.”  The applicable rule of law is that “a “true threat” requires two necessary elements: that the speaker intend his communications to put his targets in fear for their safety, and that the communications were likely to actually cause such fear in a reasonable person similarly situated to the target… the statement must be transmitted in such a way that the defendant knows or has good reason to believe the statement will reach the victim.”  Therefore, the appellate court reversed the conviction, ruling that because the defendant  “sent the message to a private Snapchat group of about twenty individuals who exchanged what he described as dark humor, (and) there was no evidence that anyone in that Snapchat group had a connection to any preschool (such that) there was no … person associated with the nearby preschool – or for that matter any preschool – who was in fact placed in fear by the message.”  Lester v. State

— In North Carolina,  Wake County school officials are being trained on a new safety response system that replaces the ‘code red’ system.   The Standard Response Protocol “uses action words, such as “lockdown,” to make directions more clear.”

— In Washington State, the Seattle citizens approved City of Seattle Proposition No. 1.  “The 6-year, $1.3 billion levy will double access to affordable childcare, expand mental health and student safety services in schools, provide up to two years of free tuition at Seattle Colleges for all graduating seniors at public high schools, and expand career pathways to help more students enter the skilled trades.”

— In California, the legislature is enacting a new policy that expands disclosure for school employees known for endangering campus safety.  Senate Bill 848 will take effect January 1, 2026, requiring private and public schools to release employment records pertaining to “egregious misconduct.”  Previous law did not authorize disclosure unless and until an inquiry was made.  It also “requires an applicant for a noncertificated position at a school district, county office of education, charter school, state special school or diagnostic center operated by the department, or any position at a private school to provide their prospective employer with a complete list of every educational institution at which the employee has been employed.”