The Need to Reform School

Policing in Washington State

 Introduction
In December of 2015, Tucker, a 13-year-old Black student in Washington
state, was arrested as a result of an incident that started when he
mumbled a curse word to himself. Tucker’s teacher ordered him to go sit
outside on a bench; when Tucker refused to go outside unprotected in
the cold, his teacher called the school police officer.1 The officer grabbed
Tucker, slammed him to the ground, and as Tucker flailed, put his knee
of the back of Tucker’s head. Tucker was then arrested and booked into
juvenile detention. He was charged with the crimes of “disturbing school”
and “disrupting a law enforcement officer.”

Thirty years ago, few schools would routinely use police to respond
to such student discipline incidents.2 Fewer than 100 police officers
patrolled public schools in the late 1970s.3 Today, the lines between
the education system and the criminal justice system are increasingly
blurred. More than 24 percent of elementary schools and 42 percent of
high schools nationwide have school police officers embedded in school
campuses.4 These numbers are even higher for predominantly Black or
Latinx5 schools, 51 percent of which have regularly stationed school police.6

As the numbers of police officers regularly stationed in schools has risen,

so too have arrests in school. In districts around the country, police are
regularly assigned or called to schools and have the full power of the
criminal law to control students and their behaviors. In Washington,
this includes the power to refer children for prosecution for the crime of
“disturbing school.” In the 2013-2014 school year, the 100 Washington
schools with the largest student enrollments reported referring over 3,400
students to law enforcement.7

The ACLU of Washington believes that police officers should not be

a regular part of the school environment. STUDENTS, TEACHERS,
AND SCHOOL STAFF DESERVE SAFE, QUALITY SCHOOLS—but this
cannot be accomplished by reliance on school policing.

Regular police presence increases the likelihood that students will be

arrested or prosecuted for misbehavior. Arrest is an inappropriate and
ineffective way to address the causes of juvenile misbehavior. In-school
use of traditional law enforcement tools (including arrest) helps create
a “school to prison pipeline” where students are funneled directly from
their schools into the criminal justice system. The school to prison
pipeline not only harms students, it harms communities. Students who
are arrested are more likely to drop out of school, less likely to graduate
and more likely to be further involved in the juvenile and adult criminal
justice systems.
1
School policing in Washington is largely unregulated; no state law or
policy directly addresses the use of police in schools. No state agency
systematically tracks police placement, program structure, or the impact
on students. To investigate school policing in Washington, the ACLU
reviewed public records from over 100 school districts, and spoke with
parents, juvenile attorneys, police officers, educators, and community
leaders. We found:

• School policing is widespread. Eighty-four of Washington’s 100

largest school districts have police officers assigned to schools on a
daily basis. In addition, even schools without police officers assigned
to campus may call police to respond to incidents of routine student
misconduct.

• School policing is costly. Schools pay on average $62,000 (and as

much as $125,000) per full-time equivalent officer per year. This
money that could be more effectively spent on counselors, teachers,
and other student support services.

• Police officers have broad discretion in almost all Washington school

districts to arrest students for minor misbehavior. Having police
in schools makes it more likely that students will be arrested.
Washington’s school police programs often lack written guidelines
distinguishing between student discipline matters and crimes. This
is particularly troubling because Washington law makes it a crime to
disturb school, exposing students to criminal prosecution for routine
misbehavior.

• Few of the police officers assigned to schools are required to undergo

training on how to work in schools. Only 25 of the school/police
contracts surveyed require police officers in schools to participate
in any form of specialized training. This fails to account for the fact
that schools are educational environments that should not be policed
like a normal beat.

• Few schools collect any data on officer activities, including arrests.

Only 14 school/police contracts require any form of data collection
on officer activities. This makes it hard for districts to assess the
impact of police in school, including the effects on students’
constitutional rights and any discriminatory impact on students of
color or students with disabilities.

• School police are rarely accountable to students, parents, and teachers.

Only one school district has a clear civilian complaint process to
address officer conduct in schools. In over 70 school districts, school
officials have no clear role in supervising or evaluating police
officers stationed in schools. In 55 districts, school officials have no
input in the hiring or selection of an officer to be assigned to schools.

2
The ACLU of Washington believes that police officers should not be a
regular part of the school environment. Students, teachers, and school
staff deserve safe, quality schools—but this cannot be accomplished by
reliance on school policing.

On the contrary, school policing as currently practiced in Washington—

with few guidelines and scant oversight—may even make schools less
safe by alienating students from school and contributing to the school to
prison pipeline. Rather than investing in police, schools should prioritize
counselors, mental health professionals, social workers, teacher training
and evidence-based programs to improve the school climate, schools can
help students reduce routine adolescent misbehavior and address the
underlying social causes that may be contributing to it.

This report documents and evaluates Washington’s school policing and

recommends policies that schools, law enforcement, and the legislature
should adopt to protect students and ensure safe schools.

The History of School Policing

Historically, schools had no special relationship with law enforcement and
used police the way any other community member would: calling officers
to respond to suspected criminal activity. Many schools, in Washington
and across the country, continue to operate that way. Increasingly,
however, schools have developed formal partnerships to place an officer
in schools on assignment. These police officers, sometimes called “campus
resource police officers” or “school resource police officers” are present
on school campuses every day. Some are assigned to a single school as
their particular “beat.” Other police officers are assigned to multiple
schools, typically based in a high school, but also involved in middle
and elementary schools. And some schools have a rotating patrol, where
several police officers share the school deployment.

The use of these school-based police officers has grown significantly. In

the past 20 years, their number has increased from virtually none to
an estimated 17,000 police officers on school campuses nationwide.8
The increase is likely a result of several factors.9 First, the federal
government has provided significant funds to support the presence of
police in schools. For example, between 1999 and 2005, the federal
COPS program awarded in excess of $753 million to schools and
3
police departments to place police officers in schools;10 other grants are
available through federal education programs.11 Second, highly reported
instances of school violence spurred moves to place police officers in
schools. In one study, about 25 percent of schools reported that national
media attention about school violence was the primary reason for school
policing programs.12 Third, schools have instituted a variety of harsh “zero
tolerance” policies to respond to perceived student disorder or rowdiness,
in line with a general “tough on crime” approach to juvenile justice.13
About 25 percent of law enforcement officers in a national survey cited
school disorder (like rowdiness and vandalism) as the primary reason to
assign an officer to schools.14

The rise in school policing cannot be attributed to a rise in dangerous

crime in schools. Particularly in black and brown communities, school
police have historically gone well beyond addressing serious criminal
activity, instead targeting perceived disorder or rowdiness.15 Moreover, as
a general rule, schools are safe places, and are safer now than they were 20
years ago. The numbers of students reporting being victims of crime at
school actually decreased 82 percent between 1992 and 2014,16 consistent
with an overall decrease in juvenile crime.17 There is also little empirical
evidence that routine police presence promotes student safety.18

School Policing in Washington is

Widespread & Costly
No state agency oversees or tracks school policing in Washington.
The ACLU surveyed three sources of data to identify where and how
police are present. First, we analyzed data from the U.S. Department of
Education to identify which school districts report having a school police
officer in 2013, the most recent year in which the data was reported. We
followed up with public records requests to the 100 school districts in
Washington with the largest enrollments, as well as smaller districts that
self-identified as having police officers stationed in schools. This allowed
us to confirm the continued presence of police officers in schools, and
identify districts that either failed to self-report or that established their
school police programs within the last 3 years. A list of districts surveyed
is included in Appendix A. In addition, we reviewed reports of police
calls for service to a limited number of schools that do not have police
assigned on a daily basis. This enabled us to get a sense of where police are
regularly present, and when police officers are called to schools.

A. NUMEROUS WASHINGTON SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE ASSIGNED

POLICE OFFICERS
In Washington, school policing is prevalent. The models of policing vary
by district and sometimes by school. It is clear, though, that police have a
regular presence in many Washington schools.

A growing number of Washington school districts—84 of the state’s

100 largest school districts— have police assigned to schools on a daily
4
basis. Police are also routinely present in much smaller districts, including
those with total K-12 enrollments as low as 500 students. Spokane employs
its own police officers, who are specially commissioned law enforcement
officers under the daily supervision of a school administrator who is also a
former sheriff. In every other district we surveyed, police officers are stationed
through formal or informal agreements with local law enforcement agencies
and remain subject to the law enforcement chain of command.

