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!””

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for August 14, 2025

by  • 

— In New York, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by a teacher for injuries received while in the classroom.  The case arose when “a teacher at a middle school was assaulted by a student…After serving a timely notice of claim, (the teacher) and her husband…commenced this action against the defendants, City of New York and New York City Department of Education to recover damages for personal injuries.”  The appellate court agreed with the lower court that the teacher did not have a claim against her employer.  “Although a school district owes a special duty to the students themselves, that duty does not extend, as a general matter, to teachers, administrators, and other adults.”  The Appellate court ruled that  “there are three ways in which a special duty with a municipal defendant can be formed with such individuals: (1) when the municipality violates a statutory duty enacted for the benefit of a particular class of persons; (2) when it voluntarily assumes a duty that generates justifiable reliance by the person who benefits from the duty; or (3) when the municipality assumes positive direction and control in the face of a known, blatant and dangerous safety violation.”  The teacher “failed to allege existence of special duty owed her by department.”  Geltzer v. City of New York

— In Florida, officials in the Broward County Schools are implementing “wearable panic alarm badges for teachers and staff…These interactive badges, equipped with a single button, are designed to quickly alert administrators and first responders in the event of an emergency. Pressing the button three times triggers a staff alert, while pressing it eight times or more initiates a school-wide lockdown.”

— In Florida, officials in the Volusia County Schools are adding the gun detection platform ZeroEyes.  “It uses existing campus security cameras to detect possible weapons and alert staff and law enforcement in real time.”  Also, the Xtract One Gateway system is being deployed.  It is “a new metal detection technology designed to identify threats without slowing down the morning entrance process.”

— In Michigan, “the Dundee Police Department is holding a Cones With Cops”  with students.  “Kids ages kindergarten to eighth grade will receive free ice cream cones while Dundee police officers talk to them about the importance of school safety and reducing bullying in preparation for the new year.”

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.”