— In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the adjudication of a student who was charged with Fourth Degree Sexual Assault, despite the fact that “his statements should have been excluded because they were obtained in violation of Miranda v. Arizona.” The violation occurred when the student was “questioned … at school in a small office used by the school resource officer” after “a classmate reported that (the student) had touched him in the groin.” During the questioning, “a second, fully-uniformed officer stood in front of the door.” Later in the day, the officers “continued to question him a short while later as he sat in a school-suspension cubicle. While under interrogation, (the student) admitted that he accidentally hit the other student.” The Court ruled that the rights of the student were violated in obtaining the statement because the student was in custody and “the officer did not provide Miranda warnings to (the student). She never told him that he was free to leave, that he did not need to answer questions, or that he could call his parents.” Applying the rule of law from the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Court stated that “many courts have applied Miranda in the school setting… a child’s age properly informs the Miranda custody analysis… special care we must take when analyzing the interrogation of children. It is a commonsense reality and beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave… Second, courts consider the role of police versus school administration; the more police officers are present, and the more they play a role in questioning, the more likely a student is in custody.” Even so, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court applied the “harmless error rule” which states that “an error is harmless if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Here, the Court reasoned “the school resource officer’s testimony about (the student’s) statements was duplicative of other testimony, unnecessary for a finding of intent, and went unmentioned during the State’s closing. We conclude that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rational factfinder would have found (the student) delinquent even without his statements while under Miranda custody. State v. K.R.C.
— In Georgia, school safety legislation is moving toward the Governor’s desk that will require weapons detection systems in all public schools. House Bill 1023 would also require every student to be checked for weapons when arriving at a public school each day.
— In Missouri, HB 3174 has been introduced to require that public and charter school employees wear a “panic alert device that allows the school employee to communicate with others inside the building and immediately contact emergency services.” The legislation also “includes provisions for a school-wide emergency notification system, including automated strobe lights, direct connections to the intercom or public announcement system, and automated computer displays.”
— In Minnesota, a school bus safety bill sits on the Governor’s desk after passage by the legislature. HF 4063 requires “vehicles to stop for a school bus once its red lights begin flashing, regardless of whether its stop sign arm has been fully extended.” “It also includes language that says a bus’s flashing amber lights serve as a warning that flashing red lights are coming soon.” The bill includes $8.4 million in grants for school districts to install stop-signal arm cameras.