Uncategorized

Safety Law News for August 5, 2025

by  • 

— In Illinois, the United States District Court, dismissed the lawsuit of a student who asserted the First Amendment to protect comments  “sent from her cellphone, off school grounds, and outside school hours.”  School officials gave the student “a ten-day out-of-school suspension, social suspension through the remainder of the school year prohibiting (the student’s) attendance at school-sponsored events, and 80 demerits for her conduct.”  In context, the Instagram post “was a personal directive aimed at alienating another student,” who was told to ‘go back to wherever u came from.’”  The Court found that the disciplinary measures, “did not cross the constitutional Rubicon.”  The relevant law included Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, Meyer v. Nebraska, Bartels v. Iowa, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, and Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. by & through Levy.  First, students (do not) shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.  Second, the First Amendment rights of students in public schools are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.  Third, a school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its basic educational mission.  Fourth, schools have a special interest in regulating speech that materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.  Finally, a school’s regulatory interests remain significant in some off-campus circumstances, including serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students; the failure to follow rules concerning lessons, the writing of papers, the use of computers, or participation in other online school activities; and breaches of school security devices, including material maintained within school computers.  The court dismissed the free speech claim because the post “explicitly targeted at another student …which distinguishes this case from the kind of protected general vulgarity in Mahanoy, placing it squarely within the category of off-campus speech that a school may legitimately regulate to prevent discriminatory harm.”  C.B. v. Board of Education of Minooka Community High School District

— In Georgia, officials in Pierce County are implementing a new weapons detection system in schools.  A scanner, OpenGate, will “allow students to pass through without needing to empty backpacks or remove personal items.”

— In Pennsylvania, officials in Plum Borough School District are also installing an OpenGate weapons detection system. “It looks and works similarly to metal detectors at stadiums. The system will be used during the school day for visitors and at extracurricular events.”

— In Pennsylvania, area schools “lag on banning cellphones.”  While a growing number of states have authorized or mandated policies to regulate student cell phone, an effort by the legislature “to encourage schools to voluntarily enact local bans found few takers.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for July 11, 2025

by  • 

— In Georgia, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a case in favor of school resource officers who intervened in a school incident with physicality.  The school resource officers came upon a “commotion and moved to the scene.”  They “found (a coach) physically separating (two students) and believed the students were fighting.”  They began “separating the two students. With one hand on each student, (one SRO) extended his right hand towards (the student) and made contact around (his) shoulder and neck.”  The other SRO “then intervened, picking up (the same student) at the waist, carrying him away from the center of the action, throwing him to the ground, and dragging him across the floor. As a result, (the student’s) head struck the brick wall.”  The injury lawsuit alleged (1) “unlawful seizure; (2) a § 1983 claim for excessive force; (3) a § 1983 claim for excessive corporal punishment; and (4) a state law battery claim.”  The lower court “granted the officers summary judgment because (it) found … that both (officers) used only de minimis force in subduing (the student).”  The appellate court affirmed.  First, the court held that, “excessive force claims are judged under the Fourth Amendment’s objective reasonableness standard.”  Second, the court stated that courts “must “examine the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”  Third, the court ruled that “our cases authorize the use of de minimis force because law enforcement officers may detain suspects and bystanders to protect themselves or others from harm or to gain control of an incident.”  Finally, “the facts alleged, and the testimonial and video evidence presented, indicate that …only de minimis force not rising to the level of “excessive force” under the Fourth Amendment.”  Glenn v. Britt

— In Colorado, officials in the Regis Jesuit High School in Aurora are considering deploying drone technology to respond to campus incidents.  “The company Campus Guardian Angel held a demonstration … to highlight the new technology, which uses drone technology to partner with law enforcement to confront active shooter threats.”

— In Louisiana, the Lafayette Parish School System received national recognition for its school safety plan.  It “is one of the few school districts in the country with a trained law enforcement officer on every single school campus.”

— In North Carolina, the Governor has vetoed legislation that would have eased gun restrictions in private schools.  House Bill 193, would have allowed persons with a valid concealed carry permit to have a gun on private school grounds.  The Governor said, “This bill would make our children less safe. Just as we should not allow guns in the General Assembly, we should keep them out of our schools unless they are in the possession of law enforcement. Law enforcement officers receive more than 800 hours of public safety education, including firearms training. On top of that, school resource officers receive additional training to know how to respond to crises and how to de-escalate conflicts, a requirement I supported when I was attorney general.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 26, 2025

