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.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 19, 2025

by  • 

— In Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, affirmed the denial of immunity for educators in a case involving a student-on-student assault.  The lawsuit arose out of an incident in which “three minor students (two male, one female) …were enrolled in special education and required supervision by the District employees. During a physical education class, the two males pushed and pulled (the victim) behind the gym bleachers, into a bathroom, and sexually assaulted her.”  The claims of the victim’s parents included a breach of the duty to supervise and protect and negligent infliction of emotional distress.  Educators argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the grounds of immunity “because a third party, and not the District or its employees, committed the sexual abuse.”  In affirming the lower court refusal to dismiss, the appellate court declared that child protection reforms in state law remove immunity “if two conditions are satisfied. First, the plaintiff’s damages would be recoverable under common law. Second, the plaintiff’s injury was caused by the negligent acts of the school district or an employee thereof acting within the scope of his office or duties with respect to one of the nine categories of exceptions.”  The ninth category – the sexual abuse exception” – confirms the elimination of immunity “if the injuries to the plaintiff were caused by actions or omissions of the local agency which constitute negligence.”  Based upon this precedent, the appellate court affirmed, holding that educators were neither “absolutely immune for the harm caused by third parties” nor immune unless “the District or its employee commit sexual abuse.”  The legislative history of the Pennsylvania child protection reforms confirm that the legislature “intended to (1) hold public institutions accountable for enabling abusers to commit their crimes against children, and (2) expand a plaintiff’s right to sue to include such public institutions.”  L.F.V. by Varano v. S. Philadelphia High School

— In Oregon, “the Salem-Keizer School District will become the first in Oregon to install weapons detectors at all six of its comprehensive high schools.”  School officials say that “the district is likely to expand the technology to its middle schools as well.”

— In Wisconsin, officials from the Green Bay Public School District say that they are “enhancing safety protocols moving forward.  It comes after a loaded gun was found inside a student’s backpack at Preble High last week.  Students who contribute to what the district calls “unsafe acts”, such as fighting, assault, or possession/use of weapons, will face a multi-day suspension at a minimum, according to new protocols sent out on Thursday.  They will also be suspended from athletic teams and activities and will be subject to a no-trespass order.”

— In California, the legislature has enrolled SB 848.  Its provisions “would strengthen student safety in California by requiring schools to update their Comprehensive School Safety Plans with clear procedures for preventing, detecting, and addressing employee sexual misconduct. SB 848 also broadens mandated reporting requirements, enhances employee training, and revises relevant provisions in law to ensure stronger protections.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 12, 2025

by  • 

— In Rhode Island, the United States District Court disagreed with the parent of a middle school student who asserted in a lawsuit that school resource officers used excessive force in removing him from the interior of the school building during an arrest for disorderly conduct.  The court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by the parent, ruling that video evidence did not support the excessive force claim.  The video supported the narrative that the parent “went to the school during school hours to remove his daughter (who had texted him for help with an issue with her clothing)…  As he entered, a school employee asked him to put on a mask to comply with Covid guidelines and he refused, threw the proffered mask in the trash and entered the building to sit in the school lobby… (when asked) to wait outside while his daughter was summoned, he refused, remaining inside the main lobby of the school… (The parent) began to become irate and belligerent, yelling loudly and using profane language directed at school officials.”  Efforts to deescalate the situation failed.  The SROs “used a head-to-head maneuver to safely finish pushing Plaintiff Mello out of the school lobby into the vestibule and take him to the ground in a controlled descent in the vestibule… A significant struggle followed before (the SROs) were able to apply handcuffs.”  The court denied the motion by the parent because, “having watched (the video) carefully, I find that the videos on which Plaintiffs rely do not utterly discredit Defendants’ version of the events; to the contrary… I find that these videos are susceptible of the interpretation presented by Defendants, including that (the parent’s) disorderly conduct was seriously disruptive and frightening, potentially endangering children and staff at a public school during school hours so that, although the crimes (disorderly conduct and possession of illegal knives) are misdemeanors, their severity in context was significant, and that (the parent’s) aggressive and persistent resistance during and after arrest justified the extent of the force that (the SROs) deployed.”  Mello v. Arruda

— Nationally, “A new security standard for schools from the nonprofit American National Standards Institute (ANSI) suggests a three-pronged approach (for K-12 schools) involving physical protection, behavior management and emergency operations planning.”

