Uncategorized

Safety Law News for November 6, 2025

by  • 

— In Mississippi, the Supreme Court of Mississippi, affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the family “of a school resource officer, who was struck and killed by a vehicle while directing traffic in course of his employment.”  The incident involved “a motorist, who was driving northbound and over the posted speed limit, who collided with the back of (the officer’s) car, which had been parked in the roadway to help direct traffic” at the end of the school day.  The job description included this daily task.  The collision resulted in (the officer) being struck by his vehicle and severely injured.” He “was taken to a hospital, where he died a few days later.”  The family filed a negligence claim against the state, “alleging that it had failed to maintain, inspect, and repair the traffic signal and that it had failed to warn of a dangerous condition.”  The appellate court affirmed the dismissal because of the long-standing rule of law that work-related injuries covered by workers compensation preempt negligence lawsuits.  This form of immunity “applies to all state government entities … if the employee … of any state governmental entity … is injured in the course and scope of his employment and the state governmental entity for which the injured employee worked at the time of the injury provides worker’s compensation benefits for the injury.”  The court reasoned that it was not unconstitutional for the legislature to make the workers’ compensation act the exclusive remedy of injured workers. Neither the Remedy Clause of State Constitution nor the Equal Protection Clause canceled the state policy.  The court opined that “(the family is) only entitled to the remedy afforded to (the officer) if he had survived. Since (state law) provides him no remedy, so it also prevents a suit by his heirs.”  Patterson v. State ex rel. Fitch

— In North Carolina, “Wake County high schoolers will be asked their opinions on school safety in a survey set for next month.  The survey … will ask students about how schools can be safer, whether they feel safe now, and whether they’re likely to report concerns using existing reporting channels, such as the Say Something reporting app.”

— In Ohio, the legislature has earmarked “$9 million in grants for safety-related projects for the 2026-2027 academic year.”  The funds may be used for “certification training for school resource officers, active-shooter response training or equipment…(and) training to identify and assist students with mental health issues.”

— In North Carolina, “every SRO in Nash County will have access to a breaching shotgun, a weapon designed to break through locks and reach students quickly in an emergency.” “The addition of breaching shotguns is part of a broader push in Nash County to give school resource officers more tools to protect students. All SROs in the district were recently trained on ballistic shields as well.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for October 31, 2025

by  • 

— In Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the arrest and conviction of a person who “refused to leave the school as directed to by police.”  The dispute arose when the person  went to the school “to speak to the principal and deliver paperwork to make the school administration aware of the change in masking requirements, stating that the mask requirement was unconstitutional… (The person) was asked to put on a mask, but refused… (the person) refused to leave the building…(stating that) he had a right to be inside the school because he paid taxes.”  The school resource officers “viewed (the person) as a possible safety threat… and began to escort (the person) out of the school, telling him multiple times that he would have to leave the premises.”  One officer “attempted to pull (the person) out the door while (the person) pushed back and attempted to remain inside. (The person) attempted to get back into the school and began wrestling with the two officers.”  It took both officers “to take (the person) to the ground outside the building… (where he) was handcuffed and informed that he was under arrest.”  The person challenged “the authority of the school police officers to arrest him, the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions, and also claims that the guilty verdicts (were) contrary to the weight of the evidence provided.”  The appellate court, affirming the “convictions for resisting arrest, defiant trespass, disorderly conduct, and harassment,” ruled that the person “was not removed from the school building because he refused to wear a mask; he was removed from the building because he did not have an appointment with any school personnel and thus had no legitimate reason to be on the premises.”  As to the duties of school resource officers, the appellate court held that a “school police officer appointed under section 1302-C(b) shall possess and exercise all the following powers and duties: (1) To enforce good order in school buildings, on school buses and on school grounds in the respective school entities.”  The appellate court summarized the rule of law for trespass onto school property: “(a person) may have thought that he had a right to be on the property, but once he was told that he could not remain in the building without an appointment, any right to remain clearly ceased.”  Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Bettis

— In Florida, the Columbia County School Board is deploying a K-9 team from the Columbia County Sheriff’s Office to its high school.  The canine is “uniquely trained in the detection of basic explosives, gunpowder, gun oils, and gun parts.”

— In New York, officials in the New York City are “launching the nation’s first Emergency Alert System that links schools directly to 911, ensuring help can be initiated within seconds.”  The new protocol will provide each school “with multiple fixed buttons and wireless lanyards that can trigger a hard lockdown alert. Once activated, a signal goes directly to 911 dispatch in under 10 seconds, straight to the NYPD’s real-time operations.”

— In Texas, officials in the Boerne ISD are deploying drones to enhance response times in an active shooter situation.  Officials state that “when the drones are deployed, a team of highly skilled pilots uses virtual reality and cameras to navigate around a school.”  As to response, “the goal is for the drones to confront a school shooter within 15 seconds.”  The drones are equipped to “use loud sirens, flashing lights, pepper balls and even direct strikes to distract a threat.”

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.”