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.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 16, 2025

by  • 

— In California, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a jury award for $1 million in damages to a student who – the jury found – was injured when the school “negligently failed to protect her from other students’ bullying.”  “The jury found the District negligent under both a general negligence theory and a negligent training and supervision theory.”  The bullying was experienced during the 2017–2018 school year.  It involved numerous incidents, ranging from text messaging to a decision by a student “to create a petition titled, “Petition to END [E.I.’s] Life” (which) … another student at the Middle School, drafted and signed … while other students wrote comments on it.”  The response of school officials also varied, from telling the victim that “girls will be girls” or that “[t]his is just girl drama,” to talking about the possibility of “meeting in a restorative justice setting,” to informing the victim’s parents that the bullies “had been suspended. Nevertheless, (one of them) was allowed to attend the school’s promotion ceremony the next day.”  On appeal the school officials argued that they “had no duty to protect (the victim) from harm caused by other students.”  The appellate court disagreed, holding that “California law has long imposed on school authorities a duty to supervise at all times the conduct of the children on the school grounds and to enforce those rules and regulations necessary to their protection…It is well-settled that a school district and its employees have a special relationship with the district’s pupils, a relationship arising from the mandatory character of school attendance and the comprehensive control over students exercised by school personnel… Because of this special relationship, the duty of care owed by school personnel includes the duty to use reasonable measures to protect students from foreseeable injury at the hands of third parties acting negligently or intentionally.”  As to immunity, the appellate court ruled that “the District is not immune from liability arising out of the Middle School employees’ responses to (the victim’s) complaints that she was being bullied by other students.”  E.I. v. El Segundo Unified School District

— In Wisconsin, the legislature is considering  Assembly Bill 298.  Its provisions provide funding a campus safety program that would encourage colleges to provide “mapping data to law enforcement in crisis scenarios.”  Schools k-12 already are allowed to do so under 2021 Wisconsin Act 109.

— In South Dakota, “starting July 1, the four-year and technical institutions will no longer be able to restrict the lawful concealed carry of firearms and weapons on campuses.”  “Senate Bill 100 … makes South Dakota the 12th state to allow concealed carry on college campuses. It applies to students 18 and older and staff members who have an enhanced permit that requires the person to take a handgun safety course and abide by other requirements.”

— In Georgia, officials in Marietta City Schools are reporting on the analytics after “limit(ing) student access to cellphones and smartwatches during the school day” during the 2024-2025 school year.  School officials report that the results were “compelling” — with 68% of middle school teachers reporting they felt less stressed and more confident to do their job.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for June 11, 2025

by  • 

— In New York, the United States District Court upheld the decision of school officials to suspend and arrest a student “for the crime of Falsely Reporting an Incident.”  The decision to suspend and arrest arose after another “student (while at school) received an image on her cell phone via AirDrop that appeared to show two guns on a table with the caption: ‘Don’t come to school tomorrow.’”  The lawsuit centered around the seizure and search of cell phones.  After identifying the identity of the student who AirDropped the image, school officials  took and searched his phone.  The student argued that the administrator “illegally seized … and searched his cell phone.”  The brother of the student, also enrolled at the school, joined the lawsuit to allege that another administrator “illegally seized … and searched his cell phone.”  There was police involvement.  “Police officers were in the room while School District (officials) looked at (the student’s) phone.”  Police did not “ever personally looked at (the student’s) phone.”  The court ruled that School District (officials’) in-school interviews of (the students) and examinations of their cell phones were seizures and searches.”  Even so, however, the court applied the case of  New Jersey v. T.L.O., holding that the “in-school interviews and cell phones searches were justified at the inception. On the day in question, School District Defendants were reasonably investigating what they perceived to be a serious school shooting threat…With respect to the cell phone searches, specifically, School District Defendants had reasonable grounds to believe that the students’ cell phones would contain information about the AirDropped Image.”  The court also ruled that, “the interviews of (the students) were reasonable in scope.”  As to the depth of the search of the phones and the extended period of the confiscation, the court ruled that the school officials were  “shielded by qualified immunity and therefore cannot be liable for the searches of the (students’) cell phones.”  As to the role of the police, the court held that no rights were violated.  “(The police) did not question (the students). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that (the police) ever conducted a search of either (student’s) phone…At most, the record shows that (the police) were present for the in-school interviews and cell phone searches and may have incidentally seen content on the (students’) cell phones.”  Singh v. Sachem Central School District

— In New York, the New York State Senate “has passed legislation…to improve the training school security guards receive to work in an educational environment.  Senate Bill S194A “requires school-specific instruction as part of the annual training for guards employed or contracted by schools.”

— In Alabama, the Walker County Sheriff “was arrested and indicted by a grand jury for employing non-certified people as School Resource Officers and deputy sheriff.”  The Sheriff “is charged with at six counts for assigning unqualified individuals to positions where they wore uniforms, carried weapons, carried badges and used fully-equipped patrol vehicles.”

