Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 20, 2020

by  • 

In Tennessee, the United States District Court ruled that educators violated the rights of a student who was suspended and transferred to an alternative school.  The court found that disciplinary proceedings “rubber-stamped” the decision of the school principal without providing due process.  The court also found that the alternative school deprived the student of his constitutional property interest because its students were left to learn on their own without educational instruction.  (Doe v. Washington County Department of Education)

In Missouri, the United States District Court refused to dismiss claims brought against educators and police for detaining a student without probable cause or exigent circumstances.  The court ruled that the in-school police interview about a non-school incident was a seizure under the Fourth Amendment and that educators were acting as agents of the police.  The court found that the interrogation violated school policy that required the presence of an administrator and parental notice.  (L.G. through M.G. v. Columbia Public Schools)

In Kentucky, the Owensboro Public Schools Board of Education will remain under a school resource officer model for an additional year.  Its agreement with the Owensboro Police Department will continue.  Earlier this year, school announced their intention to create its own police force under the Special Law Enforcement Officer (SLEO) model.

In Missouri, the Clayton School Board is considering installing gender-neutral bathrooms at each district school as part of a plan to improve student safety.  School officials are looking at social and emotional safety, bullying prevention, transgender accommodation, visitor management, and intruder deterrence.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 15, 2020

by  • 

— In Texas, the United States District Court ruled that school officials were not immune from an assault claim bought by parents of a student who went to school in a haircut with a scalp design, which educators filled in with a Sharpie permanent marker.  The court ruled that although the scalp coloring constituted corporal punishment, the rule of law is that liability depends on whether the school official intended to discipline the student for the purpose of maintaining order or respect or to cause harm to the student for no legitimate pedagogical purpose.  (Trice v. Pearland Independent School District) .

— In Indiana, the United States District Court ruled that a school policy, requiring teachers to address students by their preferred name and pronoun, was neutral and generally applicable, and thus a teacher had no right to an exemption based on his religious beliefs.  The court ruled that when a citizen enters government service he must accept limitations on his rights.  When carrying out official duties, a teacher is not speaking as a citizen for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate his communications with students from employer discipline.  (Kluge v. Brownsburg Community School Corporation)

— In Pennsylvania, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the conviction of a parent for Terroristic Threats.  The statement of the parent that, “I’ll come up there and kill all of you mother fuckers,” satisfied the requirements of the penal code that (1) a person make a threat to commit a crime of violence, and (2) the threat is communicated with the intent to terrorize another or with reckless disregard for the risk of causing terror.  (Commonwealth v. Crosby).

— In Missouri, the United States District Court upheld the suspension of a student for the off-campus Internet posting of a fellow student in a coffin with information on the funeral.  The court ruled that it was reasonably foreseeable that student’s speech would cause a substantial disruption to the educational setting.  This test focuses on the reasonableness of the response of the school, not on the intent of the student.  The court ruled that administrators that fail to enforce school rules against bullying or punishments for bullying could be liable.  (A.S. by and through Schaefer v. Lincoln County R-III School District).

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 11, 2020

by  • 

• In New Mexico, the Court of Appeals held that a school district and a school resource officer did not violate the rights of special needs student who was handcuffed after refusing to do his classwork, taking off his shoes and throwing them at staff members and administrators, running and hiding in the school, eating food off the cafeteria floor, and locking himself in the bathroom.  The court ruled that school officials did not have a duty to enact a policy expressly prohibiting the use of handcuffs on special education students nor did the SRO commit battery on the student whose conduct was outside the scope of his Behavioral Improvement Program.  (J.V.  and M.Q. v. Winston Brooks)

• In California, the Court of Appeal held that the state law prohibiting the making of criminal threats does not require an intent to actually carry out the threatened crime.   The court upheld the adjudication of a student who told another student, “I’m going to shoot up the school tomorrow.”  The court ruled that instead, the speaker must intend for the victim to receive and understand the threat, and the threat must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety. (In re A.N.)

• In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court upheld the suspension and expulsion of a student under a school policy that requires a drug test when a student is suspected to be under the influence of drugs and that deems refusals to submit to a drug test as a positive drug test.  The court ruled that there is no fundamental right to a public education and that a student’s property interests in education are protected by procedural due process even though the interest is derived from state law rather than the Constitution.  (Cole v. Central Greene School District).