School policing occurs in every part of the state, and at every grade level.
School police can be found in urban, rural, and suburban schools in every
corner of Washington. Police can also be found in all types of schools,
from large comprehensive high schools to small alternative schools. The
majority of districts we surveyed primarily assign school police to middle
and high schools. But, at least 26 school districts report having police
routinely present in elementary schools.19

Nationwide, schools with high populations of low income students,

or Black and Latinx students are more likely to have embedded school
police.20 There is some evidence of similar demographic disparities in school
police placement in Washington state. We reviewed districts that assigned
police to only particular schools at a grade level (for example, districts
where police are present in some, but not all, high schools), comparing
the demographics of schools with and without assigned police officers.21
Some of those districts assign police to schools with higher than average
populations of students of color and low-income students. For example:

• SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT places “School Emphasis

Officers” in three of nine middle schools in the Seattle Public
Schools. These three schools have student populations that are, on
average, 77 percent students of color and 67 percent low-income,
compared with a district-wide average of 38 percent students of
color and 38 percent low income.

• EVERETT SCHOOL DISTRICT has police assigned to the three of five

middle schools with the highest percentages of low-income students.

• EDMONDS SCHOOL DISTRICT reported having a police officer

assigned to only one of five high schools. The school with an
officer has the largest enrollment of students of color and low
income students in the district.
5
 • CENTRAL KITSAP SCHOOL DISTRICT has a police officer assigned
to only one of three high schools, which is also the high school
with the largest enrollment of students of color and low income
students in the district.

• WALLA WALLA PUBLIC SCHOOLS has an officer assigned to its

alternative high school, where 80 percent of students are low-
income, but not to its comprehensive high school, where only 45
percent of students are low-income.

Some of these districts may have reasons for the disparate placement of
police officers in schools that are not facially discriminatory. Nevertheless,
parents, students, and community members may receive troubling
messages from the placement of police in predominantly low-income
schools or schools with significant concentrations of students of color.
In particular, students and families may feel as if they are particularly
targeted by school police. As one student in King County stated, “School
seems like a prison. You have police. You have all these security guards.
There are security cameras everywhere you go, in your class and even
outside the bathroom. They treat you like you’re always about to do
something. It feels like everyone has it out for you.”

Whether or not school district and law enforcement officials deliberately

target particular schools, selective placement can be seen as another facet
of the well-documented over-policing of communities of color and low-
income communities.22 In addition, selective placement ensures that the
impacts of policing are disproportionately concentrated in communities
of color and low income communities.

SCHOOL SEEMS LIKE A PRISON. You have police. You have

all these security guards. There are security cameras
everywhere you go, in your class and even outside the
bathroom. They treat you like you’re always about to do
something. IT FEELS LIKE EVERYONE HAS IT OUT FOR YOU.

It is important to note that the statistics on school-based police officers

do not fully capture officer interactions in schools. Even schools that do
not have regularly assigned police officers may call the police to respond
to routine student misconduct. For example, the ACLU reviewed police
logs from a school district in rural eastern Washington that does not have
police officers assigned to any school. Our review shows that the district’s
high school, which has a population of less than 400 students, called the
police approximately 4 times a month and an average of 39 times a year
to respond to non-violent student misconduct, including theft, drug
possession, and vandalism.
6
In addition, a number of districts in Washington have armed security
guards, some in lieu of assigned school police and some in addition to
police.23 Contracts governing armed security police officers indicate that
armed security police officers patrol schools and investigate offenses, but
call law enforcement to make arrests or referrals to the prosecutor.

B. SCHOOL POLICING IS COSTLY

Washington schools spend significant resources on policing. All but 9 of
the districts surveyed paid all or some cost of those police officers’ salary
and benefits.24 The majority of the districts we surveyed paid 50 percent
or more of the total cost of stationing an officer in school. Seventeen
school districts paid the entire cost of school police, covering the officer’s
salary and benefits for the school year. Two school districts even leased the
officer’s patrol car.

Among the districts that paid any part of an officer’s salary, the average
school district contribution per officer per year was approximately
$62,000,25 26 but the total costs to individual districts can be much higher.
Throughout the state, school district contributions vary from $10,000
to over $120,000 per officer per year. At least 7 school districts pay
$100,000 or more per officer per year.27 For districts with multiple police
officers, this adds up quickly. For example, in the 2014-2015 school
year, public records indicate that the Spokane School District paid over
$1 million in salary and benefits for its school police officers.28 The Kent
7
School District paid nearly $500,000 in salary to school police officers in
the 2015-2016 school year.29

School district spending on police necessarily reduces the amount

available for other resources. For example, a district that pays $100,000
toward the cost of a school police officer could have used that same
money to hire 1.8 teachers, 1.8 guidance counselors, 1.8 school
psychologists, 1.8 school social workers, 2.4 school nurses, or 5
teacher’s aides.30

Misbehavior as a Crime:
PROSECUTING STUDENTS FOR SCHOOL DISCIPLINE INCIDENTS
Very few districts in Washington provide any substantive guidance on the
types of matters in which police officers should be involved. This creates
unfettered discretion to use police in schools as a super-disciplinarian,31
heightening the risk of unnecessary arrest and prosecution of students.32
Excessive reliance on school-based law enforcement officers can also
promote distrust in schools,33 reducing student respect for in the authority
of school administrators and making students feel alienated.34 In turn,
this can promote, not curb, misbehavior.35 The routine use of police to
address student misbehavior can make schools less safe, because policing
can alienate students from adults and undermine trusting relationships.
Washington law and policy should place clear limitations on when and how
school officials call police to respond to student misbehavior.

A. CRIMINALIZING MISBEHAVIOR AT SCHOOL

Research demonstrates that regular law enforcement presence in school
tends to lead to higher rates of student arrest, particularly for low-level
issues like disorderly conduct or disturbing school, even controlling for
other variables like neighborhood violence and demographics. One study
showed that after officers were regularly assigned to schools, arrest rates
for disorderly conduct dramatically increased.36 Another study showed
that when police were assigned to schools, arrest rates for low-level assault
(such as fighting) more than doubled.37 In New York City, a school-police
partnership initiative resulted in a 50 percent increase in the number
of students cited or ticketed by police for noncriminal incidents after
one year.38 Lastly, a comprehensive review of a national dataset reveals
that even after controlling for general levels of criminal activity in a
neighborhood and other demographic variables, a police officer’s regular
presence at school increases the odds that school officials refer students to
law enforcement for all offenses, including minor ones.39

In Washington, both school administrators and school police generally

have wide latitude to involve police officers in student discipline matters.
There is no statewide law or policy standard on school policing, so each
program is independently regulated, most typically by contracts or
agreements between school districts and law enforcement agencies. In
our review of 92 such contracts, we found that 21 Washington school/
police contracts explicitly authorize police officers to enforce school
8
disciplinary plans, or otherwise “assist” school officials in disciplining
students.40 Another 37 make no mention of student discipline at all,
leaving full discretion to teachers and police officers. This runs directly
contrary to guidance from the United States Department of Education,
which encourages jurisdictions to minimize student arrests and citations
on campus and “explicitly articulate that [school police] should not
administer discipline in schools.”41

BETTER POLICY: SPOKANE

Spokane Public Schools Procedure 6514 lays out specific
guidelines for when a student will be referred to the criminal
justice system. The procedure states that most times, student
behavior should be addressed through restorative practices or
corrective action. Students will be referred to the criminal justice
system only with the approval of a supervisor and generally only
for felony charges and limited misdemeanor offenses named in
the procedure.42

BETTER POLICY: ABERDEEN

The Aberdeen School District and Aberdeen Police Department
contract states that “responsibility for the administration of
school discipline shall be the duty of the District” except for
certain serious and enumerated offenses, including physical
attack on another that requires medical attention outside of the
school health room, death, rape, robbery, arson, manufacture of
an explosive device, theft above $500, possession of a firearm or
deadly weapon, possession of a controlled dangerous substance,
gang related crimes, and hate crimes.