— In Georgia, “following a string of recent weapon-related incidents on school campuses, Gwinnett County parents packed the first School Safety Advisory Committee meeting of the year… demanding stronger security measures and more training for teachers to better protect students.”

— In Illinois, the Illinois State Board of Education “will now be required to partner with first responders to create threat assessment plans for schools across the state.”  Senate Bill 2057 authorizes “the Illinois State Board of Education and the Office of the State Fire Marshall to create new rules that guide school districts, private schools, and first responders on how to develop threat assessment procedures, rapid entry response plans, and cardiac emergency response plans.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for September 5, 2025

by  • 

— In Mississippi, the Supreme Court of Mississippi denied immunity to a school district in a case involving the assault and battery of a student by a school bus driver.  The allegations state that the student “was sexually battered by her bus driver … numerous times to and from school for more than a month.”  The student alleged that the school district was negligent in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining the bus driver.  The lower court found that the school district “was entitled to discretionary-function immunity under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act.”  The lower court also held that educators “lacked notice of his abusive proclivities,”  such that “the bus driver’s criminal conduct was otherwise not reasonably foreseeable.”  The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed.  In denying immunity the Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that immunity applies to “those functions which by nature are policy decisions, whether made at the operational or planning level.”  The court held that “the specific choice to hire (the bus driver) and the choices the District made regarding his training, retention, and supervision, do not involve policy considerations.”  As to foreseeability, the court stated that the rule is that “a person of ordinary intelligence should have anticipated the dangers that his negligent act created for others.”  Therefore, the student’s injuries were foreseeable because “[t]he District had a system whereby each complaint was recorded and investigated, either by taking student statements or by reviewing the bus video tape.  The District’s own measures to screen and monitor its bus drivers arguably indicate that a person of ordinary intelligence could anticipate the failure to properly do so would lead to the type of injury sustained by the plaintiff here.” J.S. by & Through Segroves v. Ocean Springs School District

— In Minnesota, the legislature is planning a special session on gun control following the recent mass shooting at Annunciation Church and Catholic School.  The list of policies to be discussed includes expanding school safety funding to private schools, deploying police in all schools, increasing funding for mental health supports, and more rigorous sentencing guidelines for gun criminals.

— In Kansas, “[a]dministrators at Lawrence High School instituted mass bathroom closures to address behaviors like vaping and skipping class… Under the current LHS bathroom policy, all bathrooms are closed and locked during class periods, except for the gender-neutral stalls. Staff members are supposed to unlock the bathrooms at the start of passing periods and re-lock them when class resumes.”

— In Arizona, “Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said he would be requesting more money from the Legislature to expand the state’s School Safety Program, a grant program to help schools create safer learning environments.  Most of the program’s grant dollars are used to pay for police officers, counselors and social workers on campuses.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for August 22, 2025

by  • 

— In Texas, the United States District Court dismissed a lawsuit brought by a parent who was arrested for failing to comply with school policy on student drop-offs.  The incident occurred when a school resource officer (SRO) enforced the policy of the school of “closing the main drop-off point for students and requiring  parents (who) were running behind … to take their children to the school’s front entrance.”  One parent, arriving late, refused to comply when the SRO “raised her left hand up with her palm towards (the parent) and signaled with her index finger for (the parent) to make a ‘U’ motion … to turn around.”  The conflict quickly escalated when the parent continued to drive forward into the SRO, “causing the vehicle’s bumper guard to strike her left breast.”  The SRO eventually forced the stoppage of the vehicle, and with assistance from backup police and fire department officials, arrested the parent.  The court applied the law that a “police officer must have reasonable suspicion to justify (an) investigative stop, which requires the police officer to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion… “arrests are ‘seizures’ of ‘persons’ ” and, therefore, must be reasonable under the circumstances” to comply with the Fourth Amendment … A warrantless arrest is reasonable if the officer has ‘probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been committed.”  The court dismissed with prejudice the claims of the parent, concluding that the SRO “did not violate (the parent’s) Fourth Amendment rights because (the SRO) had reasonable suspicion to temporarily detain (the parent) for violating the Texas Transportation Code, and probable cause to arrest her for felony aggravated assault on a public servant, as well as for violating the Texas Transportation Code.”  Lambert v. City of Onalaska, Texas, No. 9:23-CV-00067-MJT-CLS, 2025 WL 2369403 (E.D. Tex. June 9, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 9:23-CV-00067-MJT, 2025 WL 2028086 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2025)

