Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 29, 2019.

by  • 

In Connecticut, the United States District Court held that an educator does not become an agent of police when he telephones local police, informs them about a threatening e-mail, and thereafter responds to police inquiries by giving them information about suspected students.  The police investigation resulted in removing a suspected student from a school bus, arresting and detaining him for about an hour, and then releasing him, without further charge or action against him.  (Thais Ortolaza v. Capitol Region Education Council)

In New York, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division held that an assault on a student by a second student was an unforeseeable act for which school district could not be held liable.  The assault occurred while the two students were in the classroom, during start of class, during which the injured student walked by the second student and called him “fat,” and while classroom teacher was standing in hallway ushering other students into classroom or conversing with another teacher.  (Meyer v. Magalios)

In South Carolina, school resource officers will receive active shooter vests  that will stop a bullet from a high-powered rifle.  The vests are being donated by US Patriot Tactical, a company specializing in military and law enforcement gear and equipment.

Active shooter incidents tend not to involve a pistol or revolver but rather a high-powered rifle.

In Colorado, the Douglas County commissioners voted to allocate $10 million toward improving school security and mental health at the Douglas County School District.  The votes come three weeks after one student was killed and another eight were injured in a shooting at STEM School Highlands Ranch.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 24, 2019

by  • 

• In Georgia, the United States Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that the search of a student’s cell phone without a warrant by school officials did not violate the Fourth Amendment.  The lower court held that, “a school official’s search of a student’s cell phone on school property and during the school day still fits within the framework announced in T.L.O.” [Jackson v. McCurry]

• In Maryland,  the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland upheld the adjudication of a student for gun possession on campus after the search of a school resource officer discovered the weapon.  The court ruled that the student’s behavior, the odor of marijuana, and the SRO’s knowledge of the student’s previous possession of marijuana provided probable cause to search and arrest him.  The court refused to decide whether the lower standard of reasonable suspicion under New Jersey v. T.L.O., (469 U.S. 325 (1985)) applied to the searches by school resource officers. [Xavier Matthews v. State of Maryland]

• In North Carolina, the Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the adjudication of a student for disorderly conduct after being found leaving school during the school day without permission by a school resource officer.  The court held that directing abusive and profane language at a police officer in a boisterous manner and resisting the commands of the SRO supported an inference that such language could likely provoke retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of peace.  The use of profane language was not protected by the First Amendment in all circumstances.  [In The Matter of: A.R.-V.]

• In Oregon, the Portland City Council voted to provide $1.6 million to fund school resource officer programs in three of the city’s largest school districts.  The decision was supported by superintendents for all three districts although some students and community members disagree.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 14, 2019

by  • 

In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court ruled that parents of a disabled child could not bring a lawsuit against a school district for releasing information about the disability for a juvenile delinquency proceeding.  The court held that neither FERPA nor HIPAA create a private right of action, the Privacy Act of 1974 does not apply to state or municipal agencies, and IDEA provides for administrative procedures to enforce the rights it created which must be exhausted before a law suit can be filed.  (Howard v. Chester County Office of Juvenile Probation and Parole).

In Connecticut, the Superior Court of Connecticut ruled that school officials should have done more to prevent a 16-year-old student from stabbing to death a high school classmate.  The court refused to dismiss the wrongful death lawsuit because notice given to administrators by the victim should have triggered mandatory school intervention procedures.  The court held that educators have a duty to protect school children from reasonably anticipated dangers. (Cimarelli-Sanchez  v. City of Milford Board of Education).

In California, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the probation condition prohibiting a student from possessing a smart phone after he was suspended and adjudicated for taking a video of a female classmate while using the toilet and posting it on the Internet.  The court ruled that the prohibition did not violate his rights because less sophisticated means of communication were still available to him, such as a non-smart cell phone, a landline phone, the mail, or in-person contact. The ban made it easier for school officials and the probation department to detect and supervise the student.
(In re N.T.)