A number of school districts in Washington attempt to clarify officer roles

by including in contracts a single sentence that the officer “should not
act as a disciplinarian” and should instead investigate violations of the
law. But, in Washington, IT IS A CRIME TO DISTURB SCHOOL. Thus, there
is no legal line between school discipline and criminal activity. A simple
statement that police officers are not to discipline students is insufficient
to prevent criminalization of student misconduct. Appendices B and C
to this report provide more comprehensive model policies to limit police
involvement in student discipline.

RCW 28A.635.030 states that “any person” who “willfully create[s] a

disturbance on school premises during school hours or at school activities
. . . shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.” Under our state’s disturbing schools
crime, any student misbehavior (from talking back to a teacher, to making
an off-color joke, to throwing spitballs) could be treated like a crime.

9
A 2016 incident in South Carolina illustrates the risk of failing to clearly
limit officer involvement in discipline. In a widely shared video, an officer
was called into a classroom in Spring Valley High School in Richland
after a student refused to put away her cell phone.43 When the student
failed to comply with the officer’s directive, he dragged the student and
her desk across the room, arrested the student, booked her, and charged
her with a crime.44 Another student who shouted at the officer to stop
was also arrested, booked, and charged with a crime. Like many districts
in Washington, the South Carolina district had a contract directing that
law enforcement “shall not act as a school disciplinarian.”45 That language
was rendered virtually meaningless because police officers were also
allowed to take action whenever a law is violated. South Carolina, like
Washington, makes it a crime to disturb school.

A number of Washington jurisdictions make use of the disturbing schools

crime. The ACLU reviewed court data from the past 20 years and found
over 800 cases where a juvenile was charged with disturbing school.46 This
indicates it is likely that some Washington students are being charged
with crimes for disciplinary matters. Moreover, the charges for “disturbing
schools” fail to capture the full extent of referrals to the criminal justice
system for disciplinary incidents. Students could be charged with crimes
for any number of routine adolescent behaviors. For example, a student
who writes “School Sucks” on his desk could be charged with malicious
mischief, for writing on another’s personal property without permission
of the owner. Students who get into a shoving match could be charged
with assault. While these behaviors violate school rules, they shouldn’t
become matters for the criminal justice system.

Policies that give complete discretion to refer a student for criminal

prosecution leave students vulnerable to implicit racial bias. Studies show
that teachers instructed to identify misbehavior are more likely to watch
Black students than White students, even as early as preschool.47 Black
students are disproportionately disciplined for subjective behaviors like
disobedience or disrespect.48 Further, Black boys as young as 10 are also
more likely to be perceived as older and more threatening than their
peers.49 This bias contributes to the documented disproportionate rates of
arrest of black and brown students.50

10
 DISTURBING SCHOOL CASES
Washington students have been referred to the criminal justice
system for behavior that is typical for adolescents and could safely
have been handled at school. For example, students have been
referred to prosecutors or charged with crimes for:

• DISCHARGING FART SPRAY: Caleb, a 15-year-old high school

student in Asotin County, was charged with felony assault
after he brought a bottle of fart spray to school. He sprayed
the product in a hallway and the library at his school. The
spray triggered breathing problems in another student. Caleb
was charged with felony assault in the second degree and
disturbing schools, and was arrested by the officer embedded
in his high school. The charges were later reduced to a
misdemeanor, and Caleb agreed to write a letter of apology
and split the hospital bill of the student who had breathing
problems.

• POURING CHOCOLATE MILK ON ANOTHER STUDENT: A high

school student in Pierce County was referred by school police
to the prosecuting attorney on suspected charges of assault
in the fourth degree after the student poured chocolate milk
on another student in the school lunch room. The prosecutor
declined to file charges in juvenile court.

• THROWING A SINGLE PUNCH IN A SCHOOL PARKING LOT:

Esteban was charged with disturbing school activities after he
threw one punch at a fellow student in the parking lot of a
school in Walla Walla County. Esteban was apprehended by
the police officer embedded in his school, and was arrested
despite the fact that he had never been involved with the
criminal justice system before. He was convicted of disturbing
school and sentenced to three days in juvenile jail, a sentence
a court later overturned.

LAURA'S STORY
Students who aren’t formally arrested or prosecuted may still be
impacted when police officers use traditional law enforcement
tools, like handcuffing or restraining students, to discipline them.
For example, in 2015, Laura was called to her son’s elementary
school in King County because he was having behavior problems.
Laura’s son has been diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder and anxiety. When Laura arrived in her son’s classroom,
she found her 8 year old son handcuffed and restrained face down
on the floor by two police officers. Her son was sobbing and had
urinated on himself. He was unable to calm down due to the
continued restraint and ended up being hospitalized. After that
incident, Laura’s son was so traumatized that he refused to return
to his school.

11
B. THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF CRIMINALIZING STUDENTS
Arrests have terrible consequences for students. A first-time arrest doubles
the odds that a student will drop out of high school, and a first-time
court appearance quadruples the odds.51 One study found that only 26
percent of students who were arrested graduated from high school, as
opposed to 64 percent of their peers; arrested students were also half as
likely to enroll in a four-year college.52 Young people who drop out of
school in turn have lower income and lifetime earnings than their peers.53
Juvenile arrest also increases students’ chances of future imprisonment:
young people with an arrest record are subject to greater surveillance and
harsher discipline from police and other adults that significantly increases
their chances of arrest.54

Arrest can have particularly negative consequences for students who

are non-citizens. Schools have a legal obligation to educate all students,
regardless of immigration status.55 If a student is arrested by campus
police, his or her fingerprints may be submitted to the FBI and then to
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.56 Under executive orders and
implementing memoranda promulgated in January 2017, non-citizens
who have been accused (but not convicted) of a crime are considered a
priority for deportation.57 Thus, non-citizen students who are arrested by
school police—whether or not they entered the United States with legal
status and whether or not they are charged with or convicted of a crime—
could face the harsh sanction of deportation or inability to naturalize as
United States citizens.

In addition, there is evidence that all students suffer in highly punitive

or policed schools. Students in schools with “zero tolerance” or other
harsh discipline policies report feeling less connected, less trusting, and
less engaged in their schools.58 While some police officers do work to
build connections between students and police, those efforts are too often
driven by an individual officer’s personality rather than the structure or
expectation of school police programs.

Washington’s school districts must draw a clear line between adolescent

misconduct and criminal behavior. In particular, school districts
should adopt policies that direct teachers and administrators to call
law enforcement only for incidents that pose a risk of or involve
serious physical harm. All other incidents should be handled by school
administrators. The policies should also direct police officers to de-
escalate situations whenever possible, and be reflected in agreements
between law enforcement and schools.

Policies that limit the role of school police in discipline can lead to a
significant drop in arrest and referrals of students. One district that
implemented clear policies saw referrals drop by more than 50 percent,
with no change in reported instances of student victimization.59 Another
district reported an 88 percent drop in student arrests after implementing
policies limiting police involvement in minor disciplinary incidents.60

12
 JACOB'S STORY
Jacob was 12 years old when he had a negative interaction with a
school police officer that led to felony charges. Jacob is a student
in Snohomish County who has disabilities, including mental
health issues. One day, he had a breakdown in class that led to
him knocking over chairs in his classroom while yelling and being
verbally aggressive to his teachers. The teachers called the school
police officer and Jacob’s mother, who rushed to the school to
help deescalate the situation. The officer and teachers pinned
Jacob to the ground outside his school’s de-escalation room.
During the struggle, Jacob spit on the officer and teachers. When
his mother arrived, Jacob was able to calm down and go home
with her. The school did not suspend or expel Jacob, concluding
that his behavior was related to his disability. Nevertheless, the
school police officer filed a police report. Jacob was later charged
with felony assault for spitting on the officer and misdemeanor
assault for spitting on his teachers. As Jacob’s mother explained, “I
worry about sending Jacob to school now. What if every time he
has a meltdown, the school treats him like he’s a criminal or a bad
person? The school police officer doesn’t treat him like he has a
mental illness. Filing charges tells my son that he’s a criminal, and
that he’s a bad person, when he has a disease. I don’t want school
to be the thing that sends him to jail.”

