<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>School Safety Law Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com</link>
	<description>News and Information for School Safety</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 23:13:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
<site xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">167386170</site>	<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for June 8, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-june-8-2026/</link>
					<comments>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-june-8-2026/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Jun 2026 23:13:06 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[address school violence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bolster security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Colorado's Safe2Tell program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida Department of Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marijuana possession]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey v. T.L.O]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nonpublic Schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pajaro Middle School]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People In Int. of T.J.W.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private schools in La Porte County]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety Grants]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[support student mental health]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3054</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In Colorado, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower court which held that a school administrator’s search of the backpack of a student in response to a tip from Colorado&#8217;s Safe2Tell program was illegal.  “Through Colorado&#8217;s&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-june-8-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In Colorado, the <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2026/25sa245.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Colorado Supreme Court</strong></a> reversed the ruling of the lower court which held that a school administrator’s search of the backpack of a student in response to a tip from Colorado&#8217;s Safe2Tell program was illegal.  “Through Colorado&#8217;s Safe2Tell program, (the) Assistant Principal … received an anonymous tip that described a student named “T.J.” smoking marijuana in a teacher&#8217;s sixth period biology class at approximately 12:30 p.m.  (The administrator) searched T.J.W.’s backpack and found a marijuana vape pen.  (The student was charged) with marijuana possession.  (The student) filed a motion to suppress evidence of the marijuana vape pen, which the district court granted, finding that (the) search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment.”  The Colorado Supreme Court reversed the ruling, upholding the search.  The main issue of the appeal was “whether (the administrator), in light of the Safe2Tell tip and his own investigation, had reasonable suspicion to search (the student’s) backpack.  Applying the rule of law from the case of  <a href="https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/educational-activities/fourth-amendment-activities/new-jersey-v-tlo/facts-and-case-summary-new-jersey-v-tlo" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>New Jersey v. T.L.O</strong></a>., the appellate court held that “a school search is only reasonable if it is (1) “justified at its inception,” and (2) “reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.””  As to the Safe2Tell tip, the appellate court held that “the information in the tip here was fresh, as (the administrator) received it only forty-five minutes after the alleged events occurred.”  As to the response by the school administrator, the court ruled that “any kind of corroboration of the information in the tip, whether of criminal conduct or otherwise, can bolster the reliability of an anonymous tip because it allows (the administrator) to confirm a tipster&#8217;s basis of knowledge and veracity.”  Therefore, “the search of (the student’s) backpack was “justified at its inception” because the anonymous Safe2Tell tip, combined with (the administrator’s) independent corroboration, supported a finding of reasonable suspicion.”  “To reiterate, the Safe2Tell report at issue here was fresh, received only forty-five minutes after the alleged events, and provided detailed information into the suspect&#8217;s identity and whereabouts during the time of the alleged criminal activity, much of which (the administrator) corroborated before he conducted the search.”  <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/colorado/supreme-court/2026/25sa245.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>People In Int. of T.J.W.</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Pennsylvania, <a href="https://www.abc27.com/local-news/local-private-schools-receive-state-grants-for-school-safety-legislators-announce/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>private schools across the state are receiving grants for school safety.</strong></a>  “The Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency recently approved the 2025-26 Targeted School Safety Grants for Nonpublic Schools.”  Policy makers say that “the program allows schools to address school violence, bolster security, and support student mental health.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Florida, “the Florida Department of Education is directing school districts to <a href="https://www.orlandoweekly.com/news/florida-news/florida-schools-directed-to-add-ai-to-internet-safety-policies/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>add artificial intelligence</strong></a> use to their internet safety policies.”  “The rule development <a href="https://www.wgcu.org/section/science/2026-06-08/new-requirement-given-to-floridas-schools-add-an-artificial-intelligence-safety-policy" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>workshop will be held June 22</strong></a>.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In California, “a majority of Pajaro Middle School teachers say they have no confidence in (the) Principal,,.. alleging she failed to keep the school safe by <a href="https://lookout.co/majority-of-pajaro-middle-school-teachers-demand-removal-or-resignation-of-principal/story" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>not following safety and disciplinary protocols</strong></a>.”  “Staff had grown increasingly concerned with a lack of a safe learning environment for students where there weren’t appropriate consequences for things like fights on campus.” “Instead just solely relying on things like community circles or restorative practices without following through on actual discipline.”</p>



<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-june-8-2026/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3054</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for May 29, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-28-2026/</link>
