— In Kentucky, the Supreme Court of Kentucky upheld the dismissal of a school resource officer who underperformed on the job, allowing the police department to act decisively in removing the officer. The tenure of the officer on campus included two incidents. “He was involved in an altercation with a 13-year-old student…during which he struck (the student) in the face. He subsequently arrested (the student), charging him with two public offenses, but failed to read (the student) his Miranda rights.” And “He was involved in another altercation with a different student…during which he wrapped his arms around (the student) so tightly that (the student) lost consciousness.” The Merit Board, the Circuit Court, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld the termination. The SRO argued, among other things, that “the Merit Board wrongly included expunged materials” in its consideration of his appeal despite the officer’s success in getting the criminal charges brought against him dismissed and his criminal record expunged in the records of the “police and other agencies outside of the court system.” The SRO also argued that his rights under the Due Process Clause were violated. The Kentucky Supreme Court upheld the termination, rejecting the expungement argument because “information contained in the (employment) file is neither a criminal record nor would it appear on a state-performed background check, (and therefore) is not subject to the expungement order.” As to due process, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that although, “there are significant interests to both the individual and the public that are at stake in deciding how much process is due a terminated police officer in front of the Merit Board…(G)iven the significant safeguards already provided (in Kentucky law) to officers in matters before the Merit Board, the risk of error is relatively low. As to the power of the Chief to discipline the officer the court held that, “(i)f we were to hold that the Chief could not terminate an employee for a violation of (a department policy) based on a violation of a law until that employee was formally convicted of the underlying offense, we would, in essence, be holding the Chief to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof. Practically speaking, a holding such as that … would also serve to prevent the Chief from finding a violation of (department policy)… until after a conviction, which, as is exemplified by this case, can take years. We refuse to require the Chief to either find a violation beyond a reasonable doubt or wait until a criminal conviction is final to find a violation. Probable cause that an employee has violated a law is sufficient to sustain a finding by the Chief of a violation of (a department policy).” Hardin v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metropolitan Government
— In Georgia, Barrow County officials say that a panic alarm “saved lives” at Apalachee High School during a shooting in which two students and two teachers were killed and eight students and one teacher were injured. Centegix CrisisAlert ID technology “sent alerts of an active shooter at Apalachee High School to the Barrow County Sheriff’s office (and) also sent GPS coordinates of the person who triggered the alert.” The response of the school resource officers “was very fast…saving a lot of lives.” One teacher said, “I actually saw lockdown initiate before I even heard gunshots, so I had time to prepare.”
— In Wisconsin, officials in the Wausau School District are deploying new technology at school entrances to enhance campus safety. A visitor screening tool, Visitor Aware by Singlewire Software, screens and verifies guests and volunteers “to establish a standard check-in procedure for all guests and identify potential issues before (persons) can fully gain access to a school.”
— In Delaware, officials in Cape Henlopen are deploying weapons detection systems for football games. The EVOLV System, identifies “potential weapons like guns and knives that could be entering the Cape Henlopen High School’s stadium.” “This joins the school resource officer, constables and other Delaware State Police officers at each football game.”