— In California, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the juvenile court that a middle school student violated the California Penal Code “by willfully resisting, delaying, or obstructing a weapons search.” The incident arose out of a comment made by the student to the school police officer, who was “wearing a full police uniform with a badge and gun.” “(The student) looked at the liaison officer’s gun on her hip, then remarked, ‘I have a Glock, too.’” The officer, along with school administrators and staff, believed that they “had a duty to search him to make sure he was not armed and was not a threat to the other students.” Their attempts to search the student were frustrated at every turn. The student left the building, constantly stating his belief that his rights permitted him to decline the search (“You’re not searching me,”… “I’m not letting you search me because you have no probable cause,”… “It’s the law for you guys to have probable cause, but you don’t have fucking probable cause.”). After law enforcement backup arrived, the student returned “to the principal’s office where he and his belongings were searched. (The student) was then arrested and booked into juvenile hall.” The appellate court affirmed the findings of the lower court upon several clearly established laws regarding resistance to lawful orders by police officers and search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. First, as to resistance, the conduct of the student fit well inside the “common violations of the statute which) include flight, physical resistance, running, hiding, and other forcible interference with an officer’s activities.” Second, the appellate court applied the rule of New Jersey v. TLO, under which “a ‘school official’ may search a student’s person and personal effects based on a reasonable suspicion—requiring articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts—that the search will disclose evidence that the student is violating or has violated the law or school rules.” Third, applied the California policy that the involvement of the police officer did not trigger the more rigorous standard of probable cause because “for purposes of Fourth Amendment analysis, ‘school officials’ include police officers who are assigned to public schools as school resource or school liaison officers.” The appellate court explained that “due to the importance of providing students and staff with a safe learning environment, the ability to search a student should not hinge on whether the school district or the city employs the school security officer. The consequence of such a rule would force school districts to employ private security guards rather than certified police officers, who may have superior training, which would hardly enhance protection of the students’ Fourth Amendment rights.” In re N.S.
— In Indiana, “the office of Indiana Gov. Mike Braun announced that an anonymous tip line will soon be available for all K-12 schools throughout the state of Indiana. According to a news release from Braun’s office, the school safety-related tip line will offer 24/7/365 monitoring at no cost to schools.”
— In Texas, officials in the Willis ISD are deploying “15 new weapons screeners” after weapons were discovered at a high school. The 15 Xtract One screening units will require students to walk through the device at a “normal pace with backpacks unless a threat is flagged.” “The decision follows a string of safety concerns at Willis High School since August.”
— In Michigan, K-12 schools are now required to have threat assessment teams “to assess and manage students who may pose a threat of violence.” Under the law, the team must include “a school administrator, mental health professional and law enforcement official tasked with probing reports of alarming behavior in a school community and identifying credible threats.”