— In Virginia, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a student’s case when the search of his phone revealed a sexually explicit photo of a classmate. The 13 year old middle school student, who “received a sexually explicit photo from a female classmate…shared that photo with some other students during the school day. Teachers quickly caught wind of the matter and notified (school administration).” An administrator, in the presence of the student and a school resource officer (SRO), “searched the photo gallery” of the student’s phone. Eventually with the help of the student the sexually explicit photo was revealed. The student was charged with “possession of child pornography,” which was dismissed after he “completed the terms and conditions of the deferred disposition set by the juvenile court.” The student filed a lawsuit “alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” e.g., that the questioning violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the search of his phone violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Much of the outcome of the case fell upon the role of the SRO and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the school district and the police department. The appellate court emphasized that under the MOU “the principal or school staff must immediately report any criminal activity to the SRO.” In addition, the MOU placed limits upon the SRO. First, “while the SRO is authorized to take law enforcement actions at the school, he or she is not responsible for the enforcement of school rules or regulations.” Second, an SRO is constrained in his/her ability to search a student “unless they have probable cause to believe the student is violating the law.” Third, “the MOU further states that SROs ‘will not become involved in student or school searches which are conducted by school officials and are not supported by probable cause,’ and ‘will not encourage or request a school official to act as the SRO’s agent in conducting searches of students.’” As to the questioning, the appellate court ruled that “a student simply being questioned by a principal would not generally qualify as a custodial interrogation.” And “the record does not…indicate any coordination between the (school administrator and the SRO) to accomplish some unlawful, ‘conspiratorial objective.’” As to the search, the court held that the administrator’s search “was both justified at its inception and reasonable in scope… given the circumstances justifying it (i.e., allegations of child pornography and the distribution thereof in school).” And the SRO “sat by while (the administrator) searched (the student’s) phone; she did not search it with him.” O.W. v. Carr
— In Minnesota, the legislature is considering “HF3753/SF390 to provide $4 million to the Department of Public Safety to implement a pilot project using the technology at eight schools across the state… The technology uses a combination of cameras, radar and artificial intelligence to spot weapons like guns, even if they’re concealed in a backpack or pocket, as soon as someone carries them on campus.”
— In Kentucky, Senate Bill 101 has been enacted. It establishes “statewide standards for how schools respond to assaults against staff, require(s) incidents to be reported to law enforcement and ensure(s) accountability in situations where reporting requirements are not followed.” The provisions of the text of the law require that “students in grades 6 through 12 who cause or attempt to cause injury to school staff are required to be expelled for a minimum of 12 months.”
— In Virginia, H 592 has been enacted allowing “any school employee (to) wear a panic button that they can use to alert authorities if there is an emergency that requires an immediate response like for a school shooting.”