					<comments>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-28-2026/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 May 2026 20:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abby Zwerner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[clear backpack requirements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[close quarter combat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Delaware’s Safe School Zone law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gun safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri Rangers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Newport News Public Schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[private school property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school resource officer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stricter visitor access procedures]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wagner v. Rosa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weapon detection systems]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3051</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In New York, the Supreme Court (the trial court in New York), held that educators have “ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property.”  The litigation arose out a dispute over access by a person responsible&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-28-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In New York, the <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2025/2025-ny-slip-op-25303.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Supreme Court</strong></a> (the trial court in New York), held that educators have “ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property.”  The litigation arose out a dispute over access by a person responsible for an after-school program held on school grounds.  As the relationship between the person and educators began to dissolve, including an incident in which the person “left the school grounds after being issued trespass papers,” educators sent a letter advising the person that “he was prohibited from entering upon any (school district) property without express prior written consent from the office of (the Superintendent).”  The court upheld the decision by the school district.  Applying clearly established law, the court ruled that “an unfettered right to access school grounds does not exist.”  First, the court held that “a school has a duty to ensure the safety of its students in its physical custody or orbit of authority.”  Second, “there is a long-standing judicial deference afforded local school boards to exercise ultimate authority for access to students, school buildings and school property.”  Third, the test for examining the use of this authority is based upon the status of public schools as “a nonpublic forum (in which) the administrations thereof may therefore control access to the School based on subject matter and speaker identity so long as the distinctions drawn are reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum and are viewpoint neutral.”  The court cited the record to rule that “here, District Respondents implemented a requirement that petitioner must request written permission from Respondent Superintendent at least 72 hours in advance of entering school property based upon two documented confrontations.”  Therefore, the school district “rationally determined that the school district&#8217;s decision to require that petitioner obtain written permission from its superintendent before he can enter school grounds, particularly where the restriction is subject to annual review at petitioner&#8217;s request, is entirely appropriate under the circumstances.”  <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2025/2025-ny-slip-op-25303.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Wagner v. Rosa</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Virginia, officials in the Newport News Public Schools are implementing <a href="https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/newport-news/newport-news-public-schools-expanded-security-measures-following-richneck-shooting/291-6e696a24-fad4-4ae2-ba60-fadd6cd6b10e" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>safety upgrades to their campuses</strong></a>.  The upgrades “include weapon detection systems, clear backpack requirements, expanded security staffing, and stricter visitor access procedures.”  The new policies are viewed as a response to a “ 2024 grand jury report (that) found multiple safety concerns and administrative failures leading up to (a) shooting, in which <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rz5tEtKz-EE" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>first-grade teacher Abby Zwerner was shot by a 6-year-old student</strong></a> who brought a gun to school.</p>



<p>&#8212; In Missouri, the legislature is considering adding <a href="https://missouriindependent.com/2026/05/19/missouri-schools-could-hire-armed-rangers-under-bill-sent-to-governor/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>armed “Missouri Rangers”</strong></a> to school campuses to enhance student safety.  <a href="https://www.senate.mo.gov/BillTracking/Bills/BillInformation?year=2026&amp;billid=444" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>House Bill 905</strong></a> would “allow schools to hire volunteer or paid guards called “Missouri Rangers” who could carry a gun on school grounds.”  The legislation “proposes a maximum of 160 hours of training, specifying that the program must include lessons on “close quarter combat,” bomb and arson training, de-escalation among others.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Delaware, the legislature is recommending a policy “that would allow trained and <a href="https://www.wdel.com/news/delaware-lawmakers-propose-armed-sentries-for-private-schools/article_3657dba4-92bc-5659-b022-aab9584ab8a0.html#/questions" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>authorized employees to carry guns on private school property</strong></a>.”  <a href="https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail?LegislationId=143228" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Senate Bill 304</strong></a> “would create an exemption within Delaware’s Safe School Zone law to allow designated “sentries” to carry a gun or projectile weapon on private school campuses under strict training and oversight requirements.”  Each person “would have to be employees of the private school and hold a valid concealed carry permit or qualifying law enforcement credentials.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-28-2026/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3051</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for May 27, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-27-2026/</link>
					<comments>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-27-2026/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2026 22:32:57 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annual audit report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barrow County Sheriff’s Office]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bullitt County Public Schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[in-house school police department]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legitimate-expectation-of-privacy standard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[middle school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school resource officer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. Gonzalez]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas Education Agency]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3049</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In Texas, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that suppressed a class room audio recording of illegal conduct by a school resource officer.  The SRO “was on duty at (the) Middle School when he and&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-27-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In Texas, the Texas Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that suppressed a class room audio recording of illegal conduct by a school resource officer.  The SRO “was on duty at (the) Middle School when he and (the) vice principal … ordered students out of a classroom to search for suspected contraband, a vape pen, in the students’ belongings.  A student left behind her cellphone with the recording function turned on, capturing audio of (their) conversation during the search.  The recording (indicated they) located the vape pen in a cabinet and discussed placing it in a particular student&#8217;s backpack without evidence of whom it belonged to.”   The SRO was arrested for “intentionally subjecting three students to searches he knew were unlawful and for planting evidence.”  The officer filed a motion to suppress the audio recording, “arguing that it was obtained in violation of (the state wiretap statute) and his constitutional rights because neither (the SRO nor the school administrator) consented to being recorded by a third party.”  