Police in Minnesota schools would see duties clarified as legislators seek to settle controversy

Police who work on school campuses would need special training, but would be exempt from rules that regulate how and when educators may restrain students, under the latest proposal from DFL lawmakers seeking to quell controversy over officers stationed in schools.

Democratic leaders say the legislation is the result of meetings with law enforcement officials, educators and advocates in the months since dozens of police chiefs and sheriffs suspended school resource officer programs over concerns that a 2023 law left them liable to civil suits for routine interventions.

Rep. Cedrick Frazier, DFL-New Hope, who cowrote the new bill, said it’s meant to clearly establish how police officers are supposed to interact with students in the state’s public schools.

“It’s a special role,” Frazier said. “And at the end of the day this is about making sure that our kids are safe.”

The bill would require the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to establish a series of trainings for officers stationed in schools. Those agents would be required to learn about juvenile brain development; take courses in how to work with students with disabilities or who are enrolled in special education courses; and be charged with investigating crimes committed on campuses, among other things. They would also be explicitly barred from disciplining students for breaking school rules.

Officers substituting on a school patrol would not be required to take the training unless they’re on assignment for more than 60 days. The bill would also mandate the POST board adopt a model policy for school resource officers that law enforcement agencies must closely follow if they contract with a district for their services.

Sen. Zach Duckworth, R-Lakeville, who criticized the 2023 ban on student restraints and previously urged Gov. Tim Walz to call a special session to amend it, said he wants the Legislature to “hear from all of the stakeholders who are urging that a correction to the law be passed as quickly as possible.”

He previously lambasted Democrats, who hold majorities in both chambers of the Legislature, of neglecting to consult law enforcement officials before adopting the ban on student restraints. Duckworth said some supporters of the legislation spread misinformation about the concerns law enforcement officials had with the law.

“As we’ve said from the beginning, the safety of our kids, teachers, and schools is a bipartisan priority that should bring Republicans and Democrats together,” Duckworth said in a statement.

A little more than 40 law enforcement agencies suspended their school resource officer programs in the fall. Many, including those in South Washington County, Bloomington, Rochester and Minnetonka, kept officers stationed in schools. In some cases, police are expanding their on-campus presence.

Some education activists and Democratic lawmakers defended the ban on student restraints to argue that it would help close the disparities in disciplinary action between students of color and their white peers. Erin Sandsmark, program manager for Solutions Not Suspensions, said that the new bill is a step in the right direction.

But she and other members of the coalition advocating for school discipline reforms are concerned the proposed law also holds police to a different standard than educators.

“It seems their argument is that officers are not employed by the district, therefore the same rules do not apply,” Sandsmark said. “The reality is that they are in the building with our students.”

Sandsmark is concerned that the bill as written would allow police to place students in prone restraints in very narrow circumstances. She also worries that lawmakers have removed language that bars educators from placing students in restrictive holds unless they pose an “imminent” physical threat to themselves or others.

“We do not think it is reasonable to allow children to be put in these holds in any case, other than in the case of imminent bodily harm,” Sandsmark said. “We feel that it does not hold up the humanity of our children.”

DFL lawmakers spent the week meeting with various groups ahead of the bill’s first committee hearing Monday. Leslie Rosedahl, spokeswoman for the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, said the organization’s leaders are reviewing the bill with its lawyers and members.

“An initial concern ... is the model POST Board language,” Rosedahl said. “Unfortunately the POST Board has become more politically motivated the past few years.”

She and Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association Executive Director Jeff Potts said their organizations are among those meeting with lawmakers to discuss the legislation. Potts hopes legislators will make “minor” changes to the bill but did not want to specify ahead of the meetings.

“We’re just not there yet,” Potts said.

Frazier said Democratic lawmakers are aiming to establish a uniform set of guidelines for every adult who works with students. He wants to bring the state’s school resource officer policy in line with the sort of regulations that govern school nurses, psychologists and counselors.

“Essentially what’s happening here is that we’re aligning how other professionals interact with our students,” Frazier said. “We’re trying to be thoughtful about how people will adjust to this new reality.”