Safety Law News for November 4, 2020

— In Virginia, the Alexandria School Board approved a revised memorandum of understanding with the Alexandria Police Department to keep school resource officers in Alexandria schools.  The vice chair of the school board made this statement, “I’m really baffled by some of the advocacy we have received because I can’t fathom why we’re even considering taking away resources from the very kids we all claim to champion.  If you want to impact the school to prison pipeline and suspensions, it’s not the SROs that are causing it.”

— In Iowa, the Iowa City School District is developing “threat assessment,” or “care assessment,” teams for its 29 schools.  Based on the Virginia Threat Assessment Model, the program walks users through a process for identifying and preventing threats that can range from bullying and teasing to potential violence.  The program uses disciplinary measures when necessary, in tandem with providing students and families with mental health, counseling and conflict-resolution services.

— In Maryland, Montgomery County police have a specialized unit devoted to preparing officers to recognize signs that someone might have autism. The Montgomery County police Autism/Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Alzheimer’s and Dementia Outreach Unit also helps prepare people with autism and their caregivers for safe interactions with police.  A 2017 study found that about 20 percent of youths with autism had been stopped and questioned by police before reaching age 21.  See Study Here

— In New Jersey, the United States District Court refused to dismiss a Title IX claim brought against a school that knew about student-on-student assaults but thought it best “not have the information spread,” and kept the incidents quiet.  The court ruled that a school district has knowledge under Title IX where the victim of the harassment reports an incident to an “appropriate person” who has authority to take corrective action.  Deliberate indifference can lead to school liability.  M.H. by D.H. v. C.M.