The trial court suppressed the audio recording.  The appellate court reversed.  The reversal was based on clearly established law that the SRO has a “diminished expectation of privacy … because (they occupy) a position of public trust and exercises special powers.”  The appellate court went on the state that, “the audio recording was made by a student who was a private citizen.  There is no allegation that this student was acting on behalf of law enforcement or doing anything other than acting in a private capacity.  Accordingly, (the SRO’s) Fourth Amendment rights were not violated.”  The resolution of the Fourth Amendment defense also resolved the statutory argument of the SRO because the wiretap statute “incorporates the Fourth Amendment&#8217;s legitimate-expectation-of-privacy standard.”  The case was remanded back to trial.  <a href="https://cases.justia.com/texas/thirteenth-court-of-appeals/2026-13-25-00309-cr.pdf?ts=1767879132" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>State v. Gonzalez</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Kentucky, officials in the Bullitt County Public Schools are <a href="https://www.wdrb.com/news/education/bullitt-county-public-schools-establishing-police-department-for-enhanced-safety-measures/article_c10635da-456e-4793-b2c0-5192be6614a9.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>creating an in-house school police department.</strong></a>  They are hiring a chief of police to command the school resource officers currently deployed to its schools.  The goal is to tailor (the SRO job) to a specific type of officer … looking for the opportunity to be in schools, build relationships with students and help us make sure that we&#8217;re keeping our students and community safe.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Georgia, the “Barrow County Sheriff’s Office, Board of Commissioners and Board of Education reached a new agreement for security services for the school district.  <a href="https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/barrow-county/barrow-county-sheriffs-office-commissioners-make-new-deal-with-school-board-sros/EXP4SLNE5RCPHJAKCHVPGZD7HY/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Additional school resource officers</strong></a> will be deployed, from 12 to 25.  The agreement also “more clearly outlines each of the three parties’ responsibilities.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Texas, the “Texas Education Agency released its <a href="https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/government-relations-and-legal/government-relations/report-on-school-safety-and-security-in-texas-2024-2025.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>annual audit report on school safety and security in Texas</strong></a>…Around 90% of the school districts and campuses in Texas had no issues with the initial phases of security preparedness, according to the report.”</p>



<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-27-2026/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3049</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for May 19, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-19-2026/</link>
					<comments>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-19-2026/#respond</comments>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 17:06:18 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[annual security risk assessments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Carter v. Dupuy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida colleges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Louisiana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lower speed limits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma Department of Transportation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[School Bus Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school guardian program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school resource officer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surveillance footage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Talyn Bain Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[three-point seat belts]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3047</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In Louisiana, the United States Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling against a school resource officer who assisted school officials in “removing (a) mother from school office.”  In a case involving suspected child endangerment, social workers “contacted&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-19-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In Louisiana, the <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30213-CV0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>United States Court of Appeals</strong></a> reversed a lower court ruling against a school resource officer who assisted school officials in “removing (a) mother from school office.”  In a case involving suspected child endangerment, social workers “contacted the high school and ordered the school not to release the girl to the (parents’) custody.  The school then began locking all exterior school doors to prevent the (parents) entry.  The school also contacted (the school resource officer) and asked him to report to the school&#8217;s front office.  The school informed (the SRO) that it had been instructed not to release the girl to the (parents), and that an agent of the Department was on his way to the school.”  Once at the school the mother “became angry and used profanity.  The school secretary warned (her) that she would have to leave the office if she continued to use profanity.  Shortly afterward, (the mother) stepped partially outside the office to talk to her husband. She then re-entered the office.  Following (her) exchange with her husband, (the SRO) asked (the mother) to step outside the office.  But (she) refused to leave without her daughter.  Surveillance footage depicts her gesturing angrily while speaking to (the SRO).  (The SRO) grasped (her) arm and pulled her toward the door.  When (she) refused to move, (the SRO) pushed her a few inches through the office doorway.  The appellate court reversed because “a constitutional violation does not occur every time an officer touches someone… Under the circumstances, we cannot say that such de minimis force was “clearly” excessive and unreasonable.  (The SRO) knew that the (social worker) was investigating potential child abuse and that it had instructed the school not to release the girl to the (parents’) custody.  (The mother) was visibly upset, demanded custody of her child, and refused to comply with (the SRO’s) instructions.  For the safety of everyone involved, (the SRO) removed (the mother) from the office.  Once (she) was outside, (the SRO) ceased all force.  We hold that the force used by (the SRO) was de minimis, and that (the mother) suffered no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The district court thus erred.”  <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-30213-CV0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Carter v. Dupuy</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Florida,  the legislature enacted a law that <a href="https://www.wctv.tv/2026/05/15/gov-desantis-signs-law-expand-school-guardian-program-florida-colleges/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>expands the school guardian program to Florida colleges</strong></a>.  Under the provisions of <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2026/757" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>House Bill 757</strong></a> “teachers and staff will be able to carry weapons after training with the sheriff’s office. The law also requires <a href="https://www.cfpublic.org/text/politics/2026-05-15/desantis-signs-bill-expanding-armed-guardian-program-to-colleges" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>annual security risk assessments</strong></a> at every campus to find safety flaws and make improvements.