— In Massachusetts, the United States District Court held that a principal, vice principal, and security officer were entitled to qualified immunity from liability from a student’s claims asserting the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause. The parents argued that the decision by the school officials to treat an incident on a school bus involving sexual contact between their child with an older student as a disciplinary infraction was unlawful because it was made “despite knowing that (their child) was too young to consent to sexual activity, … without consulting school counseling staff, and before any employee had even talked to (their child).” The parents argued that the school “should have treated (their child) as a potential victim of sexual assault, rather than as a student suspected of a disciplinary violation.” The court did agree to dismiss the defamation claim involving the student’s education record, holding that the school administrator was “acting within the scope of his official duties” when documenting the discipline in the educational record of the student and could not be liable for defamatory statements “with respect to the notation(s) … or its disclosure to (the student’s) next school.” Along the same reasoning, the court ruled that qualified immunity was appropriate. No “cases or statutes (were) sufficiently clear to put a reasonable educator on notice that the actions taken by (the school officials) violated one or more of (the student’s) protected rights…in making decisions about how to investigate the bus incident and how to respond to her involvement.” Doe I v. City of Northampton
— In Minnesota, the Moorhead Police Department is pausing its school resource officer program. The reason given surrounds concerns over recent changes in state law on the physical restraint of students. The new law, “bars school-based resource officers from placing students in certain physical holds, including the prone restraint and “comprehensive restraint on the head, neck, and across most of the torso.” Moorhead police believe the new constraints “will impact their ability to do their jobs.” Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a legal opinion earlier this week clarifying his interpretation of the recent amendments to statewide school discipline laws, saying the amendments don’t limit the types of force used if they are utilized to prevent bodily harm or death.
— In Wisconsin, the Green Lake School Board is amending its agreement with the city of Green Lake for a school resource officer. Two issues are pending. The first issue involves supervision of the officer. The proposal states that “(w)hile the officer was on duty as an SRO, they would be under the control of the school administration, but would still answer to the police chief during their other hours of duty.” The second issue involves parental notification. Under current policy the school “tries to contact parents” when a student is being interviewed by the SRO as a part of an investigation at the school. But administrators say that “it is not always practical to do so.”
— In Minnesota, officials in the Owatonna Public Schools are making known their security upgrades for upcoming school year. “Every school in the district now has a single secure entrance. Many of the buildings’ external doors are wired to alert someone at in the district if they are propped open. School offices are now equipped with lock-in buttons to prevent someone from entering the rest of the building if they pose a threat. The new building is also equipped with over 140 security cameras and an AI tracking system to help staff spot an intruder.”