|
Overview
The recent spate of random and senseless "sniper shootings" in
Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Virginia require a
follow-up to last month's commentary concerning school safety
and security. The fact that someone has killed or injured
helpless and unsuspecting citizens (including the wounding of a
student outside a public middle school in Maryland) has aroused
feelings of fear and uncertainty in the minds of many.
The repercussions of these senseless and horrible acts were
visible across the entire nation as government officials acted
quickly to protect citizens. In communities nearest the
shootings immediate precautionary steps were taken. Public
gatherings were canceled. Citizens acted with extra diligence
when going to the store, to the service station, and in
commuting to and from work. Public and private schools
immediately curtailed and in some cases canceled all outside
events (e.g., recess periods and other playground activities,
school field trips, soccer and football games at high schools,
and October homecoming festivities).
The terrifying events of early October caused families to
rethink their daily routines (e.g., going shopping, or to the
movies, or to the library, or to the park). At the same time,
parents of school age children expected that school
administrators and staff do everything possible to protect the
welfare and safety of their children.
Based upon a review of data available at this time, it can be
reported that school systems in Maryland, the District of
Columbia, and Virginia were prepared and more than adequately
fulfilled their responsibilities. System-wide safety plans were
set in motion, school buildings were made secure, and school
security personnel, school resource officers, and community
police agencies took immediate steps to protect students and
staff from possible harm. The evidence shows that school
officials and staff members met the many challenges caused by
the "sniper shootings."
The Importance of School Security Personnel
As demonstrated in the hours and days following the
initial "sniper shootings," a critically important aspect of
establishing and maintaining safe and secure schools was the
presence and immediate involvement of school security personnel.
In addition to a quick response from the local police, the
presence of school security in school buildings had a calming
influence and kept students, parents, and school staff from
being caught in the grip of fear and panic. Ironically, at a
time when school security personnel demonstrated their
importance as members of the school safety and security team,
there are policy issues that need immediate attention. For
example, the authority, roles, and functions of school resource
officers are often confused with those of school security
officers. In the current climate of fear and anxiety, where
coordinated security efforts are of paramount importance, it
behooves school officials to move quickly to formulate policies
that rectify this situation.
School Resource Officers and School Security officers
In most school systems student discipline remains the sole
responsibility of school principals and assistant principals,
while in other school systems building-level administrators rely
on school security officers for assistance. There are other
school systems, however, where administrators carry out many of
their disciplinary functions (especially in weapons-related,
drug-related, and gang-related situations) in concert with a
school resource officer. What need clarification are the roles,
functions, and legal status of school security officers and
school resources officers. While it is possible to generally
categorize both as school safety and security personnel the two
possess a very different legal status.
In Virginia, for example, the law is clear. A school resource
officer is defined as "a trained, certified law-enforcement
officer hired by a local law-enforcement agency to provide
law-enforcement and security services to Virginia public
elementary and secondary schools." In other words the SRO is a
police officer on duty in a public school. On the other hand, a
school security officer is "an individual who is employed by the
local school board for the singular purpose of maintaining order
and discipline, preventing crime, investigating violations of
school board policies, and detaining and apprehending students
violating the law or school board policies on school property or
at school-sponsored events, and who is responsible solely for
ensuring the safety, security, and welfare of the students,
faculty, staff, and visitors in the assigned school." In other
words a school security officer is a school system employee
engaged in school business.
The language in the Virginia statute suggests that school
resource officers and school security officers perform the same
basic functions. They assist school administrators in providing
and maintaining a safe, secure, and crime-free school. However,
the difference in their legal status created in the same law is
clear, and cannot be overlooked. This is especially important in
situations where violations of the law are suspected and
students and/or their belongings are subject to a search.
Case Law Examples
As the United States Supreme Court established in New Jersey
v T.L.O (1985), public school officials and police officers
are government officials; however, the judicial standard applied
to each in matters of search and seizure is different. Probable
cause is the standard applied in police searches and reasonable
suspicion is the standard applied in school searches.
Patman v State (2000) is a Georgia case involving the
search of a student by a police officer. The officer was on
special detail in a public high school. A high school secretary
had informed the officer that a student smelled of marijuana.
