Search
  • IASRO

Safety Law News for January 15, 2019

  • In Congress, a bill, called the Promoting Resource Officers Together for Exceptionally Critical Targets with Key Investments in Districts and Schools Act, or “Protect Kids Act,” has been introduced. The legislation sets aside $250 million in matching grants to hire school resource officers.

  • In Florida, Lee County officials are implementing a public service announcement campaign called "Fake Threats, Real Consequences." The school district investigated 51 threats of violence in the 2016-17 school year. In 2017-18, that number jumped to 164. Other school districts in Florida are experiencing a spate of threats as well.

  • In Virginia, legislation has been introduced that would exempt students from a disorderly conduct charge if they misbehave at school. Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor in Virginia. The proposals are a continuation of recent school discipline reform that cut the maximum length of a long-term suspension from 364 calendar days to 45 school days and that prevents school districts from suspending students in pre-K through third grade for more than three days.

  • In Maryland, House Bill 31 has been introduced to eliminate the current policy that prevents Baltimore City school-based police from carrying guns when school is in session.

1 view0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Safety Law News for September 12, 2019

• In New York, the New York Commissioner of Education is implementing a new policy that is designed to prevent school resource officers from detaining or questioning students for the purpose o

Safety Law News for September 5, 2019

In Alabama, a non-partisan research institute is calling for specialized and fully funded training for all school resource officers in the state. Its Report, "Hall Monitors with Handcuffs

Safety Law News for August 15, 2019

In New York, the Court of Appeal held that a student who was assaulted on campus is entitled to records of all assaults that occurred on school grounds to help her case. The court reasoned that in d