— In Virginia, Fairfax County Public Schools officials are implementing a program for the use of weapons detectors in its schools.  “Before students enter, they must remove from their backpacks any items that could set off a false alarm, such as laptops, three-ring binders, collapsible umbrellas, metal lunch boxes, metal pencil cases, and metal glasses cases. If an alarm sounds, the student must pass a secondary screening.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 29, 2025

by  • 

— In Michigan, the United States District Court upheld the expulsion of a student for making a threatening remark about a gun while on campus.  The student “made a remark about a gun to several other students…At least four students perceived the remark as a threat and reported it to their parents and (school officials).”  The shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan, in which  5 students were killed, had occurred one week earlier.  School officials, based upon the disciplinary history of the student, “referred him to the Board for an expulsion hearing.”  The student argued, inter alia, that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment when searching his person, backpack, and school locker. The student also alleges that he was expelled “without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  The court held that as to the Fourth Amendment, school officials “do not need probable cause to justify a search of a student at its inception. Indeed, recognizing the difference between school and law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court describes the lesser standard to justify school searches as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing… Only unreasonable seizures violate the Fourth Amendment. Like searches, seizures are unreasonable if they are unjustified at their inception or unreasonable in scope.”  As to the Fourteenth Amendment and due process, the court explained that substantive due process requirements are violated “when discretionary government action is arbitrary and capricious, willful and unreasoning, conscience-shocking, or extremely irrational.”  Procedural process requirements are violated when a student shows that an expulsion occurs “without adequate process…(e.g.) when the individuals responsible for deciding whether to deprive a person of his interest are biased.”  The court dismissed the claims.  School officials “reasonably searched and seized” the student.  And no “reasonable juror” could conclude that (the student’s) expulsion shocks the conscience.”  Finally, “there is no convincing evidence in the record to support (the student’s) claim that the CCPS School Board prejudged him.”  The court opined that, the “Oxford shooting heightened the severity of student threats involving firearms at nearby Michigan public schools.”  Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools

— In Washington, D.C., the U. S. Department of Education “released guidance to ensure that students in unsafe public schools can access safe alternatives.”  The Unsafe School Choice Option is “designed to ensure students in persistently dangerous schools are provided with an opportunity to attend a safe public elementary or secondary school, including a public charter school.”

— In Florida, the legislature has enacted a new policy expanding the scope of school safety regulations.  Senate Bill 1470 expands the state’s Guardian Program to include childcare centers.”

— In Virginia, the Loudoun County Sheriff is seeking the expansion of the school resource officer program to include the 65 elementary schools.  The Loudoun County Sheriff Strategic Plan reflects the belief that “if you have any kind of significant incident at a school, unarmed security is not going to be able to do much … They’re not part of our emergency response team, so they’re not going to know who to call, whether you need fire and rescue out there, whether you have a medical emergency, and what kind of steps that we take to notify parents.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 21, 2025

by  • 

— In Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals, affirmed that school officials did not violate a student’s free speech rights when they asked the student to remove a hat depicting an automatic weapon.  The lawsuit arose when the student “arrived at school wearing a black baseball cap that displayed a white star, a white image of an AR-15-style rifle, and the capitalized phrase, “COME AND TAKE IT.”  School officials determined that the hat “was inappropriate for an elementary school setting… decided to call (the student’s) parents and ask them to bring her a substitute hat to wear. (The parents) declined to do so. From there, (school officials) went to (the student’s) classroom, called her into the hallway, and asked her to remove the Hat and put it inside her locker. (The student) complied without issue.”  The rule of law applied by the lower court was that “at a minimum, to invoke First Amendment protections, a student must show that her conduct is imbued with elements of communication which convey a particularized message that will be understood by those who view it.  Simply wanting to wear clothes that students believe “look nice” and reflect their middle-school individuality, for instance, does not trigger First Amendment protections. If a student can establish that her conduct was expressive and intended to convey some sort of message, a school may nonetheless regulate speech that is vulgar, plainly offensive, or inconsistent with its basic educational mission.”  On appeal, the appellate court agreed that under the First Amendment, schools may place reasonable regulations on student speech during the school day that are reasonable related to their duty to preserve the learning environment, avoid disruptions.  The appellate court reasoned that “in consideration of (the elementary school’s) special characteristics and circumstances, such as its absorption of students from the Oxford School District and the especially young age of (the student) and her classmates, combined with the Hat’s provocative message, school officials made a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to the school’s educational environment.”  C.S. v. McCrumb

— In Texas, the legislature has approved HB33 – The Uvalde Strong Act – “to fix police failures laid bare by the hesitant law enforcement response to the Robb Elementary School shooting in 2022.”  Under its provisions, schools and law enforcement must “to meet annually to develop active shooter response plans, and mandates officers be trained on how to respond to an active shooter at primary and secondary schools.”

— In Iowa, Senate File 583 – a new school safety policy – has been enacted.  In its provisions, schools, law enforcement, mental health professionals and social service agents are authorized to share information while performing threat assessments of concerning behaviors by students.

— In Washington State,  Senate Bill 5004 was signed into law, mandating that school districts “improve school safety by implementing advanced systems such as silent panic alarms and real-time communication tools.”  Schools now are collaborating with local law enforcement to develop and implement these systems.