by  • 

— In Illinois, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the decision of school officials of a private high school to “to expel students who were found to be responsible for offensive and divisive social media accounts.”  The students used social media to create “numerous divisive comments on the issues of race, sexual orientation, gender, and religion … and invited others to a meetup.”  School officials, after a police investigation, gave the students “the option to either withdraw from the school or face expulsion.”  The students “withdrew from the school … subsequently tried to walk back the withdrawal, and they later filed a complaint in the circuit court … for money damages for breach of contract.”  The students alleged that “they were coerced by (school officials) into withdrawing from the school … that (school officials) breached the terms of its Parent-Student Handbook when it essentially expelled them without giving them a disciplinary hearing.”  The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to the school officials.  It held that “courts have recognized a cause of action for breach of an implied contract by students against a private school … when the school makes an arbitrary and capricious adverse academic decision in the school’s treatment of the student, including dismissal … An academic decision is arbitrary and capricious when it lacks any discernable rational basis.”  Based upon this standard, “the record shows that (school officials) employed professional judgment in acting on the information … had a rational basis for (the) disciplinary decision as it was grounded in a legitimate concern for the safety and welfare of the school … (and) (school officials’) conduct and decision-making was consistent with how (they) had dealt with similar social media misconduct in the past.”  Uzubell v. Mount Carmel High School

— In Virginia, the Salem City Schools, are deploying “a security system at Salem High School that uses artificial intelligence to detect weapons.”  The Corum AI System, “works by using AI to monitor the school’s existing camera feeds for any sign of weapons. If a threat is detected, the system notifies a designated group of staff and administrators, as well as members of the Salem Police Department. Anyone who receives the alert can review the footage on their phone and assess the situation.”

— In Illinois,  Senate Bill 1519 has been put before the Governor to sign into law.  The provisions of  SB 1519 “require that each school district annually report the number of students who were referred to a law enforcement agency or official and the number of instances of referrals to law enforcement that students received … prohibits school personnel from issuing a monetary fine, fee, ticket, or citation for a municipal code violation … (and) provides that school personnel (rather than a school district) may not refer a truant, chronic truant, or truant minor to any other local public entity, school resource officer, or peace officer.”

— In Kentucky, Senate Bill 181, places constraints upon teacher-student communication in Kentucky schools.  It provisions require that “all electronic communication between school staff, coaches, volunteers, and students must be conducted through designated, traceable platforms.”  The intent of the legislature is to curtail the risk of child sexual abuse by inappropriate communications.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 23, 2025

by  • 

— In New Jersey, the United States Court of Appeals, affirmed the dismissal of a student injury case brought by parents who alleged that a teacher used excessive force against their child.  The incident involved a “teacher … setting the gym up for kindergarten graduation and watching the fifth graders who were there.”  One of the fifth graders “was horsing around. He lay across a girl’s lap and then started repeatedly throwing himself to the floor.”  The teacher, failing to succeed in getting the student to stand up, “grabbed him by the arm” as the student was “lying between two girls who were tickling him.”  The student alleged that the teacher “grabbed him by the arm and pulled him (and) when (he) tried to go back to his chair, (the teacher) put “his fist out by his chest” and kept pushing harder and harder.”  The student alleged that the teacher “punched him,” bruising his arm and hurting his chest.  Another teacher arrived and assisted in removing the student from the gym.  The lower court granted summary judgment for the school.  Affirming, the appellate court ruled that “a teacher may use reasonable force to maintain order.”  Excessive force occurs when “a teacher uses (1) excessive force (2) without any pedagogical imperative (3) maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm, (4) creating serious injury.”  Applying this standard, the teacher acted reasonably.  “This force hardly shocks the conscience. It was reasonable to address (the student’s) unruly behavior, and no rational trier of fact could find that it was done only to cause harm or that it did create serious injury.”  Sanchez v. Elizabeth Board of Education

— In Texas, the Governor signed into law House Bill 33.  The provisions of the “Uvalde Strong Act” seek to strengthen emergency operations planning, security reviews and safety audits, and training to help protect students and staff in a crisis event.  It mandates law enforcement agencies across the state create crisis response policies, meet annually with schools in order to plan effective responses to an active shooter situation, and imposes a training requirement on officers.

— In Illinois, schools are implementing an upgraded emergency management system that improves location validation and call routing.  In the system, “every room in each school is identified by a number… The maps use color coding to distinguish different types of spaces—classrooms in one color, restrooms in another, common areas in a third. The map (uses) wayfinding advancements, including door numbers placed not just inside rooms but on exterior windows, allowing responders to identify specific locations even when setting up perimeters outside the building.”