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Oklahoma, the legislature has enacted <a href="https://www.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=HB2979&amp;Session=2600" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>House Bill 2979</strong></a>.  Called the “Talyn Bain Act,” the goal of the law is to improve safety for students “by establishing <a href="https://www.okhouse.gov/posts/news-20260518-2" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>lower speed limits on certain highways near schools</strong></a>.”  The provisions of the law direct “the Oklahoma Department of Transportation (ODOT) to create 45 mph school zones on portions of state highways upon request from a local jurisdiction, provided specific safety conditions are met. These include highways with speed limits of 65 mph or higher that run within 150 yards of a school and lack a direct exit ramp into the school zone.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Texas, <a href="https://capitol.texas.gov/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=89R&amp;Bill=SB546" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Senate Bill 546</strong></a> has been enacted to improve school bus safety.  It’s provisions require “<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/texas-school-districts-seat-belts-on-buses-law/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>all public school buses to have three-point seat belts</strong></a> by 2029. Three-point seat belts include a shoulder belt and a lap belt, as opposed to a two-point belt, which only goes across the lap.”</p>



<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
					<wfw:commentRss>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-may-19-2026/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
			<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3047</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for April 17, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-april-17-2026/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2026 23:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anonymous threat reporting system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brown v. Splendora ISD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criminal trespassing incident]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hardin Valley]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky Education Association (KEA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Knox County Schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[magnetic strips]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PSAT test]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[School Behavior Support survey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tennessee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Texas]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3042</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In Texas, the United States District Court upheld school discipline against a student who “refused to surrender his cell phone to school personnel prior to taking the PSAT test, and (a student who) refused to surrender his phone to&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-april-17-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In Texas, the <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_24-cv-04895/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_24-cv-04895-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>United States District Court</strong></a> upheld school discipline against a student who “refused to surrender his cell phone to school personnel prior to taking the PSAT test, and (a student who) refused to surrender his phone to be placed (along with all his other classmates&#8217; phones) in a blue pouch during the pendency of a teacher&#8217;s class.”  School policy “allows students to carry cell phones in school for safety purposes, (but) they are not to be used during testing.  Additionally, teachers are empowered to collect phones so that they do not disrupt class.  More importantly, students are instructed that they shall not fail to comply with directives given by school personnel.”  The students argued that schools “cannot regulate cell phone usage on its campus” because “the right to possess a cell phone is a sacrosanct right that supersedes all other provisions of the Code or other directives of an instructor.”  The court held that “there is no constitutional right to possess a cell phone in class.  Furthermore, to temporarily deprive a student of his cell phone during a class or a test and return it to them after the class or test is completed (or even at the conclusion of the school day) is not a constitutional violation.” Therefore the Court found that neither (student) has any legally cognizable claim regarding their respective cell phone scenarios.  <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-txsd-4_24-cv-04895/pdf/USCOURTS-txsd-4_24-cv-04895-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Brown v. Splendora ISD</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Kentucky, “the Kentucky Education Association (KEA) is urging all Kentucky school employees, both certified and classified, to share their experiences in a <a href="https://www.kentuckytoday.com/news/kea-launches-safety-survey-for-school-employees/article_3c87098d-8171-4ed4-a646-58438ab459f2.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>safety and student</strong></a><strong><a href="https://www.kentuckytoday.com/news/kea-launches-safety-survey-for-school-employees/article_3c87098d-8171-4ed4-a646-58438ab459f2.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"> </a></strong><a href="https://www.kentuckytoday.com/news/kea-launches-safety-survey-for-school-employees/article_3c87098d-8171-4ed4-a646-58438ab459f2.html"><strong>behavior survey</strong></a>.  Following the passage and signing into law of <a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/26rs/sb101.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Senate Bill 101</strong></a>, landmark legislation aimed at addressing assaults against educators, the KEA wants every public school teacher and school employee in Kentucky to take part in a new, <a href="https://usouthmaine.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_5BB720a2u4PSO1g" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>anonymous School Behavior Support survey</strong></a>, designed to capture real-world data on school safety and student behavior.</p>



<p>&#8212; In Minnesota, “Democrats in the Minnesota House of Representatives voted down GOP school safety legislation (<a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/HF/3493/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>HF 3493</strong></a>) that included <a href="https://eplocalnews.org/2026/04/16/months-after-annunciation-shooting-minnesota-lawmakers-are-not-close-on-school-safety-legislation/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>additional funding</strong></a>, local options for school districts to create an anonymous threat reporting system, and would <a href="https://alphanews.org/democrats-block-common-sense-school-safety-legislation-as-session-enters-its-final-weeks/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>let schools suspend students for longer</strong></a>.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Tennessee, “Knox County Schools is prohibiting the use of magnetic strips on classroom doors after a criminal trespassing incident at Hardin Valley campuses earlier this month.”&nbsp; Officials say “individual classrooms have been using magnetic strips to allow students access in and out of classrooms during bathroom breaks.”&nbsp; Going forward, “all district facilities are equipped with automatic door locks and all doors must remain locked during the instructional day.”</p>



