by April Scheinoha
Reporter
The Minnesota Legislature still hasn’t solved issues regarding school resource officers in schools. However, the Thief River Falls Police Department still has a presence in Thief River Falls schools. At its meeting Tuesday, Nov. 21, the Thief River Falls City Council heard an update on the matter.
About a month ago, the council and Thief River Falls School Board heard that School Resource Officer Dusty Arlt was considering a return to Thief River Falls schools. Since mid-September, Arlt has been relegated to patrol duties after the council temporarily paused its SRO program with the district amid new limitations placed on SROs under a new state law. Those limitations pertained to physical restraint unless there was a potential for physical harm.
However, at the latest council meeting, Deputy Police Chief Mike Roff said it wasn’t in Arlt’s best interest or the city’s best interest for him to return to those responsibilities. Until the Legislature makes legislative changes, the department is instead utilizing all of its officers to complete daily random walk-throughs at the schools. Given this change in events, the School Board has let the city out of the SRO contract.
“It’s not the outcome I want or anybody wants,” said Mayor Brian Holmer.
There is a positive element to the change. Roff said it gives newer officers who didn’t attend Thief River Falls schools to become acclimated to the schools. It also gives them an opportunity to build relationships with the school principals.
The SRO change was included in an education bill, not a public safety bill. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has issued opinions related to the changes. Holmer noted Ellison is an attorney, not a judge.
On Sept. 20, Ellison issued a supplemented legal opinion regarding the amendments made to the school discipline laws. He further clarified that the amendments don’t limit the types of reasonable force that police officers may use. As the original and supplemented opinions 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.
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…’”