C.SEARCH AND INTERROGATION: BLURRING THE LINES

BETWEEN EDUCATORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Routine law enforcement presence in schools can also undercut
students’ constitutional and statutory rights to privacy and to avoid self-
incrimination.

1. Searching Students
Both the United States Constitution and the Washington Constitution
guarantee the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
Students in public schools have a legitimate expectation of privacy in the
personal belongings they bring to school, such as backpacks.

Educators who are tasked with providing a safe learning environment

may search student belongings brought to school if the educator has
a reasonable and individualized suspicion that the search will turn up
evidence of a violation of schools rules.61 Generalized, “dragnet” style
searches are not permissible.62 School police, on the other hand, cannot
search student belongings without a warrant or a legally recognized
exception to the warrant requirement.63 In both instances, the searches
may be unconstitutional if they are too intrusive.64

The distinction between educators and police is blurred when police

officers are routinely in schools. For example, 4 school/police contracts
state that police officers “shall” accompany educators who are conducting
searches of students; either in all cases or in particular cases. Under such
13
circumstances, educators may be implicitly directed or encouraged to
conduct searches for police officers, thus circumventing the requirement
that police officers obtain a warrant before searching students. In
addition, when a student is searched by both school officials and police
officers, it may shift the student’s perception of his or her relationship
to school, increasing distrust.65 In fact, the vast majority of the school/
police contracts and school policies we reviewed failed to clarify the role
of educators and police in searching students.

School and police contracts should clarify that police officers will only
search students if the officer has a warrant, or when the officer is acting
under a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. Police officers
should not generally accompany school officials conducting searches
for school purposes; in cases where there is a real and immediate threat
of serious physical harm connected with the search, the officer may
accompany a school office under the emergency exception to the warrant
requirement. School policy should clearly reflect the difference between
searches conducted by school officials for educational purposes, and
searches by law enforcement officials. Appendix E to this report provides
model policy language that schools can use to govern officer questioning,
search, and arrest of students.

BETTER POLICY
The agreement between the Prosser School District and the Prosser
Police Department acknowledges that police officers “cannot
conduct a search at the school without obtaining a search warrant,
absent the existence of a legally acknowledged exception.”

2. Student Interrogation
Students have the right to remain silent when questioned by police.
If a student is suspected of a crime and reasonably believes he or she
is not free to end the conversation with police, a police officer cannot
question the student until the officer has provided the student with
developmentally appropriate warning of his or her right to remain
silent.66 These laws protect young people, who are particularly vulnerable
to suggestive police questioning, from the serious consequences that can
flow from saying the wrong thing in an interview with an officer.67 Young
people may be particularly vulnerable to police officers who are routinely
present on campus and occasionally function as a teacher or advisor.

Some school police contracts deliberately blur the line between law
enforcement and educators in questioning students. Oak Harbor School
District, for instance, has entered into a contract with the Oak Harbor
Police Department directing that “when appropriate and feasible,” the
school and police will conduct joint interviews of students in matters
that may involve both school discipline and potential criminal charges.68
The policy does not require police officers to inform students of their
constitutional right to remain silent. This could create confusion for
14
students about whether they are required to answer questions (and thus
potentially mitigate or avoid school disciplinary action) or whether they
can or should exercise their right to remain silent.

School/police contracts should clearly delineate that police officers are

required to provide warnings of the right to remain silent whenever a
student is being interviewed in connection with behavior that could be
a crime. In addition, every district should adopt policies that prohibit
police questioning of students younger than 12 years of age without a
parent or guardian present. For older students, parents must be notified
of any potential law enforcement interview of students over 12 and be
given a reasonable opportunity to be present before the interview begins.
Appendix E to this report provides model policy language that schools
can use to govern officer questioning, search, and arrest of students.

BETTER POLICY
Seattle Public Schools policy 4310SP states that “as a general
rule, interviewing students should take place at the agency or the
student’s home.” It creates different standards for students who
are victims, witnesses or suspects to a crime and in many cases
requires a school official to be present during law enforcement
interviews. It goes on to state that “student suspects under twelve
may only be interviewed with parent/guardian consent” and
requires principals to “make a reasonable effort to notify the parent/
guardian of the interview” for students over the age of twelve.

A Learning Alternative:
STUDENT SUPPORTS AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
Washington’s schools should better invest financial resources in solutions
that address the underlying reasons behind student misbehavior or
negative school climate. Police may play a role in protecting students in
crisis situations or from threats of violence outside school.69 However,
schools do not need police to manage internal disorder, improve negative
school climate, or respond to student misbehavior.

Adolescent misconduct is simply not the same as criminal behavior.

Adolescents can engage in risky or defiant behavior simply due to the
lack of mature development of the parts of the brain that facilitate self-
regulation.70 Teachers may be more likely to attribute misbehavior to
students of color, due to implicit bias.71 Students who have been exposed
to trauma may interact differently with their school environments in ways
that can be interpreted as misbehavior.72 And students with disabilities
may require additional behavioral supports to reinforce positive
behaviors.73 Regardless of the underlying reasons, schools can implement
successful systems to improve school climate, school safety, and academic
achievement for all students.74

Among valuable personnel are counselors, school psychologists, nurses,

teacher’s aides, behavioral interventionists, and school social workers
15
 trained to identify the causes of negative school climate or student
misbehavior and provide resources that support students and keep
them in schools. Yet there are too few school social workers, counselors,
and other student support professionals in the state. For example, in
Washington, each counselor is responsible, on average, for 520 students,
far outstripping the nationally recommended ratio of 250 students per
counselor.75 The state funds a fraction of these positions.76

I think the best thing we can do is MAKE SURE TEACHERS ARE ABLE
TO WORK WITH OUR STUDENTS in a trauma informed way. We do our
best at home to help our children and want the same at school.
Safety is having people you can talk to, people that are, you know,
available. WE NEED OUR SCHOOLS AND THEIR ADMINISTRATORS TO
DO MORE and not put it all on the police.

School-wide positive climate systems can also play a significant role in

reducing incidents of student misbehavior and promoting engagement
with school. Teachers and students report feeling safer in schools that have
consistent and positive cultures and that provide targeted behavioral
interventions for struggling students.77 Some of the approaches being successfully
implemented in schools in Washington and across the country include:

• RESTORATIVE JUSTICE OR RESTORATIVE PRACTICES: Restorative

practices is an approach that emphasizes relationships, bringing
together all affected by an action to address the needs and
responsibilities of all involved, repair harm, and rebuild community.78
Schools that implement restorative practices create more positive
relationships between students and teachers and a better school
environment overall. This typically leads to higher academic success,
better attendance, and lower drop-out rates.79

• SCHOOL-WIDE POSITIVE BEHAVIOR INTERVENTIONS OR SUPPORTS

(PBIS): Schools that implement PBIS explicitly teach shared behavior
expectations and positively recognize students who meet those
expectations. PBIS also uses data-based decision making and analysis,
and increasing levels of support for students with higher-level
behavioral , emotional, and mental health needs. Research has shown
that the implementation of school wide PBIS results in better student
behavior and thus fewer disciplinary incidents and suspensions.80
This in turn leads to a better school climate and higher academic
achievement and attendance rates.81

• SOCIAL EMOTIONAL LEARNING: Social Emotional Learning (SEL)

specifically teaches students emotional and social skills in an academic
setting. SEL programs teach social and self-awareness, decision-
16
 making, self-management, and cooperation and communication in
relationships. Research has shown that SEL leads to a reduction in
problem behaviors like physical aggression and disruption. These in
turn lead to an increase in academic achievement and graduation rates
as well as a general more positive attitude towards school.82

• TRAUMA-SENSITIVE SCHOOLS: Trauma-informed or trauma-

sensitive schools seek to respond to students who have been exposed
to trauma in a way that does not exacerbate behavioral issues. Instead
trauma- sensitive schools offer resources such as classes on coping
with stress, support groups, and more intensive services to address
behavioral health needs. Research shows that trauma-sensitive schools
reduce violent incidents and discipline referrals from classrooms.83
Case studies of trauma-sensitive schools demonstrate that a trauma-
informed approach can result in massive decreases in suspension and
expulsion rates. Other case studies have seen related rises in academic
achievement and testing scores.84

Each of these models demonstrate that schools can improve school

climate and lessen student misbehavior. Washington’s schools should
invest in long-term preventative solutions, like counselors and evidence-
based behavior systems, not police.