<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3042</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for April 10, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-april-10-2026/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 20:33:23 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[artificial intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Public Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[juvenile court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Memorandum of Understanding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[O.W. v. Carr]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panic button]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[radar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school resource officer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school shooting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexually explicit photo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3040</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In Virginia, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a student’s case when the search of his phone revealed a sexually explicit photo of a classmate.  The 13 year old middle school student, who “received a sexually&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-april-10-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In Virginia, the <a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241288.P.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>U.S. Court of Appeals</strong></a> affirmed the dismissal of a student’s case when the search of his phone revealed a sexually explicit photo of a classmate.  The 13 year old middle school student, who “received a sexually explicit photo from a female classmate…shared that photo with some other students during the school day. Teachers quickly caught wind of the matter and notified (school administration).”  An administrator, in the presence of the student and a school resource officer (SRO), “searched the photo gallery” of the student’s phone.  Eventually with the help of the student  the sexually explicit photo was revealed.  The student was charged with “possession of child pornography,” which was dismissed after he “completed the terms and conditions of the deferred disposition set by the juvenile court.”  The student filed a lawsuit “alleging violations of his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights,” e.g., that the questioning violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the search of his phone violated the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.  Much of the outcome of the case fell upon the role of the SRO and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the school district and the police department.  The appellate court emphasized that under the MOU “the principal or school staff must immediately report any criminal activity to the SRO.”  In addition, the MOU placed limits upon the SRO.  First, “while the SRO is authorized to take law enforcement actions at the school, he or she is not responsible for the enforcement of school rules or regulations.”  Second, an SRO is constrained in his/her ability to search a student “unless they have probable cause to believe the student is violating the law.”  Third, “the MOU further states that SROs ‘will not become involved in student or school searches which are conducted by school officials and are not supported by probable cause,’ and ‘will not encourage or request a school official to act as the SRO&#8217;s agent in conducting searches of students.’”  As to the questioning, the appellate court ruled that “a student simply being questioned by a principal would not generally qualify as a custodial interrogation.”  And “the record does not…indicate any coordination between the (school administrator and the SRO) to accomplish some unlawful, ‘conspiratorial objective.’”  As to the search, the court held that the administrator’s search “was both justified at its inception and reasonable in scope… given the circumstances justifying it (i.e., allegations of child pornography and the distribution thereof in school).”  And the SRO “sat by while (the administrator) searched (the student’s) phone; she did not search it with him.”  <a href="https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/241288.P.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>O.W. v. Carr</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Minnesota, the legislature is considering “<strong><a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/HF/3753/versions/latest/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">HF3753/SF390</a> </strong>to provide $4 million to the Department of Public Safety to <a href="https://www.house.mn.gov/comm/docs/jvCQZVefIUWxHoTHoq4E2g.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>implement a pilot project</strong></a> using the technology at eight schools across the state… The technology uses <a href="https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/house-bill-calls-for-4-million-for-school-safety-surveillance-technology/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>a combination of cameras, radar and artificial intelligence</strong></a> to spot weapons like guns, even if they’re concealed in a backpack or pocket, as soon as someone carries them on campus.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Kentucky, <a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/26rs/sb101.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Senate Bill 101</strong></a> has been enacted.  It establishes “statewide standards for how schools respond to assaults against staff, require(s) incidents to be reported to law enforcement and ensure(s) accountability in situations where reporting requirements are not followed.”  The provisions of the text of the law require that “students in grades 6 through 12 who cause or attempt to cause injury to school staff are required to be expelled for a minimum of 12 months.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Virginia,  <a href="https://lis.blob.core.windows.net/files/1215520.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>H 592</strong></a> has been enacted allowing “any school employee (to) <a href="https://www.wavy.com/news/virginia/law-passes-in-virginia-to-allow-teachers-to-have-wearable-panic-buttons-in-case-of-emergency/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>wear a panic button</strong></a> that they can use to alert authorities if there is an emergency that requires an immediate response like for a school shooting.”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3040</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for March 27, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-march-27-2026/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Mar 2026 21:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[automated computer displays]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[emergency services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Degree Sexual Assault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Miranda v. Arizona]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[panic alert device]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public announcement system]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State v. K.R.C.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stop-signal arm cameras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[weapons detection systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wisconsin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wisconsin Supreme Court]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3038</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; 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.&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-march-27-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In Wisconsin, the <a href="https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&amp;seqNo=1096798" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Wisconsin Supreme Court</strong></a> 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 <a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep384/usrep384436/usrep384436.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Miranda v. Arizona</strong></a>.”  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  <a href="https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep384/usrep384436/usrep384436.