— In West Virginia, the Kanawha County Schools are installing a school mapping system, designed to “standardize all schools floor plans, show access points, and emergency equipment to all emergency management services.  Officials believe that “it will enhance first responders’ situational awareness and improve response times during an emergency.”

— In New York, “the New York City Police Department is transferring oversight of its 3,600 school safety agents from the Community Affairs Bureau to the office of Chief of Department.”  It is “a move that comes as the department’s commissioner pushes for stricter repercussions for some teens convicted of serious crimes.”

— In Florida, school districts in the state are implementing drone technology to assist responders to school shootings.  “The drones, stored in secure boxes on campus, can be deployed within five seconds of silent panic buttons being activated. The devices—operated remotely by a team in Texas—provide constant live video feeds to first responders and, in some cases, fire nonlethal projectiles to delay or incapacitate an assailant.”  The Leon County Schools District Security Center in Tallahassee and the AcadeMir Preparatory High School in Miami-Dade County are involved in the pilot project to fine-tune the resource for use in state schools.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for August 18, 2025

by  • 

— In New Mexico, the New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of liability against a school district that failed to follow its own procedures for maintaining a safe learning environment.  The record contains the facts that the parent of the injured student “spoke with (the school administrator) about concerns she had regarding (another student) who was …making threats online against (her child).”  The administrator “believed her concerns lacked merit because she did not have first-hand evidence of the threats.”  It was significant that “that same week, one of (the victim’s) teachers reported to (the school administrator) that two other sixth-grade students had informed her that (the bully) was threatening to fight (the victim).”  Even so, however, “(the school administrator) did not investigate the reported threats as required by the Academy’s own policies.”  Then “three days (later), (the bully) slammed (the victim’s) head against a cafeteria table three times. (The victim) suffered a traumatic brain injury.”  At trial, the district court denied immunity for the school district, “and awarded (the victim) $400,000—the maximum allowed under (state law)—for (the victim’s) past and future pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.”  The appellate court affirmed liability on the issue immunity.  The germane rule of law is that the waiver of immunity in school safety litigation “extends to negligence arising from the failure to follow protocols and procedures that gives rise to a dangerous condition … government entities that engage in an act of negligent operation by failing to follow their own protocols and procedures may be subject to negligence claims.”  Therefore, the affirmance of liability was required under law because the “failure (of the school) to follow the school violence prevention policy created an unsafe condition for its students.”  Duran v. Board of Education of Pojoaque Valley School District

— In Illinois, the legislature has enacted Senate Bill 2057.  It “requires the State Board of Education to provide school districts with standards for a school district’s threat assessment procedures.”  The hope is that the standards will “guide school districts, private schools, and first responders on how to develop threat assessment procedures, rapid entry response plans, and cardiac emergency response plans…The law also gives guidance for school districts notifying parents and the community of threats against a school.”

— In Florida, officials in Port St. Lucie are upgrading security for school sponsored sporting events.  “The district said it plans to use metal detectors periodically at athletic events…Late guests past the kick-off of the third quarter of a football game will not be allowed in.  Bags must be no larger than a hand.

— In Texas, the Texas School Safety Center is implementing a video-based program “to educate students and parents about the serious consequences of making or sharing threats.”  The “Threats are No Joke,” instructional “includes a powerful PSA video and supporting resources for educators and parents to share the message, “Threats Are No Joke! Don’t do it. Don’t share it. Report it!””