REGIONAL—St. Louis County Sheriff Gordon Ramsay indicated he remains concerned about a change in state law that limits the types of physical force that school officials, including student resource officers, or SROs, can use on students in non-violent circumstances.
Ramsay, who suspended the county’s SRO program in response to the change, acknowledged that SROs in the county have only rarely resorted to the use of force in area schools. “But as one SRO told me, he doesn’t want to do anything that is risky,” he added. That concern is shared by dozens of law enforcement entities across the state who have expressed opposition to the change in Minn. Stat. 121A.582, which limits the use of physical force against students to situations involving the imminent threat of bodily harm to a student or others. In the past, the law also allowed for the use of physical force to “restrain” a student without defining the reasons for such restraint. The change in law does not apply to other law enforcement officials who aren’t contracted to work specifically in schools.
The revision in the law has sparked political controversy, with many Republicans and some prominent law enforcement officials calling for action in a special session to reverse the change, which applies to all school staff, including teachers, bus drivers and SROs. Ramsay said he regrets that the controversy has become a political football and notes that he canceled St. Louis County’s SRO program early on, well before it became overtly partisan.
While opponents to the change in law spoke out early, supporters of the new law have begun speaking out as well, and that has altered the political dynamic which had initially appeared to favor a special session. The Minnesota Youth Council, a legislative advisory group comprised of high school students from across the state, recently expressed their full support of the new law, warning that any changes to the language adopted by the Legislature last spring could prove detrimental to student well-being.
“Reworking Minnesota statute 121A.58 could lead to SROs having less restrictions and causing more harm to students in their communities,” the group said in a press release. “This section of law protects, supports, and addresses the safety needs of students in Minnesota by restricting the kinds of holds SROs can use against them.”
In addition, 44 DFL lawmakers, including Speaker of the House Melissa Hortman, have come out against any changes to the law. They argue that the bill, as part of a larger education finance bill, received bipartisan support in the spring and that ample opportunities were provided in hearings for the language to be challenged. The House People of Color and Indigenous Caucus has also issued a statement supporting the bill.
A recent opinion by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison concluded that the change “does not limit the types of reasonable force that may be used by school staff and agents, [including SROs] to prevent bodily harm or death.”
“The test for reasonable force remains unchanged, and is highly fact-specific,” concluded Ellison.
Under Minn. Stat. 8.07, attorney general opinions are decisive as they apply to school districts in the state, unless overturned by a court.
Yet Ellison’s opinion hasn’t changed Ramsay’s mind, who says he’s following the advice of legal counsel from associations like the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Minnesota Counties, who have suggested that the change could put school staff, including SROs, at a greater risk for civil litigation if they use force in non-violent situations.
Representatives of the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust, however, have indicated that they do not intend to suspend insurance coverage for municipal police departments that maintain an SRO program in their local schools over the issue, as some had suggested.
Meanwhile, the Minnesota Youth Council is challenging the view held by many law enforcement agencies and school boards alike that SRO programs help to improve students’ perceptions of law enforcement.
“In schools, the presence of SROs is not necessarily viewed as a universal good,” says Minnesota Youth Council member and Minneapolis Washburn High School student Charlie Schmit. “Some students view SROs in a negative way and many students report SROs contribute to increased feelings of stress and fear. This law helps to assure safe school environments by clearly identifying SRO’s roles in school and hopefully it will lead to further training and discussion to ensure all learning environments for students are safe.”
In a letter to the bill’s author, the Youth Council contended that SROs aren’t being trained in schools, “which is alarming considering the main purpose of SROs is to be able to assist with situations that occur in school.”
The council also highlighted racial disparities in the deployment of SROs, citing research showing that SROs are more likely to be placed in schools where 80 percent of the student body is Black or Latino, and that students in those groups are subject to a higher rate of disciplinary actions than are white students.
A potential fix?
With the possibility of a special session now looking dim, school districts have been turning to changes in their contracts with local law enforcement to clarify that SROs do not qualify as “agents of the school.” The change in the law, as it stands, only applies to school staff or agents of schools. If classified as regular police, SROs would be bound by law enforcement’s own longstanding set of legal standards for the use of force and would not be subject to the change in the law applying to school staff.
David Colburn contributed reporting for this story.