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Miranda v. Arizona</strong></a>, the Court stated that “many courts have applied Miranda in the school setting… a child&#8217;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&#8217;s testimony about (the student’s) statements was duplicative of other testimony, unnecessary for a finding of intent, and went unmentioned during the State&#8217;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.  <a href="https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&amp;seqNo=1096798" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>State v. K.R.C.</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Georgia, school safety legislation is moving toward the Governor’s desk that will <a href="https://www.wxxv25.com/georgia-could-become-the-first-state-with-weapons-detection-in-all-public-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>require weapons detection systems</strong></a> in all public schools.  <a href="https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/HB1023/2025" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>House Bill 1023</strong></a> would also require every student to be checked for weapons when arriving at a public school each day.</p>



<p>&#8212; In Missouri, <a href="https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1960256" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>HB 3174</strong></a> has been introduced to require that public and charter school employees <a href="https://krcgtv.com/news/local/alyssas-law-seeks-to-require-additional-safety-features-in-missouri-schools" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>wear a “panic alert device</strong></a> 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.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Minnesota, a school bus safety bill sits on the Governor’s desk after passage by the legislature.  <a href="https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1986446" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>HF 4063</strong></a> requires “<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/school-bus-safety-bill-passes-minnesota-legislature/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>vehicles to stop for a school bus once its red lights begin flashing</strong></a>, regardless of whether its stop sign arm has been fully extended.”   “It also includes language that says a bus&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3038</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for March 20, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-march-20-2026/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Mar 2026 19:11:17 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[academic]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[articulable and significant threat]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attendance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[curriculum content]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disciplinary school records]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FERPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[highschool]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maryland]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Minnesota]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New York]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[non-public schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prohibit public and nonpublic schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual education instruction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3036</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In New York, the New York Supreme Court ruled that school officials did not violate FERPA by disclosing the “academic, attendance, and disciplinary school records” of a student in connection with a pattern of concerning behaviors.  The case arose&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-march-20-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In New York, the <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2026/2026-ny-slip-op-26036.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>New York Supreme Court</strong></a> ruled that school officials did not violate FERPA by disclosing the “academic, attendance, and disciplinary school records” of a student in connection with a pattern of concerning behaviors.  The case arose out of a decision by educators to file “an application for a temporary extreme risk protection order accompanied by a request for judicial intervention.”  In support of the request, educators stated the following: “[Redacted] is a student at [Redacted] High School. He was arrested this week for armed robbery, criminal possession of a weapon and attempted grand theft auto. The weapon used was a loaded 3-D printed fire arm and he was also in possession of an additional [additional] round of ammunition and zip ties. We have a report of him breaking into a student&#8217;s house and stealing an expensive jacket on the same day as the armed robbery. He is believed to be gang involved. He is known to be drug involved. Police were recently called to his home for a potential overdose. There is concern, given his likely gang involvement, substance use, poor decision making and access to weapons that he will bring a weapon to school and/or seek revenge against any student(s) who may be cooperating with police and/or school investigations.”  The court rejected the argument of the student that the <a href="https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/ferpa" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act</strong></a> (FERPA) was violated.  Among the arguments of the student was the claim that “here is not such (an) articulable and significant threat that exists, in that there was (not) an actual and active shooting scenario at the Respondent&#8217;s school in connection with the proceeding filed herein.”  The court focused squarely upon the FERPA exception that permits disclosures of education records  “in connection with an emergency, (to) appropriate persons if the knowledge of such information is necessary to protect the health or safety of the student or other persons.”  The court ruled that the student’s argument “belies the (FERPA) regulations of the Department (of Education) and the explanations pertaining to same set forth in the Federal Register.”  First, the FERPA “regulations were altered in 2008 to provide more deference and flexibility to educators.”  Second, “there need only be a “rational basis” when taking into consideration “the totality of the circumstances” when making a determination if there is an articulable and significant threat to the health and safety of the student or other individuals.”  Third, “the term “articulable and significant threat” required only that a school official be able to express in words what (led) the official to conclude that a student poses a threat, and that when determining what could qualify as an emergency that an emergency could also be a situation in which a student gives sufficient, cumulative warning signs that lead an educational agency or institution to believe the student may harm himself or others at any moment.”  In other words, the court held that “when making a determination if an emergency or articulable and significant threat exists, the educators must examine cumulative warning signs and the totality of the circumstances which includes the Respondent&#8217;s performance at the School including academic, attendance and disciplinary records.”  Therefore, “the Application (for a temporary extreme risk protection order) sets forth allegations pertaining to the Respondent providing a rational basis for Petitioner, upon consideration of the totality of the circumstances, to determine an emergency to exist due to Respondent being an articulable and significant threat, due to his cumulative warning signs that led Petitioner to believe that Respondent may harm himself or others.”  <a href="https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2026/2026-ny-slip-op-26036.