• In North Carolina, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina dismissed a parent’s lawsuit claiming that repeated bullying and harassment denied her children their right to an education.  The parent claimed that despite two-years of complaints, school officials’ response was that school discipline policies would “take time” to work.  The court held that the North Carolina Constitution that provides that, “the people have a right to the privilege of education,” was “strictly confined to the intellectual function of academics,” and did not created a private right of action for abuse and injury claims.  (Deminski v. State Board of Education)

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 5, 2020

by  • 

• In Indiana, the New Albany-Floyd County Consolidated School Corporation has proposed a referendum to improve school safety and increase counseling services for children.  The referendum would open up $3.33 million per year to make schools safer.  A new Indiana law allows schools to pursue a referendum to pay solely for safety needs.  The district would spend 70% of the money on “social and emotional” services and 30% on school resource officers and building improvements.

• In Pennsylvania, House Bill 1622, also known as “Phillip’s Law,” has been introduced after an 11-year-old boy was bullied in school and died by suicide.  Under the provisions of the legislation, the state will commit to put more mental health professionals in schools to help the rising number of students struggling with anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts.  The Pennsylvania School Safety Task Force issued a Report calling for more mental health support.

• In Indiana, the South Bend School District in 2013 created a department to tackle the chronic problem of black students being disciplined at higher rates than others.  New data show that the suspension and expulsion rates for all students including black students, have continued to increase.  Neighboring districts School City of Mishawaka and Penn-Harris-Madison have seen the opposite happen.  The Department of Justice is visiting several South Bend schools to investigate and offer recommendations regarding any disparities in discipline procedures.

• In Indiana, the Indiana Youth Tobacco Survey from the Indiana State Department of Health just released its most recent youth tobacco survey, finding that the use of e-cigarettes increased 400 percent among middle and high school students from 2012 to 2019.  Researchers also found that 20 percent of high school students use vaping products regularly.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 28, 2020

by  • 

• A new Report published by the U.S. Department of Justice details the results of five “listening sessions” with the leadership of rural law enforcement agencies in five states.  The Report emphasizes lessons officers learn working in rural and remote places on community policing, school safety, and de-escalating incidents.

• In Kentucky, the Kentucky Law Enforcement Council will give its approval to the Daviess County Public Schools to create its own law enforcement agency to provide school security.  The special law enforcement officers will be Police Officer Professional Standards certified, will receive annual training required by the state and will have full law enforcement powers.

• In Mississippi, the board for the Houston School District approved a new protocol for students committing terroristic or threatening acts.  According to the protocol, when the offense occurs, the student is immediately removed from student population and the SRO (School Resource Officer) or authorities are notified.  The parents and the Intake Officer are notified immediately.

• In Rhode Island, the United States Court of Appeals held that explanations contained in school disciplinary records need not be detailed nor answer every issue raised by the student challenging the outcome.  The court ruled that a short, well-reasoned explanation of the disciplinary decision will suffice.  The school district’s decision to suspend a student for one day for fighting were not so insufficiently reasoned as to deny her procedural due process.  (Zell v. Ricci)

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 24, 2020

by  • 

• In Oklahoma, the Senate passed a gun bill that opens the door for more school employees to carry guns.  House Bill 2336 passed through the House last year and now goes to the Governor.  If enacted, the law would require a school employee to have the eight (8) hours training that is required for the standard firearm permit, along with the permission of the school board and training as required by local law enforcement.

• In Louisiana,  an analysis of the state data indicates that more than half of the state’s school districts increased safety spending.  K-12 schools in Louisiana increased its annual spending on safety measures to at least $32 million in the 2017-18 school year, the most recent year data is available, from $28 million in 2015-16, according to the Louisiana Department of Education.  One school district spends $3 million a year to have law enforcement officers on its campuses.

• In Kentucky, juvenile justice officials are reporting a decrease in the number of criminal complaints involving juveniles since the passage of Senate Bill 200.  Enacted in 2014, the law creates a pre-court diversion process for low-level delinquent and status offenders that utilizes a multidisciplinary review team, case management and referrals to services.  One county is reporting a 53% decrease in juvenile complaints.

• In Kentucky, a lawsuit filed by Daviess County Public Schools against e-cigarette manufacturer Juul Labs says the school district was harmed by a coordinated effort by Juul to addict students to nicotine.  The educators allege that Juul engaged in racketeering by employing advertising firms to draw teens’ eyes to Juul products, by paying internet influencers to recommend Juul devices to their followers and also by rewarding affiliate social media sites and blogs who would refer viewers to Juul.