— In Texas, the United States Court of Appeals, affirmed the ruling of the lower court granting summary judgment to the officer and the school district in a lawsuit where parents alleged that the officials intentionally discriminated against their child based on the student’s disability. “(The) school resource officer tased a special-needs student who physically struggled with school staff while attempting to leave school following a violent episode (in which he) …punched (a) student in the chest before storming out of the classroom.” The student’s mother sued the officer and the school district, bringing constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The appellate court agreed with the parents that they were not required to exhaust administrative procedures under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before bringing their claims in district court. Following guidance by the U.S. Supreme Court in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the appellate court announced that, “when a plaintiff seeks a remedy IDEA cannot provide (e.g.,) compensatory damages…his claim was not subject to the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement.” However, dismissal of the lawsuit was proper because, “plaintiffs can only recover damages under the ADA or § 504 upon a showing of intentional discrimination…(which) require something more than deliberate indifference… intentional discrimination requires at least actual knowledge that an accommodation is necessary… While (the SRO) may have used poor judgment when he tased (the student), (the parents) have failed to create a genuine dispute on the issue of whether (the SRO) intentionally discriminated against (the student) by reason of his disability.” J.W. v. Paley
— In Minnesota, the law enforcement community along with members of the legislature are calling for a special session to repeal a recent amendment in school resource officer law. The language of the amendment prohibits school resources officers from “using prone restraint and comprehensive restraint on the head, neck and across most of the torso.” This language is creating timidity and confusion about liability despite assurances by the Minnesota Attorney General that the law as amended still allows SROs to use “reasonable force” to prevent injuries or death. The preferred solution is to “revert back to the original language in the statute.” The Attorney General is correct, e.g., that the immunity provisions of Minnesota law are in full application, supporting well-selected, well-trained, well-supervised officers restraining students under the law as amended.
— In Virginia, Fairfax County school resource officers are being trained to handle the spike in violence and drug use they’ve seen since the start of the pandemic.
— In Texas, officials in the Northwest ISD school board passed a resolution to declare a good cause exception for the House Bill 3 armed security officer requirement, because the district does not have the funds to meet the mandate. The provisions of HB 3 permit noncompliance if it “is due to the lack of availability of funding or qualified personnel.” School officials have officers in the secondary schools, but not in the 22 elementary schools.