A controversial change to Minnesota’s education laws has led to a flurry of concerns and actions involving school districts, police departments and lawmakers, even leading some districts to pull school resource officers (SROs) from schools.

The issue revolves around a small but impactful snippet within a comprehensive 200-plus-page education bill passed earlier this year, which places significant restrictions on how school employees, including SROs, can physically interact with students.

The contentious portion of the law prohibits district employees, such as SROs, from employing specific physical holds or restraints on students.

These restrictions include placing a student face down on the ground or applying pressure to their head, throat, neck or chest, potentially compromising their ability to breathe or signal distress.

With the new school year underway, several local police departments have announced the withdrawal of SROs from schools due to concerns surrounding these legal changes.

The law enforcement agencies include sheriffs from Clay and Hennepin counties, the Coon Rapids police and the Champlin Police Department.

Champlin Police Chief Glen Schneider said the department will not sign contracts with Jackson Middle School or Champlin Brooklyn Park Academy this year due to the changes.

“As the Champlin Police chief, I cannot in good faith put our school resource officers in a position that does not provide them the ability to utilize their independent judgment and professional training in responding to potentially dangerous incidents on school district property,” Chief Schneider stated.

“I also cannot subject our SRO to potential criminal prosecution or civil liability that could potentially occur as a result of them performing their job while addressing potentially difficult safety situations with the students in our schools,” the chief continued.

The trend reportedly began when Anoka and St. Louis counties, along with Moorhead police, opted to remove their school resource officers over concerns about the law’s implications.

Other police departments are contemplating similar actions, with decisions pending in city council and county commission meetings.

The Blaine Police Department, for instance, remains on the fence about whether to keep SROs at schools.

“How can we expect our staff to go to the school and work there every day when they’re constantly worried about being sued … instead of just focusing on their job and developing relationships?” Blaine Police Chief Brian Podany said.

The revised education bill, passed by state lawmakers earlier this year, expanded an existing policy that banned prone restraints on students with disabilities to include all students.

Supporters of this change, including the Walz administration, argued that it aimed to reduce instances of force against students.

However, law enforcement groups and some Republican leaders argue that the law is overly restrictive, claiming that it hampers SROs’ ability to intervene in situations involving property damage or potential physical threats posed by students.

These groups have called for greater clarity in the law and even a special legislative session to address the matter.

Minnesota Police and Peace Officer Association General Counsel Imran Ali expressed his concerns over the new law.

“There’s a lot of confusion. And law enforcement, they’re scared. They’re scared about the application of this law … I can’t imagine a law enforcement officer in this day and age, a school resource officer, having to navigate through all these different legal opinions when it just should be clear,” Ali said.

Republican lawmakers have also urged an immediate repeal of the law in a special session discussing the legislation, citing the urgency of ensuring student safety.

“School resource officers play a critical role in ensuring school safety. But sadly, our schools are less safe today due to the Minnesota DFL’s extreme, single-party control, and their zealous anti-police agenda has put students, teachers and staff in danger,” Minnesota Republican Party Chair David Hann said.

In response, Governor Tim Walz and Democratic–Farmer–Labor (DFL) leaders have maintained that the law is necessary to protect students, and they do not plan to call a special legislative session.

The legislation was developed after a report submitted to the legislature last year by the Minnesota Department of Education documented around 10,000 physical holds of students during the 2021–22 school year.

Supporters of the bill argued, along with the state attorney general, argued that the law does not prevent SROs from intervening in situations that pose a risk of bodily harm or death to students.

The debate has left school districts, especially Anoka-Hennepin, the state’s largest, in a difficult position. The district, along with Moorhead School District and others, has announced plans to remove SROs from schools.

Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt disagreed with lawmakers, stating that the law does not allow SROs to do their job.

“The current laws, as written, will stop us from intervening. So I have a duty to also protect my deputies and I don’t want to put them in that situation where they could potentially be prosecuted because there’s that law, and the way that it reads does not give us the right to intervene,” Witt said.

In response to the confusion, some police departments — such as Blaine — are seeking alternatives to SRO programs in order to maintain student safety, with Chief Podany stating that the department plans to increase patrols nearby campuses.

In the meantime, Attorney General Keith Ellison, along with Department of Education officials and lawmakers, are hoping to provide more clarity on the law before the school season begins, with law enforcement hoping to obtain more procedures and training before February next year.