Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 1st, 2020

by  • 

— In Florida, the District Court of Appeal of Florida held that parents of a student killed in the campus shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School could not sue the shooter’s mental health provider for negligence.  The court ruled that the parent’s theory of liability was undermined by Florida law that a criminal attack on third parties by an outpatient mental health patient is not within the foreseeable zone of risk created by the mental health provider.  Florida law does not recognize a duty of mental health providers to warn third parties that a patient may be dangerous. This is because of “the inherent unpredictability associated with mental illnesses and the near-impossibility of accurately or reliably predicting dangerousness.” (Pollack v. Cruz)

— In New York, the United States District Court, ruled that educators did not violate the law by suspending a student for making threatening posts on social media.  The court held that the student’s social media posts constituted a reasonable risk of a substantial disruption under the Tinker standard, where the student had previously been suspended for allegedly intimidating a teacher during class, made many social media posts indicating his opinion that the school was unfair, racist, or evil, one of student’s posts depicted an unknown woman handling a gun, many of the student’s classmates could view the posts, and in fact classmates and parents approached multiple school officials and expressed concern for student safety after viewing the posts.  (Spero v. Vestal Central School District)

— In New Jersey, the United States District Court, ruled that school officials’ search of a student’s sketchbook, person, and belongings was justified and did not violate Fourth Amendment.  The court said that educators had reasonable suspicion because (1) the student drew a weapon, (2) the student bought weapons to school in the past, and (3) the search was done in privacy of vice principal’s office.  (K.J. v. Greater Egg Harbor Regional High School District Board of Education).

— In Indiana, Noblesville police officers will be equipped with upgraded body cameras that detect gunshots. 

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 27, 2020

by  • 

— In West Virginia, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia held that educators were not liable for injuries to a student.  The student, who injured his arm while wrestling with a classmate on the school soccer field, had left the high school building without authorization.  The court ruled that under the in loco parentis doctrine, schools have a special relationship with students entrusted to their care, which imposes upon them certain duties of reasonable supervision.  But, school officials did not owe a duty of supervision to the student once he left school building without authorization.  (Goodwin v. Board of Education of Fayette County).

— In South Carolina, the United States District Court, refused to dismiss an excessive force case brought against a school resource officer who, upon deciding to arrest a 16 year-old special needs student for disrupting the classroom, grabbed the student and the desk in which she was sitting, flipped them backward, and pulled her out of the desk.  The court ruled that using such force on a nonthreatening and nonviolent student to effect an arrest for a misdemeanor would be excessive.  The court ruled that clearly established law requires police to account for special considerations in school settings when conducting searches and seizures: the student’s age, sex, and nature of the infraction. (Murphy v. Fields)

— In Massachusetts,  school officials in Westford Public Schools, Lunenburg Public Schools, and Lowell Public Schools are focusing on social and emotional learning in the educational packets being distributed to students and families.  The curriculum includes a wide range of supports and programs that help students manage emotions, build relationships and face the challenges of the pandemic quarantine.

— In Missouri, school officials are voicing strong opinions to legislation affecting school safety.  Educators support Senate Bill 774 which would mandate the presence of armed “school protection officers” in every building during school hours.  However, a second proposal would extend the state’s concealed-carry law onto college and K-12 campuses as well as into bars, day care centers and courthouses.  A third new law would prohibit state and local law enforcement officers from assisting in the enforcement of federal gun laws.  See, Senate Bill 663, House Bill 1630, Senate Bill 700, Senate Bill 774, House Bill 1637, House Bill 575.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 22, 2020

by  • 

— In Canada, the school resource officers in Guelph, Ontario are hosting interactive presentations on the Internet to the students that are isolated in their homes during the pandemic.  These presentations follow the same format as presentations the SROs give in schools on topics such as online and social media safety, drug awareness and mental health. Students receive community hours credit for participating.

— In Florida, School Resource Officers and the Okaloosa County Sheriff’s Office Cyber Crimes Unit worked together to protect children during the COVID-19 pandemic from child pornography crimes in Okaloosa County.  Several suspects were arrested because of their efforts.

— In South Carolina, a state task force of educators and administrators is providing recommendations on how schools and districts can safely restart schools in the fall.  The AccelerateED Task Force is recommending emphasizing the importance of having nurses ready for students in every school.

— In Georgia,  educators in Forsyth County want $1.6 million to hire unarmed campus security associates whose duties would combine campus safety with preventing the criminalization of some students at a young age.

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)