Minneapolis police and school resource officer Drea Leal checked the hall pass of a student at Minneapolis Roosevelt High in 2019. (David Joles, Star Tribune/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

Opinion editor's note: Editorials represent the opinions of the Star Tribune Editorial Board, which operates independently from the newsroom.

•••

Last fall, a small change in state law prevented several dozen law enforcement agencies from sending their officers back to work in schools. An estimated 40 or so chiefs and sheriffs pulled school resource officers (SROs) from school buildings because they believed the change in statute increased officer liability.

As a result, some school district, law enforcement and education groups want lawmakers to clarify the state rules on student restraint. That's the right thing to do. Legislators should address the problem first thing in the 2024 session to inform needed changes in state statute.

SROs can be a helpful, valued part of school safety staffing, as the Star Tribune Editorial Board has previously argued. While some districts, including St. Paul and Minneapolis, have opted to end their programs, other Minnesota districts still want officers in their schools. Those that want SROs but had their local agencies step back because of the liability issue need the Legislature's help.

As part of a sweeping education bill in 2023, lawmakers changed a few words in the law regarding the types of holds that can be used on students. The modified rule prohibits employees or agents — including SROs — from putting a student face down on the ground or putting "pressure or weight on a pupil's head, throat, neck, chest, lungs, sternum, diaphragm, back, or abdomen ... ." Under the law, reasonable force may be used in situations where students are posing a risk of bodily harm or death to themselves or someone else.

Fortunately, Rep. Kelly Moller, DFL-Shoreview, chair of the House public safety committee told the Star Tribune that legislative leaders are committed to holding hearings on the law early in the session.

"We've listened closely to school districts, law enforcement, and other stakeholders, and will continue to welcome their input," she said in a statement. "I'm hopeful we will reach a consensus allowing SROs to effectively do their jobs while ensuring schools will be safe learning environments."

Some of the law enforcement agencies that originally held their officers back returned them to schools last year following comments from Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. In a September statement, Ellison wrote that the new law does not bar officers from "reasonable" uses of force. At that time, the Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training accepted that interpretation. And along with a tentative vote of confidence from the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, that was enough for some departments.

Among those agencies that reinstated officers were the Blue Earth County sheriff and the Coon Rapids and Moorhead police departments. But not all districts that want SROs followed their lead. And, shortly after Ellison's statement, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty issued her own take on the law that contradicted the attorney general.

Those conflicting interpretations certainly didn't help with the confusion and uncertainty. That's why the Legislature needs to clear up the confusion. Following hearings on the matter early this session, lawmakers should craft a solution that keeps students safe and allows SROs to do their jobs.