Uncategorized

Safety Law News for August 7, 2025

by  • 

— In Texas, the Court of Appeals of Texas affirmed a lower court ruling that did not allow a school district to terminate a teacher for use of force in the classroom toward a student.  The incident out of which the termination took place involved a teacher who “went into the classroom and encountered a young man he did not know.  The young man began to walk toward (the teacher), who was in the doorway.  (The teacher) asked the young man for identification, but the young man … refused to provide it.  (The teacher) did not allow the unidentified young man to leave the classroom.  Another CISD employee … also asked the young man for identification, but he refused (this) request as well.  (The teacher) sought help by sending two other students to the office to ask for help in the classroom.  (The teacher) also phoned the office and texted an assistant principal to get help.  Before help could arrive, the young man escalated the encounter and was being aggressive.  The young man grabbed (the teacher’s) upper arms in what (the teacher) described as an assault.  The young man aggressively shoved (the teacher) in an attempt to exit the classroom.  (The other employee) stepped aside, offering no help beyond what he had previously done in asking for the young man’s ID.  The situation developed in a matter of seconds, culminating in both (the teacher) and the young man falling in a prone position on the ground.  (The teacher) held the young man on the ground for approximately two minutes using the weight of his torso for control and using his left hand to pin the young man’s right hand.  The young man used his free hand to repeatedly punch (the teacher) in the face … The encounter ended when the school principal arrived and instructed (the teacher) to release the young man. (The teacher) did not use a chokehold on the young man.”  The school board determined that the teacher “did fail to maintain an appropriate professional educator-student relationship and boundary based on a reasonably prudent educator.”  The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the lower tribunal (Commissioner of Education) that “the use of force was necessary under the criteria set out in state law.”  The relevant law is that a “professional employee of a school district may not be subject to disciplinary proceedings for the employee’s use of physical force against a student to the extent justified … (1) if the actor is entrusted with the care, supervision, or administration of the person for a special purpose; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is necessary to further the special purpose or to maintain discipline in a group.”   Tex. Education Code 22.0512 and Tex. Penal Code § 9.62.  The appellate court ruled that the teacher “acted reasonably during the restraint because, from his perspective, he reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary to produce compliance with the command to produce ID and to fulfill the special purpose of keeping the campus safe from an unknown and aggressive individual.”  Crowley Independent School District v. Stoneham

— In Michigan, officials in Sturgis Public Schools are utilizing Raptor Technologies for visitor screening. Under the new procedure, “All first-time visitors to the building are required to have their state-issued identification scanned through the Raptor system. Once scanned, the visitor’s information is saved in the system for future visits. This scanning is done in the main office of each school building … After the visitor has been scanned and cleared to enter the building, a visitor badge will be printed. This badge should be placed in the upper chest area of the visitor’s shirt and must be worn at all times while inside the building … When the visitor’s visit is complete, they must return to the front office to turn in their badge. The front office staff will then sign the visitor out of the Raptor system.”

— In Texas, the Liberty Hill ISD has partnered with Raptor Technologies to implement a new panic alert system.  The system uses a Raptor Badge Alert which provides staff with the option to signal an alarm with a click of the badge.  “When a badge is activated, it transmits critical information—including the exact location and type of incident—directly to school administrators, security and first responders. The wearable device is valuable in situations such as student altercations, medical emergencies or campus-wide incidents like lockdowns.”

— In California, the Bernalillo Public Schools are implementing a clear backpack policy for grades 4 through 12.  “The decision comes as a response to incidents involving knives and Tasers, as well as a growing issue with drugs, including vaping, among students.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for August 6, 2025

by  • 

— In New Mexico, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the dismissal of a case involving the search of a student’s backpack.  The appellate court reversed the trial court because the search, conducted by a school resource officer, “presented an emergency situation in which it was objectively reasonable for him to conduct the search without first going to a judicial officer and obtaining a search warrant.”  The incident arose during the school day when the student “told at least two other students that he had the firearm in his backpack and showed them the weapon. Several students later informed one of the school’s assistant principals that Child had a firearm in his backpack.”   The assistant principal, in turn, notified one of the school resource officers (SROs).”  This officer “and two other SROs proceeded to the classroom—Child’s second class of the day—where Child was then located, apprehended Child, and brought him back to the school’s administrative office. While departing the classroom, (The SRO) picked up some of Child’s belongings that were on his desk, stuffed them in Child’s backpack, which was also near his desk, and took the backpack to the administrative office … At the administrative office, (the SRO) searched Child’s backpack without a warrant to “see if [Child] had a firearm.” (The SRO) did not open all of the backpack’s compartments but, while his hand was in one of them, felt the outline of a firearm resting in another pocket of the backpack. (The SRO), being then assured the firearm was secured, stopped searching and awaited the issuance of a search warrant.”  The trial court agreed with the student that the “initial warrantless intrusion into the bag was unconstitutional.”  The appellate court reversed:  “The circumstances confronting (the SRO) presented an emergency situation.”  “Exigency is determined by an objective reasonableness standard and is determined by whether a reasonable, well-trained officer would have made the judgment this officer made.”  “The very real dangers of deadly weapons on school grounds are obvious.”  “Given that Child had been detained in the middle of his classroom, in full view of other students, it was objectively reasonable for (the SRO) to seek to immediately confirm that he had in fact seized the firearm and that it was not then accessible—in some alternate location—to other students who could move, hide, or otherwise use it.”  State v. Maximillian H.

— In ­­­­Florida, the legislature amended a 2024 law that “required every door on school campuses to remain locked during the day. The mandate quickly raised concerns from educators and administrators. It effectively put many schools into constant lockdown mode, creating unnecessary complications with no specific threat present … Only exterior entry points must remain locked under the updated law.”

— In Michigan, the school safety hotline, OK2Say, is prompting a record number of tips.  “Michigan’s OK2Say school violence prevention program received a record 11,671 confidential tips in 2024, a 20% increase over 2023.”  School official say that “students are growing increasingly comfortable leaving tips via voicemail, texts, a website or a mobile phone app.”

— In Maryland, the Baltimore City Schools are installing new AI technology in schools to enhance campus safety.  Its new “Convergint’s STEP Up for Schools initiative” is designed to upgrade “security in underserved schools worldwide.”

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.”