Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 21, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals, affirmed that school officials did not violate a student’s free speech rights when they asked the student to remove a hat depicting an automatic weapon.  The lawsuit arose when the student “arrived at school wearing a black baseball cap that displayed a white star, a white image of an AR-15-style rifle, and the capitalized phrase, “COME AND TAKE IT.”  School officials determined that the hat “was inappropriate for an elementary school setting… decided to call (the student’s) parents and ask them to bring her a substitute hat to wear. (The parents) declined to do so. From there, (school officials) went to (the student’s) classroom, called her into the hallway, and asked her to remove the Hat and put it inside her locker. (The student) complied without issue.”  The rule of law applied by the lower court was that “at a minimum, to invoke First Amendment protections, a student must show that her conduct is imbued with elements of communication which convey a particularized message that will be understood by those who view it.  Simply wanting to wear clothes that students believe “look nice” and reflect their middle-school individuality, for instance, does not trigger First Amendment protections. If a student can establish that her conduct was expressive and intended to convey some sort of message, a school may nonetheless regulate speech that is vulgar, plainly offensive, or inconsistent with its basic educational mission.”  On appeal, the appellate court agreed that under the First Amendment, schools may place reasonable regulations on student speech during the school day that are reasonable related to their duty to preserve the learning environment, avoid disruptions.  The appellate court reasoned that “in consideration of (the elementary school’s) special characteristics and circumstances, such as its absorption of students from the Oxford School District and the especially young age of (the student) and her classmates, combined with the Hat’s provocative message, school officials made a reasonable forecast of substantial disruption to the school’s educational environment.”  C.S. v. McCrumb

— In Texas, the legislature has approved HB33 – The Uvalde Strong Act – “to fix police failures laid bare by the hesitant law enforcement response to the Robb Elementary School shooting in 2022.”  Under its provisions, schools and law enforcement must “to meet annually to develop active shooter response plans, and mandates officers be trained on how to respond to an active shooter at primary and secondary schools.”

— In Iowa, Senate File 583 – a new school safety policy – has been enacted.  In its provisions, schools, law enforcement, mental health professionals and social service agents are authorized to share information while performing threat assessments of concerning behaviors by students.

— In Washington State,  Senate Bill 5004 was signed into law, mandating that school districts “improve school safety by implementing advanced systems such as silent panic alarms and real-time communication tools.”  Schools now are collaborating with local law enforcement to develop and implement these systems.

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 20, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In North Carolina, the United States District Court refused to dismiss a case involving allegations that school officials “took no action” after receiving notice of bullying and sexual abuse by a student.  The case arose “from student-on-student sexual abuse that allegedly occurred at a public elementary school.”  The parent of a victimized student filed a lawsuit alleging that despite reporting the misconduct, “the Board took no action, allowing the abuse to continue for several weeks.”  The lawsuit further alleges that eventually, the “school then implemented a safety plan, but (their child) continued to have contact with the (student causing the abuse).”  The rule of law that governs deliberate indifference school liability is based upon three elements that focuses on the inaction by school officials.  “The first element requires a plaintiff to show that a supervisor had knowledge of a subordinate’s conduct and that the conduct posed pervasive and unreasonable risk of constitutional injury to the plaintiff … “Establishing a ‘pervasive’ and ‘unreasonable’ risk of harm requires evidence that the conduct is widespread, or at least has been used on several different occasions and that the conduct engaged in by the subordinate poses an unreasonable risk of harm of constitutional injury…The second element, deliberate indifference, may be demonstrated by showing a supervisor’s continued inaction in the face of documented widespread abuses…The final element, causation, requires an affirmative causal link between a supervisor’s inaction and a plaintiff’s injuries.”  The court held that “(v)iewing the allegations in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, the (educators) showed deliberate indifference by not implementing a safety plan until (one moth later) after (the victimized student) suffered more abuse and had a breakdown. The court can also infer that (the victimized student’s) injuries continued when he continued to have contact with the offending student after the safety plan was implemented.”  Catherine Gulledge v. Cabarrus County Board of Education

— In Texas, officials in the Bishop Consolidated Independent School District are creating a police department to protect its schools.  The “school board passed a multi-layered school safety and security plan, creating the framework for the new department.”

— In Arkansas, officials in the Fayetteville Public Schools are deploying metal detectors at the entrances of the high school and middle schools.  “The system is designed to detect weapons, so students won’t have to take off backpacks or empty their pockets.”