— In Arizona, educators in the Agua Fria Union High School District are implementing next-level cyberattack incident response protocols.  New technology is enhancing the policy to “proactively deploy cybersecurity measures … to detect threats and prevent breaches.”  The protocol “includes having an incident command structure: identifying who leads the response, who handles communications, who has authority to turn off IT systems and establishing the criteria for when to escalate issues to district leadership.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 16, 2025

by  • 

— In California, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a jury award for $1 million in damages to a student who – the jury found – was injured when the school “negligently failed to protect her from other students’ bullying.”  “The jury found the District negligent under both a general negligence theory and a negligent training and supervision theory.”  The bullying was experienced during the 2017–2018 school year.  It involved numerous incidents, ranging from text messaging to a decision by a student “to create a petition titled, “Petition to END [E.I.’s] Life” (which) … another student at the Middle School, drafted and signed … while other students wrote comments on it.”  The response of school officials also varied, from telling the victim that “girls will be girls” or that “[t]his is just girl drama,” to talking about the possibility of “meeting in a restorative justice setting,” to informing the victim’s parents that the bullies “had been suspended. Nevertheless, (one of them) was allowed to attend the school’s promotion ceremony the next day.”  On appeal the school officials argued that they “had no duty to protect (the victim) from harm caused by other students.”  The appellate court disagreed, holding that “California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection…It is well-settled that a school district and its employees have a special relationship with the district’s pupils, a relationship arising from the mandatory character of school attendance and the comprehensive control over students exercised by school personnel… Because of this special relationship, the duty of care owed by school personnel includes the duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of third parties acting negligently or intentionally.”  As to immunity, the appellate court ruled that “the District is not immune from liability arising out of the Middle School employees’ responses to (the victim’s) complaints that she was being bullied by other students.”  E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School District

— In Wisconsin, the legislature is considering  Assembly Bill 298.  Its provisions provide funding a campus safety program that would encourage colleges to provide “mapping data to law enforcement in crisis scenarios.”  Schools k-12 already are allowed to do so under 2021 Wisconsin Act 109.

— In South Dakota, “starting July 1, the four-year and technical institutions will no longer be able to restrict the lawful concealed carry of firearms and weapons on campuses.”  “Senate Bill 100 … makes South Dakota the 12th state to allow concealed carry on college campuses. It applies to students 18 and older and staff members who have an enhanced permit that requires the person to take a handgun safety course and abide by other requirements.”

— In Georgia, officials in Marietta City Schools are reporting on the analytics after “limit(ing) student access to cellphones and smartwatches during the school day” during the 2024-2025 school year.  School officials report that the results were “compelling” — with 68% of middle school teachers reporting they felt less stressed and more confident to do their job.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 11, 2025

by  • 

— In New York, the United States District Court upheld the decision of school officials to suspend and arrest a student “for the crime of Falsely Reporting an Incident.”  The decision to suspend and arrest arose after another “student (while at school) received an image on her cell phone via AirDrop that appeared to show two guns on a table with the caption: ‘Don’t come to school tomorrow.’”  The lawsuit centered around the seizure and search of cell phones.  After identifying the identity of the student who AirDropped the image, school officials  took and searched his phone.  The student argued that the administrator “illegally seized … and searched his cell phone.”  The brother of the student, also enrolled at the school, joined the lawsuit to allege that another administrator “illegally seized … and searched his cell phone.”  There was police involvement.  “Police officers were in the room while School District (officials) looked at (the student’s) phone.”  Police did not “ever personally looked at (the student’s) phone.”  The court ruled that School District (officials’) in-school interviews of (the students) and examinations of their cell phones were seizures and searches.”  Even so, however, the court applied the case of  New Jersey v. T.L.O., holding that the “in-school interviews and cell phones searches were justified at the inception. On the day in question, School District Defendants were reasonably investigating what they perceived to be a serious school shooting threat…With respect to the cell phone searches, specifically, School District Defendants had reasonable grounds to believe that the students’ cell phones would contain information about the AirDropped Image.”  The court also ruled that, “the interviews of (the students) were reasonable in scope.”  As to the depth of the search of the phones and the extended period of the confiscation, the court ruled that the school officials were  “shielded by qualified immunity and therefore cannot be liable for the searches of the (students’) cell phones.”  As to the role of the police, the court held that no rights were violated.  “(The police) did not question (the students). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that (the police) ever conducted a search of either (student’s) phone…At most, the record shows that (the police) were present for the in-school interviews and cell phone searches and may have incidentally seen content on the (students’) cell phones.”  Singh v. Sachem Central School District

— In New York, the New York State Senate “has passed legislation…to improve the training school security guards receive to work in an educational environment.  Senate Bill S194A “requires school-specific instruction as part of the annual training for guards employed or contracted by schools.”

— In Alabama, the Walker County Sheriff “was arrested and indicted by a grand jury for employing non-certified people as School Resource Officers and deputy sheriff.”  The Sheriff “is charged with at six counts for assigning unqualified individuals to positions where they wore uniforms, carried weapons, carried badges and used fully-equipped patrol vehicles.”

— In Virginia, Fairfax County Public Schools officials are implementing a program for the use of weapons detectors in its schools.  “Before students enter, they must remove from their backpacks any items that could set off a false alarm, such as laptops, three-ring binders, collapsible umbrellas, metal lunch boxes, metal pencil cases, and metal glasses cases. If an alarm sounds, the student must pass a secondary screening.”