Training, Accountability, & Transparency

of School Police
Whenever there are routine contacts between schools and law
enforcement, the agencies should establish clear roles and protocols to
govern their interactions. School districts and law enforcement agencies
should adopt a comprehensive memorandum of understanding (MOU)
that (1) establishes the reason for police presence in schools; (2) requires
training necessary to mitigate the risk of officer presence in schools; (3)
increases accountability and public reporting; and (4) clearly defines the
types of behaviors or incidents where police officers should be called to
respond. At least four school districts in Washington have police assigned
to schools and no formal MOU or contract governing their relationship.

However, training and transparency alone do not eliminate concerns

about daily school policing. Improving training and accountability for
school policing can reduce the risks of violating students’ constitutional
rights, but it is not a substitute for a robust community discussion about
whether and how police officers should be present in schools.

At least three school districts in Washington HAVE POLICE

ASSIGNED TO SCHOOLS AND NO FORMAL MOU OR
CONTRACT GOVERNING THEIR RELATIONSHIP.

17
1. Training
Children are developmentally different from adults, and those differences
have serious consequences when they interact with police officers.
Generally, adolescents perceive, process, and respond to information
differently than adults. Adolescents are more likely to respond defiantly
to adult assertions of authority, particularly when peers are present.85
In addition, significant numbers of adolescents have been exposed to
trauma, which may complicate their interactions with police.86 Mental
health issues and disability can also influence young people’s interactions
with teachers and police officers.87 In any given adolescent population,
and particularly in schools, police officers should expect to interact with
youth whose responses to police presence will be influenced by typical
adolescent development and by factors such as trauma, mental health
issues, and disability.

Consequently, proponents of school policing programs agree that police

officers should be thoroughly trained in how to work with youth.88 In
fact, 11 states require some form of school police training by statute.89
The U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Education have
recommended that police officers working in schools receive extensive
training in bias-free policing, implicit bias and cultural competence,
child and adolescent development, disability and special education issues,
school climate improvement, restorative justice techniques, and privacy.90

Washington law does not require any specialized training for school
police. As a preliminary matter, Washington’s Criminal Justice Training
Academy offers 8 hours of training in juvenile justice, and offers no
specialized training for school police officers.91 Thus, any training of
school police officers would fall to local police departments and school
districts. Our investigation reveals that few school/police contracts require
any specialized training of police officers.
18
Of the 92 school/police contracts that the ACLU reviewed, only 25
required school police to have any specialized training.92 Another 9
required police officers to participate in trainings “on request” or “as
required” by either law enforcement or school officials;93 6 additional
districts offered to pay for training, but did not specify when or how
training would provided.94 Moreover, only 5 school/police contracts
recognize any role for the school district in training police officers
regularly present in those schools. The other 52 school and police
contracts make no mention of specialized training.

Even among districts that do require training, only 7 specifically required

training in the needs of students with disabilities or students with mental
health needs. None of the contracts that we reviewed required any
training in implicit bias or best practices in student discipline.

Schools are specialized environments, and specialized training can help

protect students’ constitutional rights.95 Students have the right to be free
from excessive force at school, and Washington law specifically prohibits
the use of restraints (such as handcuffs and Tasers) against students unless
necessary to control behavior that poses an imminent likelihood of
serious harm.96 Police officers who lack sufficient training may resort to
traditional law enforcement tactics in schools, in violation of state law.

School districts may also be liable for police officers’ constitutional or

statutory violations.97 And, law enforcement officers without specialized
training in working with youth may find themselves in escalating
situations, relying on traditional law enforcement techniques to subdue
students. A recent case in Kentucky illustrates the risk; there, an officer
with no training in use of force or working with students with disabilities
handcuffed an 8-year-old student with disabilities around his elbows.98
Any school district that has campus police or that regularly calls officers
to respond to schools should ensure that any school/police contract
requires specialized training and sets strict standards for officer use of
force. Appendix D to this report provides model policy language on use
of force.

BEN'S STORY
Ben, a high school student with autism, was shot in the back with
a Taser by a police officer as he was leaving his school building. Ben
had spent a portion of his morning walking a hallway in his Pierce
County school in an attempt to regulate his behavior. As he was
walking the halls, he bumped into another student, resulting in a
pushing match that resolved without further incident. Still, school
officials called the officer, and directed Ben to leave the hallway and
walk on the school track outdoors. As Ben was exiting the school
building and heading towards the track, the officer Tased him as he
was walking away. Ben fell immediately, flat on his face, into the
pavement, and received injuries that required medical attention.

19
2. Data Collection
Washington school districts do not appear to routinely collect or analyze data
on police interactions with students, including the rates and causes of calls
to law enforcement or student arrest on campus. Washington law requires
schools to report uses of physical restraint of students (including by police
officers)99 but does not require reporting of other officer interactions with
students. In addition, a significant number of schools failed to report
any data on restraints under state law.100 Federal law requires schools to
biannually report school-based arrests and referrals to law enforcement, but
that self-reported data may be inaccurate or incomplete.101 Accordingly,
we cannot confidently use existing data sources to identify the numbers of
students arrested in Washington.

School/police contracts similarly fail to require comprehensive data

collection. Only 18 of the 92 school/police contracts we reviewed require
police officers to track or log their activities, most typically through a
periodic “activities log” of interactions with students.102 Another 4 require
school police officers to produce logs of activities “on request.”103 Even
in these districts, the school/police contracts do not explicitly require
data to be disaggregated by race, gender, or disability; the contracts also
fail to indicate whether any data is systematically analyzed to better
understand how police are interacting with students in school. The other
70 school/police contracts did not require any data collection or logs of
officer activities. No school/police contract that we reviewed required
publication of any data on police interactions in schools.

The failure to collect data may subject districts and law enforcement
agencies to legal liability. Nationwide, there is significant evidence that
school police programs disproportionately impact students of color and
students with disabilities. In 2011-2012, the Department of Education
found that over 70 percent of students involved in school-related arrests
or referred to law enforcement are Hispanic or African-American, despite
making up significantly less of the student population.104 In addition,
data from the same year indicated that students with disabilities represent
a quarter of students arrested and referred to law enforcement, even
though they are only 12 percent of the overall student population.105

Washington shows similar disparities. In the 2011-2012 school year,

Washington schools reported arrest and referrals to law enforcement
of 3860 students to law enforcement; 993 or nearly 26 percent of
those students had disabilities.106 Latinx students were also highly over-
represented in the population of students referred to law enforcement,
20
forming 28 percent of those students referred to law enforcement but
only 13 percent of Washington’s student population.107

In light of these disparities, Washington’s school districts have a

responsibility to collect and analyze data on the impact of law
enforcement interactions with students. Both state and federal law
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race and disability.108 This
includes programs that have an unintended effect of discriminating
on the basis of race.109 School districts have an obligation to keep the
necessary information to determine that they are not discriminating
against students in the administration of disciplinary policies, including
referrals to law enforcement.110 In addition, robust data collection can
help schools to evaluate the best ways to school resources, and reveal
whether police officers are focused on serious offenses or engaged in
student discipline.111 Appendix F to this report provides model policies
on data reporting and accountability.

3. Accountability
Typically, Washington’s school police officers are solely accountable to
their home law enforcement agencies. Of the 92 school/police contracts
we reviewed, only 30 gave school districts any input in the officer hiring
or assignment process. Nineteen districts recognized that building level
administrators have either functional supervision of an officer in their
buildings, or would work with the officer or his or her supervisors to
set a daily agenda. In all other jurisdictions, though, law enforcement
maintains sole supervision or fails to address how the officer will interact
with the school. The lack of clear authority for school administrators
could lead to confusion about whether police officers are in any way
accountable to administrators, or where parents and students should turn
with complaints.

