— In Ohio, the Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that the totality of the circumstances of a juvenile interrogation about a sexual assault supported a conclusion that juvenile was in police custody and thus Miranda warnings were necessary. In reversing the lower court, the appellate court held that, “(a) custodial interrogation is questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Then the appellate court noted that, (t)o determine whether an individual is in custody for the purposes of Miranda, the court considers “the circumstances surrounding the interrogation” and whether, under those circumstances, “a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Finally, the appellate court announced that, “(i)n cases involving a juvenile, the juvenile suspect’s age may be analyzed as part of the court’s determination on whether a custodial interrogation occurred…(because) children often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them and are more vulnerable or susceptible to outside pressures than an adult would be.” The juvenile was 13 years old, had autism, was not accompanied by his parents, and “nothing in the record indicated juvenile had experience with the criminal justice system.” Matter of O.E.
— In Colorado, the Denver Public Schools filed an appeal to fight a court order requiring the release of the recording of closed-door board meeting about police in schools – only later to agree to release a redacted version. The District Court judge ordered the district to comply with open meeting laws. “The meeting, called an executive session, occurred on March 23, one day after an East High School student shot and injured two deans inside the school before fleeing and taking his own life. The school board emerged from the executive session and with no discussion voted unanimously to temporarily suspend its policy banning police in schools.” The Denver Schools Superintendent is committed to returning police to schools. On June 15, the board voted again to reinstate SROs — but that time, the debate was public. One board member posted a clip of the session. (The Meeting Here)
— In Ohio, the Parma City Schools Board of Education passed a resolution authorizing specific staff members to arm themselves with guns during the school day. The Superintendent said the overall goal behind arming staff members is to maintain the element of the unknown in case an intruder targets a Parma City Schools building. The staff members will have to go through extensive training with the Parma police department.
— In Texas, the Austin Independent School District is considering nearly doubling the size of its police department to comply with a new state law that takes effect Sept. 1. House Bill 3 requires school districts to secure schools with armed officers and to train more staff to identify students who might need mental health support. Districts can meet the requirement in several ways, such as hiring school police officers or partnering with local law enforcement agencies to assign personnel to campuses. The Austin ISD Police Department will “have to hire more than 70 SROs.”
1 comment for “Safety Law News For July 26, 2023”