— In Michigan, the United States District Court held that school officials did not violate the rights of a student who was expelled after lying to her parents about bathroom searches that were conducted to deter vaping in schools. The school policy required officials to conduct “a brief look underneath the bathroom stall partitions (while standing outside the stall in the) public areas in the bathroom to see if multiple students were (vaping) in the same stall together. The student told her parents that “the assistant principal had approached (her) stall and looked into it while (she) was urinating.” The student also “asked another student to lie for her, and (her) friends threatened that student to back up (her) falsehood.” The school board “decided to expel (the student) for 180 days… (for engaging) in conduct that involved the intimidation of another student in violation of the student handbook…(and) making false statements accusing an administrator of a sex crime.” The court ruled that the First Amendment rights of the student were not violated because, “untruthful statements to the police about school administrator conduct involving interactions with students on the school property (are not protected).” The court ruled that the Due Process Clause was not violated because, “before the disciplinary hearing, (the parent) was at least aware (of the student’s) false statements regarding (school officials) and her attempt to get (another student) to lie for her, (as) the basis of the recommended discipline.” Moreover, there was “a rational relationship between (the student’s) actions and her expulsion.” Finally, the court ruled that the Fourth Amendment was not violated because the “bathroom checks were permissible in their scope …after balancing the scope and manner of the search in light of the students’ expectation of privacy, the nature of the intrusion, and the severity of the school officials’ need in enacting such policies.” Ashton as Next Friend of E.B. v. Okemos Public Schools
— In Ohio, the Ohio School Safety Center is conducting training for schools on threat prevention. The training is designed to provide “first responders in our schools …prevention methods that work for their schools, (as well as) best practices.”
— In West Virginia, House Bill 4299 seeks to authorize educators to volunteer to carry firearms in school. In its provisions, “teachers, administrators, support personnel in elementary or secondary schools who volunteer to be designated as school resource officers…would be authorized to carry concealed firearms or a stun gun or Taser.” The educators “would need to provide proof of a valid conceal carry permit and a certificate demonstrating completion of a Security Protection Officer Training program. The training would need to include mitigation techniques, neutralization of potential threats and active shooters, de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention and more.”
— In New York, “(n)early 100 frustrated residents in the town of Vestal showed up at a town board meeting…to protest and express concerns over the future of the town’s school resource officer (SRO) program.” The residents, in favor of school resource officers, are urging officials to make school safety a priority. “The fact that you’re looking at this as a place to save some money…God forbid we have a snow storm that we don’t want to have to pay for.’ Well God forbid…that you have something far more dangerous on your hands.”