BETTER POLICY
TUKWILA. Tukwila Police Department requires police officers
who are assigned to Tukwila Public Schools to have a meeting
with the building principal “at least once a month to provide
communication, services, and support” and then to transmit
information from that meeting to the Chief of Police and others
in the law enforcement chain of command.

STEILACOOM. The contract between the Steilacoom Police

Department and the Steilacoom Public Schools gives the district
“advance approval of all staff assigned to serve as [a school police
officer] in District facilities.” The city also agrees to “replace any
selected [school police officer] upon request of the District that is
based on any reason permissible by law applicable to the District.”

School districts should actively and explicitly engage students, parents,

community leaders and service providers in holding police in schools
accountable. Each school district should form an independent
21
community board to provide review and input into any decision to
regularly place law enforcement in schools. The board should have timely
access to data on arrests and referrals to law enforcement from schools.
In addition, schools should ensure that law enforcement personnel who
operate within and around schools are subject to clear civilian complaint
processes, and that students and parents are notified of investigations,
outcomes, and the right to appeal.

We were unable to identify a single school district in Washington that

has established a community board to regularly review school policing
policies and practices. Moreover, only one school district — Spokane
Public Schools — recently established a clear school-based complaint
system for parents and students to use in response to police conduct in
schools.112 School districts in other parts of the country have created
similar complaint processes. For example, in 2012, the Oakland (CA)
Unified School District and Oakland Police Department created a
transparent process for complaints about school policing, including clear
timelines, investigation protocols, and public reporting.113 Complaint
mechanisms and community accountability can ensure that Washington’s
school police programs do not undermine educational goals. Appendix F
to this report provides model policies on data and accountability.

Call for Reform

Placing police officers in Washington schools on a daily basis, particularly
with a lack of oversight and regulation, increases the risk of transforming
classroom behavior into criminal behavior. Washington schools should
invest in evidence-based solutions that support students and keep them in
the classroom. This can be accomplished by:

RECOMMENDATION # 1: Invest Education Dollars in

Student Support Services, Not Police: Washington schools
should invest in counselors, mental health professionals, school
social workers and other professionals trained in working with
adolescents, including those facing trauma or mental health
issues. Teachers and school administrators should be trained in
positive and preventative systems to improve school climate and
support students in meeting behavior expectations.

RECOMMENDATION # 2: Involve Students, Parents

and Community Members in Decision-Making Around
School Policing: School districts should actively engage
parents, teachers, school administrators, community members,
and other stakeholders in the decision to place police in schools.
Any placement of police in schools should be reviewed to ensure
it does not exacerbate racial or income inequality. School/police
relationships should be regularly reviewed by a community
accountability board to determine whether the school/police
relationship continues to meet school and community needs.

22
The Washington legislature and school districts should also take steps to
ensure that existing school police programs do not result in criminalizing
students. This can be accomplished by:

RECOMMENDATION # 3: Amend Washington’s

Disturbing Schools Statute: The legislature should amend
the state’s “disturbing schools” statute to prevent students from
being arrested and prosecuted for classroom misbehavior. If the
law remains on the books, it should be limited to disruption by
outsiders, not students.

RECOMMENDATION # 4: Prohibit Police Involvement

in Student Discipline: School districts and law enforcement
agencies should develop clear contracts and policies to govern
their relationship. Those policies should:

• Prohibit teachers and administrators from calling police unless

a student’s behavior poses real and immediate risk of serious
physical harm.

• Establish a list of school rule violations that will not warrant

police involvement, including:

• All discretionary discipline offenses listed in RCW

28A.600.015, including disturbing schools, disorderly
conduct, dress code violations, and cell phone use.
• Misdemeanor offenses, including: possession of alcohol,
possession of contraband not intended or used as a
weapon; graffiti; being under the influence, assault in
the 4th degree, malicious mischief, theft under $750,
vandalism or destruction of property.

RECOMMENDATION #5: Ensure Transparency and

Accountability of School Police: School districts should track
and publish data on police activities on campus, and establish
school-based complaint systems for students and families. School/
police contracts should require school district input into officer
hiring, regular communication with building administrators, and
clear lines of authority over police officers in schools.

RECOMMENDATION #6: Require Training of Police Who

Are Based in or Respond to Schools: Washington law
should require that all police who respond to schools be trained in:
• Adolescent brain development
• Disability
• Trauma
• Mental health issues in adolescence
• Implicit bias and cultural awareness
• De-escalation
23
 • Crisis intervention
• Student privacy rights
• Best practices in student discipline, including preventative
and restorative practices.

This training should be provided to both police officers who are

routinely present in school and police officers who are regularly
called to respond to schools. School districts should take an active
role in training both police officers who are regularly in schools and
teachers and school administrators who work with police officers.

Conclusion
School policing is not a new phenomenon, but it is one that, in
Washington, has garnered scant policy attention. Given the substantial
risk of criminalizing students, Washington’s parents, students, teachers,
school administrators, law enforcement, and lawmakers should push for
change in school policing policy at the state and local level.

Credits & Acknowledgements

PRINCIPAL AUTHOR
Vanessa Hernandez, Youth Policy Director

DESIGN & LAYOUT

Curtis Dickie

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The ACLU-WA would like to thank the Statewide Poverty Action Network (particularly
David Reyes), the South King County Discipline Coalition, Glover EmpowerMentoring
and Team Child for sharing their expertise and making connections; the ACLU
family (including the ACLU Racial Justice Program, ACLU of California, ACLU of
Pennsylvania, and ACLU of Massachusetts) whose excellent model policies formed the
backbone of the appendices; and Amy Roe, Kaya McRuer, Patti Hackney, Marty Jacobs,
Kristine Jones, Ana Bertinger, Shreya Jain, and Jay Willis, who contributed to the
research, writing, and editing of this report.