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>P.P.S. v. C.J.G. (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 6, 2026)</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Minnesota, <a href="https://www.wdayradionow.com/news/local-news/minnesota-senate-republicans-introduce-bills-to-improve-safety-at-schools/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>several new policy proposals</strong></a> on school safety are being discussed in the <a href="https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1804659" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>current legislative session</strong></a>.  The polices would “require <a href="https://www.fox9.com/news/minnesota-gop-unveils-education-plan-safer-smarter-schools" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>schools to notify a safety incident to parents</strong></a>, add <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2025/0/SF/557/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>protections for employees</strong></a> who report safety concerns, allow schools to <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/SF/4023/?body=Senate" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>remove a student</strong></a> who disrupted a classroom for the rest of the day plus up to another full day and require more transparency around curriculum content and requires consent for sexual education instruction.”  Legislators also intend to <a href="https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/94/2026/0/SF/3930/?body=Senate" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>provide funding to non-public schools</strong></a>.</p>



<p>&#8212; In Texas, several school districts are exploring <a href="https://www.hppr.org/hppr-news/2026-03-18/texas-company-pitches-drone-response-to-school-shootings" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>a drone safety program</strong></a> for their campuses.  “<a href="https://www.campusguardianangel.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>The drones</strong></a> can distract with blinding lights and loud sirens, shoot powdered bullets or even fly into a target fast enough to knock a punching dummy to the ground.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Maryland, the legislature is considering a proposal that would prohibit public and nonpublic schools <a href="https://foxbaltimore.com/news/project-baltimore/new-bill-bans-maryland-schools-from-hiring-or-keeping-staff-charged-with-serious-crimes" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>from “hiring or retaining”</strong></a> employees charged with certain crimes. That includes, crimes of “moral turpitude”, “distribution” of drugs, certain “federal” crimes and “any felony.”  <a href="https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2026RS/bills/hb/hb1418f.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>House Bill 1418</strong></a> would also “require schools and vendors to keep workers with those pending charges out of roles that provide direct, <a href="https://hoodline.com/2026/03/charged-staffers-rock-maryland-schools-annapolis-races-to-slam-door/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>unsupervised access to students</strong></a>.”</p>



<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3036</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for March 13, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-march-13-2026/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Mar 2026 23:18:24 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[body shield backpacks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boothbay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Central School District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[campus safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Child Victims Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia House]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kentucky]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey public school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual abuse]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual assault]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[silent panic alert systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tort Claims Act]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3034</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In New Jersey, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a school district can be held liable for a teacher’s sexual abuse of a student.  The ruling reversed a decision by an appellate court that dismissed several cases, holding&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-march-13-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In New Jersey, <a href="https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a_36_37_38_39_24.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>the New Jersey Supreme Court</strong></a> held that a school district can be held liable for a teacher’s sexual abuse of a student.  The ruling reversed a decision by an appellate court that dismissed several cases, holding that a victimized student could not rely upon vicarious liability as a basis for damages against the school district.  In reversing, the New Jersey Supreme Court reasoned that comprehensive child protection reforms clearly established that “the Legislature abrogated (previous Tort Claims Act) immunities that would otherwise bar claims against certain public entities in an action at law for damages as a result of a sexual assault &#8230; or sexual abuse &#8230; being committed against a person which was caused by a willful, wanton, or grossly negligent act of the public entity or public employee.”  Applying  “a plain and ordinary reading of the reform statute,” the New Jersey Supreme Court held that based upon (the statute’s) the plain language and legislative history, other legislative action addressing child sexual abuse, this Court&#8217;s (prior) decision …, and the authority on which the Court relied in that decision, we adopt a standard for the determination of vicarious liability claims asserted against public schools pursuant to the statute.”  In other words, “when it enacted the Child Victims Act, the Legislature expanded the rights of child victims of sexual abuse”…providing “an exception to its broad grant of immunity for vicarious liability, providing that “a public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of a public employee within the scope of his employment.”  The litigation arose out of allegations by students in four separate cases “that New Jersey public school teachers sexually abused them when they were high school students.”  <a href="https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a_36_37_38_39_24.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Hornor v. Upper Freehold Regional Board of Education</strong></a></p>



<p>&#8212; In Kentucky, the legislature is considering a policy that would <a href="https://www.union-bulletin.com/news/national/kentucky-bill-that-would-implement-wearable-alarm-systems-for-school-staff-advances/article_744471e2-b87d-55d1-bdb5-8aa1d1589b48.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>authorize educators to wear silent panic alert systems</strong></a>.  “<a href="https://apps.legislature.ky.gov/record/26rs/hb643.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>House Bill 643</strong></a> would establish the framework for schools to implement wearable, silent panic alert systems for staff… that sends a signal to the local 911 and emergency responders.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Georgia, the legislature is proposing a policy that “would ban high school students from using cellphones during the school day.”  <a href="https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/HB1009/2025" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>House Bill 1009</strong></a> “has passed the Georgia House and is headed to the state Senate for a vote… Supporters say restricting phone use would help create a more focused learning environment.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Maine, officials in Boothbay are <a href="https://wgme.com/news/local/police-distribute-body-shield-backpacks-to-boothbay-region-schools-maine-education" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>distributing body shield backpacks</strong></a> to classrooms in the Boothbay-Boothbay Harbor Central School District.  “Teachers and staff can use the bags as shields when evacuating or confronting a threat.  Boothbay police say the backpack can stop a bullet and protect someone from being stabbed.”</p>



