Safety Law News for March 2, 2018

  • In Florida, the Hernando County school board voted to add additional officers at schools in response to the Parkland tragedy. Only 13 of their 23 schools had school resource officers.  The policy is effective immediately.  The officers will be in place as soon as possible.
  • In Alabama, the Tuscumbia Board of Education is teaming up with the City of Tuscumbia Police Department to implement a school resource officer program.  Officers will be assigned immediately to the high school and middle school, but will also patrol the halls of the elementary schools.
  • In Massachusetts, officials in Yarmouth have revised the policies regarding the 31 year-long school resource officer program.  School Resource Officers will now be in full uniform each day.  They will also have access to long weapons which can match and overcome the weapons used in the most recent school shootings.

Safety Law News for February 23, 2018

  • In Indiana, the Indiana Court of Appeals suppressed the statements of a student to a school official admitting placing graffiti on the walls of the boys’ restrooms.  The administrator immediately told a police officer, who entered the office, spoke to the student and arrested him.  The officer did not advise the student of his constitutional rights nor contact a parent. [D.Z. v. State of Indiana]
  • In Florida, the Broward County Sheriff is implementing a new policy that allows deputies guarding county schools to carry rifles, including AR-15s.  The officers will keep rifles locked in school offices during the day and take them home at night.

Safety Law News for February 20, 2018

  • In Ohio, the Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the suppression of statements made to police by a juvenile during an interrogation.  The court ruled that the juvenile’s waiver of his Miranda rights was not valid because (1) his first and primary language was Spanish, (2) he had just turned 16 when the interrogation occurred, (3) he was a poor student repeating the ninth grade, (4) he had no previous contact with the police, and (5) school officials did nothing to ensure that suspect’s parents were aware of the situation. [State v. Pablo]

 

 

  • In California, the United States District Court ruled that a school district bears a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in supervising students and may be held liable for injuries caused by the failure to exercise such care.  The court refused to dismiss a claim by a student that the school’s inadequate supervision allowed a known bully to harass and inappropriately touch him.  [Wormuth v. Lammersville Union School District].

 

Safety Law News for February 16, 2018

 

 

  • In South Carolina, after new officers from the Conway Police Department graduate from the police academy, they are required to spend the last two weeks of field training in local middle and high schools, shadowing school resource officers.  The new policy is designed to improve relationships with students and help prevent crime in and outside the classroom.

 

Safety Law News for February 14, 2018

 

 

 

  • In Pennsylvania, following the thwarted attempt of a school shooting in Uniontown School District last month, local superintendents in Fayette County have stressed that the most important tool to ensure student safety is communication.

Safety Law News for February 9, 2018

 

  • In Massachusetts, the United States District Court ruled that a school could be liable under Title IX for being deliberately indifferent to a student’s peer-to-peer sexual discrimination by using restorative justice mediation rather than direct intervention.  The court held that even if the mediation was “timely and reasonable,” it could still amount to deliberate indifference under the law.  [Harrington by Harrington v. City of Attleboro]

 

  • In California, the United States Court of Appeals, ruled that a school uniform policy requiring clothing with a logo consisting of the name of the school, the school mascot, and the motto “Tomorrow’s Leaders,” violated the First Amendment.  The court ruled that the policy exemption, which allowed only the uniform of nationally recognized youth organizations (Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts) was an unreasonable restriction on the speech of students.  [Frudden v. Pilling].