— In Oklahoma, “Oklahoma Highway Patrol troopers are actively participating in the “Secure Oklahoma Schools” initiative, spending at least one hour weekly at local schools to enhance safety and build relationships with students and staff… Since its launch, troopers have made over 31,000 visits… The program is designed to deter violence and build relationships between troopers, students, and school staff.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 19, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Pennsylvania, the United States District Court dismissed a claim based upon the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, holding that educators did not create a dangerous conditions that led to the injury of a student on campus.  The incident involved the stabbing of a student – during the lunch period – “by a fellow student used a metal knife.”  The school metal detectors and x-ray machines “were malfunctioning that day.”  The student, who sustained “permanent physical damage and disfigurement,” alleged a “state-created danger claim,” e.g., that the school “knew of prior incidents in which students had attempted to bring weapons into the school, either knew or should have known that these security devices were not working properly, and, despite this, failed to fix the machines or take other precautions to prevent students from bringing weapons into school.”  The court applied the rule of law that relies upon four elements to determine liability.  1) Whether the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct; 2) Whether a school acted with a degree of culpability that shocks the conscience; 3) Whether a relationship between the school and the student existed such that the student was a foreseeable victim of the perpetrator’s acts; and 4) Whether the school affirmatively used its authority in a way that created a danger to the student or that rendered the student more vulnerable to danger than had the school not acted at all.  In dismissing the case the court ruled that the status quo of the campus environment before the incident was such that the decision making of the school did not result in “a departure from that status quo.”  In other words, the status quo was an “already-dangerous environment.”  The student was free to refile a lawsuit in state court alleging liability on state law claims.  Montanez-Johnson v. Chester Upland School District

— In Virginia, the Salem City Schools, are deploying “a security system at Salem High School that uses artificial intelligence to detect weapons.”  The Corum AI System, “works by using AI to monitor the school’s existing camera feeds for any sign of weapons. If a threat is detected, the system notifies a designated group of staff and administrators, as well as members of the Salem Police Department. Anyone who receives the alert can review the footage on their phone and assess the situation.”

— In Missouri, the legislature approved a proposal to “mandate a near complete ban of cell phone use in public schools during the school day.”  Senate Bill 68 is “part of a major school safety bill … which also makes provisions for things like active shooter training, medical emergency response plans and building security.”

— In Michigan, Rochester Community Schools are implementing “a new platform of technologies” to enhance campus safety – crisis alert badges.  Under the policy, school employees “will be wearing badges that have a button on them, and simply pressing that button will engage an entire system of mapping and emergency responses.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 15, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In New York, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, refused to dismiss a case brought against educators when a former student was allegedly sexually abused by teacher while attending an elementary school some years ago.  The case involves the issue of whether the school could be held liable under theories of negligent retention and negligent supervision of the teacher.  The court applied two rules germane to resolving the dispute.  First, a school “owes a duty to adequately supervise the students in its care, and school may be held liable for foreseeable injuries proximately related to the absence of adequate supervision.”  Second, the standard for determining whether a school has breached its duty to adequately supervise the students in its care is “to compare the school’s supervision and protection to that of a parent of ordinary prudence placed in the same situation and armed with the same information.”  Dismissal was inappropriate because evidence failed to “demonstrate that either the teacher or the (student) received adequate supervision, particularly in light of the fact that the classroom was devoted to special needs students and was physically separated from the main school building.”  Essential to this outcome is  a shift in immunity law by New York policy makers.  The New York Child Victims Act, CPLR 214-g, allows survivors of child sexual abuse to file civil lawsuits, even if the statute of limitations for those claims had previously expired.  Because of this the New York Child Victims Act enables victims to seek justice against their abusers and those who may have been negligent or complicit in the abuse. L. S. v. Roosevelt Union Free School District

— In Texas, the legislature is considering a shift in school discipline rules.  House Bill 6 will give schools more flexibility in handling disruptive behavior. “The bill would allow administrators to suspend students for ‘repeated and significant’ classroom disruptions or for actions that endanger the safety of others, requiring those students to remain out of school during the suspension period.”

— In Pennsylvania, the legislature is considering Senate Bill 246 which requires that parents and school staff are promptly notified when a weapon is discovered on school grounds or during school activities.

— In West Virginia, enacted House Bill 2802 that encourages law-enforcement officers to spend time in public schools to meet training hours requirements. “The bill states that as part of the 16 hours of annual training officers have to go through to be able to do their jobs more efficiently, law enforcement officers can get some of those requirements taken care of by spending time in the schools doing work that insures school safety so it is treated as part of their regular training hours.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for May 14, 2025

by  •  • 0 Comments

— In Michigan, the United States District Court upheld the validity of the use of force by a school resource officer in response to a violent outburst in class by an eighteen-year-old special needs student.  The student filed suit claiming excessive force, false arrest, and failure to properly train or supervise the officer.  The actions of the officer were in response to ongoing displays of aggression by the student, who on prior  caused educators to remove the other students from the classroom for their safety before calling for assistance.  The lawsuit arose out of another call for assistance after removal of the other students.