In Colorado, officials in Douglas County agreed to allocate $10 million toward boosting security inside the Douglas County School District, less than a week after two students at STEM School Highlands Ranch shot nine of their classmates, one fatally.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 8th, 2019

by  • 

• In Vermont, the Supreme Court ruled that educators were not liable after a student committed suicide as a result of being assaulted by his teammates on the school football team.  The court held that schools owe students a duty of ordinary care and could not be held liable for injuries that a reasonable person could not have foreseen or anticipated. The school’s complete lack of notice of a pattern of hazing by team members was determinative. (Stopford v. Milton Town School District)

• In Ohio, the United States Court of Appeals ruled that the use of a body sock on a special needs student who fell while in body sock, injuring his front teeth,  constituted a “seizure” for purposes of an excessive force claim.  Nevertheless, the court held that the teacher did not violate the rights of the student because the sock was designed specifically as a therapeutic tool and was not excessive under the circumstances. 

(Crochran through Shields v. Columbus City Schools)

• In Maine, the United States District Court ruled that a high school student would be allowed to pursue a federal law claim based on Title IX for peer-on-peer sexual harassment against school officials.  The court held that the facts of the victim’s case fell within the scope of the law.  A school is liable under Title IX when it does nothing to stop known incidents of harassment and assault. (Education Amendments of 1972 § 901, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1681(a).)  (McCann on behalf of J.M. v. York School Department)

• In New York, the Supreme Court held that a school did not breach the special duty owed to a student who was struck by an automobile while crossing the street leaving school.  The court ruled that the school could not be liable when an accident occurs so quickly that even the most intense supervision could not have prevented it.  The crossing guard told the student not to cross the street at the unsafe location and pointed student to the nearest crosswalk.  But the student crossed the street in the middle of the block where there was no intersection or crosswalk and no traffic device affording her right-of-way.  (K.A. v. City of New York)

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 2, 2019

by  • 

• In California, the California Court of Appeal ruled that school officials may search the cell phone of a student when they have a reasonable belief that school rules have been violated.  The court affirmed the trial court ruling that the student’s cell phone was lawfully seized and searched when video recordings of female students in the locker room were posted on the Internet.  (In re Adrian O)

• In Alabama, the Supreme Court of Alabama held that state law does not make a school board or its members an arm of the state for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity for violating the federal civil rights of students.  The court ruled that while board members were entitled to qualified immunity in their individual capacities from the federal civil rights claim, they are not immune in their official capacity from lawsuits challenging school policies under federal law.  Parents of the student filed an excessive force lawsuit after a teacher assaulted their child.  (Ex parte Wilcox County Board of Education)

• In California, the California Court of Appeal ruled that state law protects a school district from liability for injuries resulting from the negligence of other persons or organizations using school facilities.  The court affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by a parent who suffered serious injuries when he fell off an inflatable slide while attending a carnival held at the school sponsored by a community group and the parent-teacher association (PTA). (Grossman v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District)

• In Indiana, the Court of Appeals of Indiana ruled that school officials are not entitled to immunity under state law in a wrongful-death lawsuit.  The court reversed a ruling by the trial court that dismissed a case involving a student who left school in mid-day and was murdered.  Parents argued that the school was liable for failing to properly supervise and monitor their child.  The appellate court held that the school could be liable if it was aware of the student’s truancy and his status as a runaway, and failed to supervise him properly.  (Murray v. Indianapolis Public Schools)

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 25, 2019

by  • 

In Louisiana, the Court of Appeal of Louisiana held that schools have a duty to provide reasonable, competent supervision appropriate to the age of the students. The court reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit by parents of a kindergartner who fractured her arm during recess on the playground. The court ruled that the central question in supervision cases is whether the supervision provided is reasonable considering the age of the children and the attendant circumstances, and whether the accident/incident could have been prevented. (Robinson v. St. John the Baptist Parish School Board).

In California, the California Court of Appeal held that schools have a duty to supervise the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules necessary to their protection.  The court reversed the dismissal of a lawsuit by parents of a middle-school student who was sexually abused by a teacher with a history of sexual battery accusations.  The court reasoned that liability could be based on the fact that educators failed to adequately supervise the teacher and failed to follow school policy.  (C.A. v. Los Angeles Unified School District).

In Florida,  Polk County Public Schools Superintendent announced Tuesday that the district will continue to place armed guardians and school resource officers in the district’s 150 schools, rather than arm teachers.  Current Florida law allows the arming of school staff other than classroom teachers.  The Florida Senate passed a bill (SB 7030)  proposing an amendment to allow for the arming of teachers in the state.

In Texas, the Coppell Independent School District is implementing multiple new safety and security measures. Among the changes are measures that encourage parents to be aware and involved in their students’ school safety experience.