ST. PAUL, Minn.—Republican lawmakers in Minnesota have called on Gov. Tim Walz to convene a special session of the legislature to clarify a new law governing the use of force by school resource officers (SRO).
The law strictly limits the situations in which physical force may be used to maintain order in schools, causing concern among law enforcement officials, officers, and school administrators that SROs may be open to civil liability or criminal prosecution when intervening in potentially dangerous situations.
As a result, law enforcement agencies in at least seven school districts have said they won’t provide officers to those schools when school opens on Sept. 5.
Republican lawmakers hope to resolve the confusion and return SROs to their schools.
“This is about allowing our school resource officers to use the de-escalation tools that they are trained in because we know that we all in Minnesota want schools that are safe and successful for all of our students,” Republican House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth said during an Aug. 20 press conference.
Strict Limits
SROs are police officers assigned to duty in a particular school or school district. The new law prohibits SROs—and school employees or contracted security personnel—from using “prone restraint” or using any physical hold that “restricts or impairs a pupil’s ability to breathe; restricts or impairs a pupil’s ability to communicate distress; places pressure or weight on a pupil’s head, throat, neck, chest, lungs, sternum, diaphragm, back, or abdomen; or results in straddling a pupil’s torso.”
Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a statement clarifying that such restraints could still be used in extreme circumstances.
“The amendments do not limit the types of force that may be used by school employees and agents to prevent bodily harm or death, but retain the instruction that force must be ‘reasonable’ in those situations,” Mr. Ellison wrote on Aug. 23.
Law enforcement officials and lawmakers say the line between simple disruptions and incidents that could result in bodily harm isn’t always clear. The new law, they say, precludes the use of reasonable force to prevent routine confrontations from escalating to violence.
“This isn’t about neck restraint,” Blaine Police Chief Brian Podany said. “Those were already illegal by statute for cops, barring a deadly force situation. We don’t advocate or teach that. However, there are many situations that occur every day in our schools requiring intervention by staff or by law enforcement.”
Mr. Podany cited the example of heated arguments between students, which may escalate to assaults but can be diffused if an SRO lightly restrains a student to lead them away from the altercation. Under the new law, he said, drunk and disorderly students couldn’t be forced to leave a football game without calling in a patrol officer with no connection to the school.
Regular patrol officers aren’t subject to the law governing SROs.
Mr. Podany theorized that the law could allow physical altercations to occur because of SROs’ hesitancy to intervene for fear of reprisal.
Need Questioned
Increased focus on neck restraint is likely because of the case of George Floyd, a criminal suspect who died in 2020 after a Minneapolis police officer knelt on his neck for more than nine minutes. The incident was captured on cell phone video by bystanders and sparked prolonged protests across the country and calls to defund the police.The officer, Derek Chauvin, was convicted of second-degree murder in 2021 and sentenced to more than 22 years in prison.
Some lawmakers questioned the need for more stringent regulations governing the work of SROs.
“It strikes me as a solution looking for a problem,” Republican Sen. Michael Kreun said.
Republican Sen. Zach Duckworth referred to comments made by the governor, saying he was unaware of any instance of unnecessary force being used in schools.
“I don’t think there’s been a single case ever in Minnesota history where a school resource officer was brought up on anything. And I can’t recall a situation with a student where excessive force was used on them. So I think this is a concern that’s out there, but I don’t think it’s ever actually happened,” Mr. Duckworth said.
Workarounds and Solutions
While a number of jurisdictions have said they will not provide SROs under the current law, some will continue to do so. Bloomington and Edina police departments will continue to provide SROs to schools in their jurisdictions.Other departments intend to increase patrols by regular police officers in school zones and provide occasional campus visits in the hope of maintaining some presence in schools, according to Mr. Podany.
Patrol officers who aren’t permanently assigned to or contracted with the school district are not subject to the law governing SROs.
The solution is to rewrite the law to avoid confusion, according to Mr. Duckworth, who says that can’t wait until the legislature reconvenes in February. He said he hopes that the legislature will repeal the portion of the law eliminating prone restraints or physical holds and change the use of force standards to the previous version of the statute.
“That’s what our bill would do. It’s a simple repealer. It’s not a political statement. It doesn’t get into the weeds on anything. It simply says let’s go back to where we were before this was an issue. Let’s fix it,” Mr. Duckworth said.
The bill will have bipartisan support when introduced, according to Mr. Duckworth, who said at least one member of the Democratic-Farmer-Laborer party has committed to backing it.
Mr. Walz and Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman didn’t respond by press time to requests by The Epoch Times for comment.