24
 Endnotes
1
This report will primarily use the terms “school police” or “school policing” to refer to law enforcement officers who are stationed in schools as their primary assignment. This
includes officers who are assigned to a single school and officers who are assigned to patrol multiple schools within a district.
2
James, N. and McCallion, G. (2013). School Resource Officers: Law Enforcement Officers in School. Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/
crs/misc/R43126.pdf
3
Portner, J (1994). Cops on Campus. Education Week, 13: 26-30. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1994/06/22/39police.h13.html
4
United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016). 2013-2014 Civil Rights Data Collection: A First Look, pp.4. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf
5
“Latinx” is a gender inclusive way to refer to people of Latin American descent (in other words, a gender neutral alternative to “Latino” or “Latina”). See Ramirez, T. and Blay,
Z. (2016, July 5). Why People Are Using the Term ‘Latinx’.” Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-people-are-using-the-term-latinx_
us_57753328e4b0cc0fa136a159
6
United States Department of Education, supra n. 4, pp.4.
7
United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016). 2013-2014 Civil Rights Data Collection. Available from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/flex/Reports.
aspx?type=school. A spreadsheet tracking the reported arrests and referrals to law enforcement for each of the 100 largest school districts in Washington is on file with the
author.
8
James and McCallion, supra n. 2
9
Thurau, L. and Wald, J. (2009). Controlling Partners: When Law Enforcement Meets Discipline in Public Schools. New York Law School Law Review, 54: 977-1020, 978.
Retrieved from http://www.nylslawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2013/11/54-4.Thurau-Wald.pdf
10
United States Department of Justice, Community Oriented Policing Services (2016). Cops in Schools. Retrieved from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=54
11
Other districts have funded school police programs through grants from the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act, which allows “the hiring and mandatory
training, based on scientific research, of school security personnel.” 20 USC 7115(b)(2). One school district in Washington funded its SRO through a grant from the US
Department of Education Rural and Low Income School Program. The grant award on file with author.
12
Travis, L. and Coon, J. (2005). The Role of Law Enforcement in Public School Safety: A National Survey, pp. 85. National Institute of Justice, Retrieved from https://www.
ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211676.pdf
13
Thurau and Wald, supra n. 9.
14
James and McCallion, supra n. 2.
15
French-Marcelin, M. and Hinger, S (2017). Bullies in Blue: The Origins and Consequences of School Policing, 3-7. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from https://
www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/aclu_bullies_in_blue_4_11_17_final.pdf; Morgan, E., Salomon, N., Plotkin, M., & Cohen, R. (2014). The School Discipline
Consensus Report, pp. 190. Council for State Governments Justice Center. Retrieved from https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/The_School_Discipline_
Consensus_Report.pdf; Hirschfield, P. (2008); Preparing for Prison: The Criminalization of School Discipline in the USA, Theoretical Criminology, 12(1), 79-101, 82-83.
16
Zhang, A., Musu-Gillette, L., and Oudekerk, B. (2016). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.
ed.gov/pubs2016/2016079.pdf
17
Sickmund, M. and Puzzanchera, C. (2014). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2014 National Report. National Center for Juvenile Justice. Retrieved from http://ncjj.org/
nr2014/downloads/NR2014.pdf
18
James and McCallion, supra n. 2; With Police in Schools, More Children in Court. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/education/
with-police-in-schools-more-children-in-court.html
19
These include the following districts: Arlington; Asotin-Anatone; Auburn; Centralia; Cheney; Clarkston; Ellensburg; Evergreen (Clark);Ferndale; Franklin Pierce; Freeman;
Grandview; Kent; Liberty; Mukilteo; Othello; Orting; Riverside; Selah; Sequim; South Kitsap; Spokane; Sunnyside; Yakima; Wapato; West Valley.
20
United States Department of Education, supra n. 4, pp.4. According to this report, nationwide, black students represent 16% of overall enrollment, but 27% of students
referred to law enforcement and 31% of students subject to school arrest. In comparison, white students represent 51% of enrollment, 41% of students referred to law
enforcement, and 39% arrested. See also Price P. (2009), When is a Police Officer an Officer of the Law? The Status of Police Officers in Schools. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 99(2): 548. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7325&context=jclc
21
We excluded districts where officers were assigned to patrol all schools, or where officers were assigned to the larger schools in the district but not the smaller schools.
22
See, e.g., Fagan, J., Davies, G. and Carlis, A. (2012), Race and Selective Enforcement in Public Housing. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9: 697–728; Geller, A. and Fagan,
J. (2010), Pot as Pretext: Marijuana, Race, and the New Disorder in New York City Street Policing. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7: 591–633; Epp, C. and Maynard-
Moody, S. (2014, January/February), Driving While Black, Washington Monthly. Retrieved from http://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/janfeb-2014/driving-while-black/;
see also Brady, K., Balmer, S. and Phenix, D. (2007). School-Police Partnership Effectiveness in Urban Schools: An Analysis of New York City’s Impact Schools Initiative.
Education and Urban Society, 39(4), 455-478, 468 (noting that schools targeted for increased security personnel in New York City “stood out as racially isolated” with high
proportions of African American students and miniscule proportions of White and Asian students).
23
See, e.g, Phoenix Protection Solutions Inc. & West Valley Yakima School District, Security Services Agreement (2015); Phoenix Protection Solutions Inc. & Toppenish
School District, Professional Services Agreement (2015). Both agreements on file with the author.
24
The 9 districts that did not pay for school police officer salaries are: Finley School District; Kiona-Benton City Schools; Oak Harbor School District; Port Townsend School
District; Prosser School District; Pullman School District; Seattle Public Schools; Tukwila School District; and Tumwater School District.
25
We calculated school district contributions by reviewing a variety of sources. In some instances, school/police contracts specify the exact amount of the school district’s
contribution. In other instances, the contracts specified a proportion that the district would pay for officers; we then multiplied that proportion by the average officer salary in
the police department, based on city or county records. Finally, we submitted requests for public records to those districts where public records did not reveal school district
payments for SROs. In cases where school districts paid multiple officers different amounts, we report an average number per officer.
26
This is slightly above the national average salary for a police officer. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the median salary nationwide for a police or sheriff’s patrol
officer was $58,320. See Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Occupational Employment and Wages: Police and Sheriff’s Patrol Officers. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/oes/
current/oes333051.htm
27
See Appendix A. These include Cheney School District ($127,299); Everett School District ($111,282); Evergreen(Clark) School District ($105,891); Franklin Pierce School
District ($101,800); Peninsula School District ($101,800); Steilacoom Historical School District ($101,000); Sunnyside School District ($125,000);
28
The ACLU obtained public records from Spokane Public Schools that listed the names of each officer. We then obtained data on each of their salaries from an online tool
published by the Spokesman Review newspaper, at http://data.spokesman.com/salaries/schools/2015/. A spreadsheet listing the information is on file with the author.
29
Kent School District No. 415. (2015). 2015-2016 Adopted Budget, pp. 101. Retrieved from http://www.kent.k12.wa.us/cms/lib/WA01001454/Centricity/Domain/8/
Monthly%20Financials/F-195%20and%20F-196/ASBO%20BUDGET%20DOCUMENT%20FY16.pdf
30
Tigas, M. and Lawrence-Turner, J. (2015). Washington State School Salaries: 2015, Average Salary by Job Title. Spokesman Review. Retrieved from http://data.spokesman.
com/salaries/schools/2015/
25
31
Wolf, K. (2013). Arrest Decision Making by School Resource Officers. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 00(0): 1-15.
32
Theriot, M. (2009). School Resource Officers and the Criminalization of Student Behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37: 280–87, 280. Retrieved from http://
youthjusticenc.org/download/education-justice/school-policing-security/School%20Resource%20Of%EF%AC%81cers%20and%20the%20Criminalization%20of%20
Student%20Behavior.pdf
33
Advancement Project, et. al., (2013). Police in Schools are Not the Answer to the Newtown Shooting, pp 7. Retrieved from
http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/df16da132af1903e5b_zlm6bkclv.pdf
34
Id. at 13.
35
Highly restrictive efforts to control students by involving police in school disciplinary matters cause higher levels of school disorder by diminishing students’ belief in the
legitimacy of school staff authority, creating an adversarial relationship between school officials and students. See, e.g., Theriot, M. (2016). The Impact of School Resource
Officer Interaction on Students’ Feelings About School and School Police. Crime and Delinquency, 62(4): 446-469 (study indicating that students with high levels of
contact with school police have lower levels of school connectedness); Nolan. K. (2011). Police in the Hallways: Discipline in an Urban High School, pp. 53-72, 163-161;
Gottfredson, G., et. al., (2005). School Climate Predictors of School Disorder: Results from a National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools, Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency 42: 412, 433 (finding students rate their schools higher on scales of student delinquency and victimization when they report unfair implementation of
arbitrary rules); Berger, R. (2003). The Worst of Both Worlds: School Security and the Disappearing Fourth Amendment Rights of Students, Criminal Justice Review 28: 336,
340; Mayer, M. and Leone, P. (1999). A Structural Analysis of School Violence and Disruption: Implications for Creating Safer Schools. Education and Treatment of Children,