— The SRO did not use force until after student assaulted a teacher and a paraprofessional, threw objects, “attacked three people and committed (a) violent felony of resisting and obstructing (the) police officer, and, despite (the SRO’s) verbal commands, warnings, and de-escalation …continued to resist and harm (the SRO).  The court applied the rule of law that “to determine whether an officer’s force was excessive, courts ask whether the force used was objectively reasonable… courts must consider the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, understanding that “officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary… Three factors guide this analysis: (1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) the risk, if any, the suspect posed to the safety of the officer or others, and (3) the suspect’s active resistance or evasion, if any.”  In this light, the actions of the officer were upheld because “all three factors establish that (the SRO’s) force to subdue (the student) was reasonable.”  Ennes v. Presque Isle County

— In North Carolina, the Wake County Public School System is deploying three mobile command vehicles to “improve efficiency and communication during school crises.”  The command centers “can coordinate emergency response(s) from the field using communications tools, having uniform response(s) and supporting student reunification with family members, if needed.”

— In Alabama, the Department of Homeland Security is developing an Internet-based program that will aid responders in the event of a school crisis.  Schools that join the program will provide data that will “allow first responders and administrators at each agency online access to detailed, 3-D images and layered information including emergency safety plans, the locations of hazardous materials, evacuation routes, places designated as safety zones in the event of disasters, and, in some cases, live video surveillance feeds.”

— In California, The Yolo County Grand Jury “recommended that the Davis Joint Unified School District install better cameras in open areas with instant alerts for intruders during school hours, prioritize teachers to limit traffic, keep classroom doors locked whenever possible, and begin the fencing project.”

Uncategorized

Safety Law News for April 1, 2025

by  • 

— In Alabama, the United States District Court dismissed a case brought by a parent who accused school officials of being deliberately indifferent to sexual harassment and assault which their child was experiencing at school.  The case arose out of a complaint that during the school year the assailant “repeatedly” sexually assaulted their child, including “on a school bus.”  The parent was nonplussed that school officials decided that “homebound services sufficiently disciplined (the assailant) for his actions, protected other students, and deterred future harm.”  The parent alleged that school officials were violating Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.  The trial court disagreed, setting forth the rules, holding that “Title IX funding recipients do not have to ‘remedy’ peer harassment. A Title IX 12 recipient must respond to known peer harassment in a manner that is not clearly unreasonable … a school district (is) not deliberately indifferent to reports of sexual harassment when its officials timely responded to complaints and perform an internal investigation by interviewing the involved parties despite those efforts ultimately being ineffective at remedying the harassment… an official decision by (school officials) not to remedy the violation amounts to deliberate indifference.”  The case was dismissed because, “the evidence … does not present a genuine issue of material fact as to (school official’s) handling of (the) assault …  There is no evidence that school administrators had knowledge of (the assailant’s) conduct before (the reports of the behavior) … When they learned of the assault, school administrators immediately investigated, followed established disciplinary procedures, and disciplined (the assailant).”   Mary Doe v. City of Madison Board of Education

— In Georgia, the legislature is proposing a school safety policy that will require schools “to implement plans for assessing students’ behavior for the risk of threats or violence, but it no longer directs those schools to work with so-called threat management teams.  House Bill 268 also will require “schools to draft detailed maps of their facilities to help first responders navigate buildings in an emergency; share disciplinary records of transfer students within five days; and hire behavioral specialists tasked with coordinating intervention and treatment methods for students with mental health issues.”

— In Colorado, officials in the Denver Public Schools are delaying the plan to install an upgrade to increase security “after a student shot two administrators at Denver’s East High School”  in 2023.”  The plan, to install “a secure vestibule just inside” the school entrance triggered disagreement by some in the community.  School officials will wait “to allow for valuable time to better engage (the) community.”

— In Virginia, the Charlottesville City School Board is returning police officers to its schools.  Removed five years ago, the shift comes as a result of the belief that “(o)ne challenge school administrators have observed over the years is that without police in schools, educators are often forced to manage responsibilities typically handled by law enforcement … Schools end up relying on whichever officer is available that day, instead of having officers they’ve built relationships with.”