ST PAUL, Minn. — State Capitol Republicans Wednesday revived their call for a special session to clarify language on which physical restraints school resource officers can legally use on students without being sued or held criminally liable.
Some law enforcement agencies have already returned their SROs to school settings since this issue first made headlines, while others are keeping officers on the sidelines until there's more definitive language about what they can and cannot do when breaking up a fight or arresting a student.
Democratic leaders at the Capitol have pledged to hold hearings on the issue during the 2024 Session, which will begin in February. The GOP contingent insists it requires a fix before then.
"We will work in good faith and earnestly to bring about that change because at the end of the day, the safety of our kids, teachers and schools is paramount. And we can't afford to continue waiting until February," Sen. Zach Duckworth, a Lakeville Republican, told Capitol reporters Wednesday.
The 2023 Education Policy and Finance bill barred prone restraints and other physical holds by school employees and contractors that could obstruct a child's breathing or ability to speak, except in situations where those holds are required to prevent immediate bodily harm or death.
Law enforcement groups said the language fundamentally will change the ways SROs operate when it comes to fending off intruders and breaking up altercations between students. That opinion prompted 40 law enforcement agencies to voluntarily remove their SROs from schools during the first month of classes, out of fear officers could be charged with breaking the law.
Republicans called for a special session to either repeal the new parts of the law or change the wording to make it clear that SROs aren't bound by the same rules as other school employees and contractors when it comes to those physical restraints. They renewed that call Wednesday.
"When you know that your job, your career could be in jeopardy if you do the wrong thing," Rep. Jeff Witte, a Lakeville Republican, told reporters. "We've got to fix the law. We've got to have that hearing."
Gov. Walz has resisted the idea, asserting that the language was meant to protect children from being harmed, and that officers could still use appropriate force to save lives or prevent injuries. He pointed out those rules already apply to special education students, so this just expands it to all students.
Attorney General Keith Ellison issued an opinion in August that the state's reasonable use-of-force standards set out in MSA 609.06 still apply, even inside schools. He issued an updated opinion in September that he said was binding, an added layer of protection against lawsuits or prosecution for officers who using reasonable physical restraints in school settings.
After Ellison's second opinion, at least a dozen law enforcement agencies returned their officers to school settings. Other departments are still waiting action by the legislature to clearly delineate between the powers of SROs and other school employees.
Some police agencies have deployed a work-around in which officers are patrolling near schools and can respond to emergencies. Those officers aren't under contract to the schools, so they're not covered by the new rules.
Sen. Duckworth and Rep. Witte presided over a listening session at the Capitol Wednesday which featured speakers invited to share their concerns about the changes to the laws governing physical holds in school settings.
Maple Grove Police Chief Eric Werner told the group he decided against sending his officers back into schools because of an opinion issued by Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, who suggested that the Attorney General's legal opinion could still be challenged by the courts.
"She said even the Attorney General's opinions are binding only until reviewed by a court, which could occur in the context of a criminal prosecution," Werner remarked.
"I think this signals with this confusion they’re going to let a court decide and most likely it will be in the context of charging an officer criminally so that a judge can make that decision."
The Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association remains adamant the law needs to be amended.
"I have been a cop for 30 years. I wrestled in southern Minnesota since I was in kindergarten. I can’t even use those tactics as a cop today under this law in a school if I’m contracted."
Lawmakers also heard from Rudy Perez, who serves as president of the National Association of School Resource Officers and recently moved to Minnesota to accept the post of assistant chief in the Golden Valley Police Department. Perez said he believed the law was changed as part of a hidden agenda.
"As national president, I’ve seen these legislation and laws arise for one thing – removing the SRO from it. That’s the intention of this."
House Speaker Melisa Hortman and Senate Majority Leader Kari Dziedzic Wednesday stood by their original statement on the issue, again pledging to hold real hearings on the issue when lawmakers return in February.
"Our top priority is for students to learn and thrive in Minnesota schools, and to be able to do that, students, staff and teachers must have a safe environment."
Anoka County Attorney Brad Johnson advised lawmakers to seek a bipartisan solution without trying to blame the other side for how the new rules came to be. He said he's heard from Democrats who want to find a resolution that everyone can live with in the end.
"I think we need to get in a room together and have a conversation and talk about specific language that needs to be fixed."
Duckworth said the solution could be as simple as replacing the word "to" with the word "or" to part of the law. It currently reads "may use reasonable force when it is necessary under the circumstances to restrain a student TO prevent bodily harm or death to the student or another." Law enforcement groups would support the language "to restrain a student OR prevent bodily harm.