The officer stopped the student in the school hallway. Smelling
marijuana the officer frisked the student and felt stamp sized
bags in the student's pocket. At that point the student said to
the officer, "Come on and let me slide." Hearing the student's
words, the officer reached into the student's pocket and removed
bags of marijuana. Even though the search took place on school
property, the police treated the matter as a police matter and
not as a school matter. At trial the student's attorney moved to
suppress the evidence. Probable cause was the standard applied
by the court to the police officer initiating and conducting the
student search. In the court's view the officer did have
probable cause to search the student. While "feeling the
packages" and the "smell of marijuana" alone did reach the
standard, those two factors plus the student's statement to the
officer gave him probable cause to execute the search. The
search was upheld.
Anders ex rel. Anders v Fort Wayne (2000) is an Indiana
case decided by a federal district court. In Anders a public
high school student parked his car on the school parking lot. A
school security officer spotted the student in the school
parking lot, during instructional time. The security officer
followed the student back into the school building. The security
officer questioned the student about his presence out on the
parking lot. The student said that he was looking in his car for
an art project. The officer asked the student to go with him to
the car. The student complied with the request. Subsequently the
security officer searched the car. He found an open package of
cigarettes, a lighter, and two pocketknives. All items were in
violation of school system policy. School officials disciplined
the student. The student went to court. The standard applied by
the court to the search by the security officer was reasonable
suspicion. Prior to the search there had been numerous
complaints about students smoking in the parking lot. Smoking
was prohibited by school system policy. The student in this case
did not produce a valid pass to be out of the school building.
Moreover, his explanation to the security officer was suspect.
The search was upheld.
In re D.D. (2001) involved a search by a school
principal, a school resource officer, and school security
officers. The school principal received information that a
student fight was to take place. He told the school resource
officer. The school principal immediately looked into the
matter. A school resource officer assisted the school principal.
Four juveniles were observed in the school parking lot. Three of
the kids were identified as non-students. The principal, the
resource officer, and school security went to the scene.
Subsequently, the kids were asked to empty their pockets. A box
cutter was found. The kids were taken to court on delinquency
charges where a motion to suppress the evidence was made and
denied. On appeal the court applied the reasonable suspicion
standard. Because the school principal initiated the search, and
the purpose of the search was not to collect evidence of a crime
but rather to maintain a safe and proper educational
environment, it was a school search and not a police search. The
fact that a school resource officer and school security were
present and assisted the principal did not change the character
of the search. The court held for the school system.
Policy Implications
The need to make policy that is consistent with law, proactive
in character, clear in purpose, practical in nature, and
effective in implementation never has been greater. Public
school officials and building-level administrators realize that
they need help and assistance. As the recent " sniper shootings"
illustrate, a key to successfully maintaining school safety and
in alleviating fear among students, parents, and staff is an
immediate response from local police agencies in coordination
with school system security. To enhance the speed and
effectiveness of the school system's response to all forms of
criminal enterprise that threaten the safety and wellbeing of
students and staff, and that disrupt the school's educational
environment, policy must clearly delineate the roles,
responsibilities, and functions of school administrators, school
security officers, and school resource officers. These policies
must be:
- In writing.
- Consistent with the school system's mission.
- Clear that the local board of education is vested with the
constitutional and legal authority to make all policies
governing school safety and security.
- Clear that the specific intent of such policies is to provide
a safe, secure, crime-free educational environment.
- Tailored to the features and characteristics of the school
system's community.
- Written in non-legalistic terminology.
- Clear in the definitions of key terms such as: school
administrator, school security officer, school resource officer,
reasonable suspicion, probable cause, emergency situation,
school emergency response team, weapons, drugs, terrorist acts,
and others.
- Clear in the designation of individuals, by position and not
by name, who are authorized to initiate and carryout school
lock-downs, and searches and seizures of students, staff,
visitors, and trespassers.
- Clear in such matters as "who
reports to whom."
- Clear that emergency situations (e.g., bomb
threats, terrorist threats, the presence of weapons on school
grounds) will require the immediate, prompt, and direct response
of the school emergency response team.
Resources Cited
Anders ex rel. Anders v Fort Wayne, 124 F.Supp. 2d 618 (N.D.
Ind. 2000).
In re D.D., 554 S.E. 2d 346 (N.C. Ct. App. 2001).
New Jersey v T.L.O., 105 S.Ct. 733 (1985).
Patman v State, 537 S.E. 2d 118 (Ga. App. 2000).
Code of Virginia 22.1-280.2:1 (2002)
Richard S. Vacca
Senior Fellow CEPI
Note: The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are
those of the author. |