<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3034</post-id>	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Safety Law News for February 27, 2026</title>
		<link>https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-february-27-2026/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bernie James]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Feb 2026 21:01:15 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Florida]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fourth Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guardian Program]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools (6th Circuit)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools (District Court)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Sheriff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Loudoun County Sheriff Strategic Plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[medical emergency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michigan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oxford High School]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public charter school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public schools]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[school resource officer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U. S. Department of Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unarmed security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unsafe School Choice Option]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Washington]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/?p=3032</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&#8212; In Michigan, the United States District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the expulsion of a student for making a threatening remark about a gun while on campus.  The student “made a remark about a gun to&#8230;<p class="more-link-p"><a class="more-link" href="https://schoolsafetylawblog.com/safety-law-news-for-february-27-2026/">Read more &#8594;</a></p>]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p>&#8212; In Michigan, the <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-1_22-cv-13158/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-1_22-cv-13158-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>United States District Court</strong></a> and the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14983274852348976018&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>U.S. Court of Appeals</strong></a> upheld the expulsion of a student for making a threatening remark about a gun while on campus.  The student “made a remark about a gun to several other students…At least four students perceived the remark as a threat and reported it to their parents and (school officials).”  The shooting at Oxford High School in Michigan, in which  5 students were killed, had occurred one week earlier.  School officials, based upon the disciplinary history of the student, “referred him to the Board for an expulsion hearing.”  The student argued, <em>inter alia</em>, that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment when searching his person, backpack, and school locker. The student also alleges that he was expelled “without due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.”  The court held that as to the Fourth Amendment, school officials “do not need probable cause to justify a search of a student at its inception. Indeed, recognizing the difference between school and law enforcement officials, the Supreme Court describes the lesser standard to justify school searches as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing… Only unreasonable seizures violate the Fourth Amendment. Like searches, seizures are unreasonable if they are unjustified at their inception or unreasonable in scope.”  As to the Fourteenth Amendment and due process, the court explained that substantive due process requirements are violated “when discretionary government action is arbitrary and capricious, willful and unreasoning, conscience-shocking, or extremely irrational.”  Procedural process requirements are violated when a student shows that an expulsion occurs “without adequate process…(e.g.) when the individuals responsible for deciding whether to deprive a person of his interest are biased.”  The court dismissed the claims.  School officials “reasonably searched and seized” the student.  And no “reasonable juror” could conclude that (the student’s) expulsion shocks the conscience.”  Finally, “there is no convincing evidence in the record to support (the student’s) claim that the CCPS School Board prejudged him.”  The court opined that, the “Oxford shooting heightened the severity of student threats involving firearms at nearby Michigan public schools.” <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14983274852348976018&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=6&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools (6<sup>th</sup> Circuit)</strong></a>  <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-mied-1_22-cv-13158/pdf/USCOURTS-mied-1_22-cv-13158-2.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Halasz v. Cass City Public Schools</strong></a><strong> (District Court)</strong></p>



<p>&#8212; In Washington, D.C., the U. S. Department of Education “<a href="https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-shares-state-guidance-unsafe-school-choice-option" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>released guidance</strong></a> to ensure that students in unsafe public schools can <a href="https://www.city-journal.org/article/education-department-guidance-unsafe-public-schools" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>access safe alternatives</strong></a>.”  The Unsafe School Choice Option is “designed to ensure students in persistently dangerous schools are provided with an opportunity to attend a safe public elementary or secondary school, including a public charter school.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Florida, the legislature has enacted a new policy <a href="https://www.campussafetymagazine.com/news/florida-governor-ron-desantis-signs-bipartisan-school-safety-bill/170815/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>expanding the scope</strong></a> of school safety regulations.  <a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2025/1470" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>Senate Bill 1470</strong></a> expands the state&#8217;s Guardian Program to include childcare centers.”</p>



<p>&#8212; In Virginia, the Loudoun County Sheriff is seeking the expansion of the school resource officer program to <a href="https://wtop.com/loudoun-county/2025/05/loudoun-co-sheriff-renews-call-for-elementary-school-resource-officers/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>include the 65 elementary schools</strong></a>.  <a href="https://www.loudoun.gov/DocumentCenter/View/215358/2025-LCSO-Strategic-Plan?bidId=" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>The Loudoun County Sheriff Strategic Plan</strong></a> reflects the belief that “if you have any kind of significant incident at a school, unarmed security is not going to be able to do much … They’re not part of our emergency response team, so they’re not going to know who to call, whether you need fire and rescue out there, whether you have a medical emergency, and what kind of steps that we take to notify parents.”</p>



<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
		<post-id xmlns="com-wordpress:feed-additions:1">3032</post-id>	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
