by April Scheinoha
Reporter

The City of Thief River Falls is temporarily pausing its School Resource Officer program with the Thief River Falls School District amid new limitations placed on SROs under a new state law. The Thief River Falls City Council approved suspending the program at its meeting Tuesday, Sept. 19. In a separate motion, it also approved a resolution supporting a special legislative session to fix the law.

Mayor Brian Holmer said the program has been temporarily paused amid concerns about police and city liability. SRO Dusty Arlt will now return to patrol duties while the matter remains ongoing.

As part of the new state law, SROs are limited on use of force. At a School Board meeting about a month ago, Superintendent Dr. Chris Mills said he thought the purpose of the bill was to eliminate physical restraint unless there was a potential for physical harm. At that meeting, Mills said school administrators and the police department had planned to keep Arlt in the schools despite the new law. That has now changed with this temporary pause. Other police departments and school districts have paused their SRO  programs until a change is made to the law.

At the council meeting, Holmer said the new law never went before a state legislative law enforcement committee or the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training board. He said it was placed in an educational bill. Noting what he had read, Holmer said police can’t hold anyone in a restrictive way since the death of George Floyd. Holmer added that the law is nonpartisan and needs to be changed.

Council members seemed to be in agreement about the aftermath of the new law and the temporary suspension of the SRO program here. “This is a horrible loss,” said council member Steve Narverud, who serves on the Public Safety/Liquor Committee. He mentioned the stupidity of the new law.

Council member Jason Aarestad also serves on the committee and said it has been trying to find ways to add another SRO. “Honestly, with our three schools, we really need a second one,” he said.

On Wednesday, the day after the council meeting, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a supplemented legal opinion regarding the amendments made to the school discipline laws. On Aug. 22, Ellison had released an opinion at the request of Education Commissioner Willie Jett. According to a press release from Ellison’s office, that opinion “clarified that 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.”

The supplemented opinion “further clarifies that the amendments also do not limit the types of reasonable force that may be used by public officers to carry out their lawful duties as described in Minnesota Statutes section 609.06, subdivision 1(1). ‘Reasonable force’ is a legal standard that demands that a response be proportional to the threat, based on the totality of the circumstances. The 2023 amendments specifically reference Minnesota Statutes section 609.06, subdivision 1, which authorizes reasonable force by public officers in effecting arrest, executing process, enforcing court orders, or executing other duties. As the original and supplemented opinion both say, ‘The standard for reasonable force has not changed, and is highly fact-specific.’ As the original and supplemented opinions also say, ‘… the level of threat posed by a particular student or situation can change rapidly, and any assessment of what use of force was reasonable must take that into account.’”

Furthermore, the supplemented opinion noted that there have been some misunderstandings regarding the new amendments with some thinking that SROs and school professionals can’t engage in any physical contact to address non-violent behavior. However, the supplemented opinion noted that they simply must avoid specific restraints, specifically that unless a student poses an imminent threat of bodily harm to self or others, professionals, aren’t allowed to use prone restraint or inflict “any form of physical holding 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.”

The press release further noted, “If a student is misbehaving in a way that does not and will not harm that student or anyone else, professionals in schools still have many tools at their disposal, including other kinds of physical contact.”

Another misunderstanding is that school professionals have to wait until someone is already injured before they intervene with reasonable force. Ellison’s supplemented opinion noted that is false; “the law says school employees and agents ‘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 to another…’”

The council also approved a resolution supporting a special legislative session to fix the law. In part, the resolution noted the amendments “have created significant confusion and great liability concerns to cities with police departments that have SROs working in school settings.”

The resolution further noted “the new language has resulted in significant limitations on the actions that can be used by SROs in certain dangerous situations and creates increased liability to cities and city police departments providing SROs.”

In addition, the resolution urged legislators to work in a bipartisan manner to correct the school discipline laws. The resolution has been sent to local representatives as well as Gov. Tim Walz, Minnesota House of Representatives leadership and Minnesota Senate leadership.