22: 333, 349, 352 (study “suggests that more efforts to secure schools through physical means or personnel interventions, the more disorder may be present.”)
36
Theriot, supra n. 32, pp. 280–87.
37
Na, C. and Gottfredson, D. (2011). Police Officers in Schools: Effects on School Crime and the Processing of Offending Behaviors. Justice Quarterly, pp 1-32,. Retrieved
from https://ccjs.umd.edu/sites/ccjs.umd.edu/files/pubs/Police%20Officers%20in%20Schools-Effects%20on%20School%20Crime%20and%20the%20Processing%20of%20
Offending%20Behaviors.pdf ).
38
Brady, et. al, supra n. 22,pp. 473.
39
Nance, J. (2016), Students, Police and the School to Prison Pipeline. Washington University Law Review, 93: 919. Retrieved from
http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol93/iss4/6/
40
These include: Northshore School District (School resource officer “may assist with discipline problems”); Tumwater School District (same); Yelm School District (same);
Bethel School District (School officer will engage in “behavior modification of problem students”); Yakima School District (directing the school resource officer to complete
incident reports on violations of school rules); Central Valley School District (School resource officer will “enforce school disciplinary plans.”); Mead School District (same);
East Valley School District (same); West Valley School District (same); Oak Harbor School District (calling for joint investigations of incidents that may be both violations of
school rules and violations of the law); Bellevue (Officer will not act as disciplinarian but may assist with student discipline); Orting (SRO will “assist school district personnel
in the identification of and behavior modification of behaviors not conducive to a positive school environment). All agreements on file with the author.
41
United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016). Dear Colleague Letter on Police in Schools. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-
releases/secretary-sro-letter.pdf
42
Spokane Public Schools, Procedure 6514, District and Campus Safety (March 22, 2017), at https://weba.spokaneschools.org/polpro/View.aspx?id=767.
43
Keierleber, M. (2015, November 5). Why So Few School Cops Are Trained to Work With Kids. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/education/
archive/2015/11/why-do-most-school-cops-have-no-student-training-requirements/414286/
44
Blad, E. (2016, August 11). ACLU, Arrested Students Sue Over South Carolina’s Disturbing Schools Law. Education Week. Retrieved from
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rulesforengagement/2016/08/aclu_arrested_students_sue_over_south_carolinas_disturbing_schools_law.html
45
Brown, E. (2015, November 8). Police in schools: Keeping kids safe, or arresting them for no good reason? The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.
com/local/education/police-in-schools-keeping-kids-safe-or-arresting-them-for-no-good-reason/2015/11/08/937ddfd0-816c-11e5-9afb-0c971f713d0c_story.html
46
This number only approximates the use of disturbing schools charges against students. No statewide agency systematically tracks the offenses leading to arrests in schools,
and, as discussed in greater detail in section III of this report, few schools and law enforcement agencies collect this data. To get a general sense of charges for disturbing school,
the ACLU obtained data on every charge filed in Washington state over the past 20 years from the Administrative Office of the Courts. We then identified every charge filed
under RCW 28A.635.030 and equivalent municipal offenses. The data set does not indicate whether a young person was a student at the time, so we limited our analysis to
individuals who were under 18 at the time of the incident. The data reported may be both under-and over-inclusive. It is likely that some of these charges were filed against
juveniles who were not students of the school that was disturbed. At the same time, the data set does not include juvenile arrestees who entered into agreement diverting
them from the courts before charges are event filed. As discussed further in section III of this report, we recommend schools collect and publish detailed data on school police
contacts, including tracking the charges for which students are arrested.
47
Turner, C. (2016, September 28). Bias Isn’t Just a Police Problem, It’s a Preschool Problem. National Public Radio. Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/28/495488716/bias-isnt-just-a-police-problem-its-a-preschool-problem
48
Monroe, C. (2005). Why are “Bad Boys” Always Black? Causes of Disproportionality in School Discipline and Recommendations for Change. The Clearing House: A Journal
of Education Strategies, Issues and Ideas. 79:45, 46.
49
Goff, P., Leone, B., Culotta, C. and DiTomasso, N. (2014). The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. 106: 526-545. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdf
50
See, e.g., Report Under Administrative Code 14-152: Arrests Effective by SSA or Officers Assigned to School Safety Division (2015) (showing that Black students are over 50% of
the students arrested in New York City Public Schools, despite being only 25% of the student population). Retrieved from http://www.nyclu.org/files/NYPD_Data_2015_
Q1.pdf; Fowler, D., et. al. (2007). Texas’s School-to-Prison Pipeline: Dropout to Incarceration, the Impact of School Discipline and Zero Tolerance. Texas Appleseed. Retrieved
from https://www.texasappleseed.org/sites/default/files/01-STPPReport2007.pdf; Etsy, S. (2013). Arresting Development: Student Arrests in Connecticut. Connecticut
Voices for Children 5. Retrieved from http://www.ctvoices.org/sites/default/files/jj13schoolarrestfull.pdf; Dahlberg, R. (2012). The Criminalization of School Discipline in
Massachusetts’ Three Largest School Districts. American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Retrieved fromhttps://www.aclu.org/files/assets/maarrest_reportweb.pdf
(In districts surveyed, Black students account for 2/3 of the arrests but only 1/3 of the student body).
51
Advancement Project, et. al, supra n.33, pp 7.
52
Kirk, D. and Sampson, R. (2013). Juvenile Arrest and Collateral Educational Damage in the Transition to Adulthood. Sociology of Education, 86(1): 36-62. Retrieved from
http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/savvy/journals/soe/Jan13SOEFeature.pdf.
53
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015). Earning and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
54
Liberman, A., Kirk, D., and Kim, K. (2014). Labeling Effects of First Juvenile Arrests: Secondary Deviance and Secondary Sanctioning, Criminology 52: 345, 359, 363.
55
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
56
Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, Sec. 10 (Jan. 25, 2015) (pledging to reinstitute the “Secure Communities” program). Retrieved
from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united.; American Immigration Council
(November 29,2011). Secure Communities: A Fact Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/secure-communities-fact-sheet.
57
Executive Order, supra n. 55.
26
58
Perry, B., and Morris, E. (2014). Suspending Progress: Collateral Consequences of Exclusionary Punishment in Public Schools. American Sociological Review 79: 1067-087.
59
National Juvenile Justice Network. (2015). School Discipline and Security Personnel. Retrieved from http://www.njjn.org/our-work/school-discipline--security-personnel.
(discussing program in Clayton County, GA).
60
Criscione, W. (2017, Feb. 9). Arrests in Spokane Public Schools down 88 percent from last year. The Inlander. Retrieved from http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/
archives/2017/02/09/arrests-in-spokane-public-schools-down-88-percent-from-last-year.
61
New Jersey v. T.Lo, 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
62
York v. Wahkiakum School District No. 200, 163 Wn.2d 297 (2008) (holding that random drug testing of student athletes violates Washington’s constitution); Kuehn v. Renton
School District No. 403, 103 Wn. 2d 594 (1985) (holding that required search of student luggage as precondition of participation in band concert tour violates constitution).
63
State v. Meneese, 282 P.3d 83 (2012). In this respect, Washington law is more protective of privacy than other states.
64
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009).
65
Nance, J. (2013). Random, Suspicionless Searches of Students’ Belongings: A Legal, Empirical, and Normative Analysis. University of Colorado Law Review, 84: 367-431, 395-96.
66
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 269 (2011); State v. D.R., 84 Wn. App 832 (Wn. Ct. App 1997).
67
Malloy, L., Schulman, E., and Cauffman, E. (2013) Interrogations, Confessions, and Guilty Pleas Among Serious Adolescent Offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 38:181-
193. Retrieved from http://legalpsych.fiu.edu/recent-pubs/2013/malloy-shulman-cauffman-in-press/malloy-shulman-cauffman-interrogations-confessions-guilty-pleas-2013.
pdf; Leo, R. (2009) False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 37: 332, 336. Retrieved from
http://jaapl.org/content/37/3/332.full.pdf+html
68
Oak Harbor School District and Oak Harbor Police Department, Memorandum of Understanding at 2, on file with the author.
69
For example, police in some communities help provide safe passage to students who are not going to school because they feared crossing a rival gang’s territory in order to
reach campus. See Morgan, et. al, supra n. 15 , pp. 209.
70
Teske, S. (2011). A Study of Zero Tolerance Policies in Schools: A Multi-Integrate Systems Approach to Improve Outcomes for Adolescents. Journal of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatric Nursing. Retrieved from http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/Zero%20Tolerance%20Policies%20in%20Schools%20(2).pdf(noting that “[y]outh are biologically
wired to exhibit risk-taking behaviors, impulsive responses, and exercise poor judgment.”)
71
One study showed that when teachers are directed to identify problematic behavior in the classroom, they disproportionately track students of color. See Gilliam, W., et.
al. (2016, September 28). Do Early Educators’ Implicit Biases Regarding Sex and Race Relate to Behavior Expectations and Recommendations of Preschool Expulsions and
Suspension? A Research Brief. Yale Child Study Center.
Retrieved from http://ziglercenter.yale.edu/publications/Preschool%20Implicit%20Bias%20Policy%20Brief_final_9_26_276766_5379.pdf
72
Cole, S., et. al. (2005). Helping Traumatized Children Learn: Supportive School Environments for Children Traumatized by Family Violence. Massachusetts Advocates for
Children Trauma and Learning Policy Initiative. Available from http://massadvocates.org/publications/help-traumatized-children-learn/ (noting that children who have been
exposed to trauma may engage in behaviors that are perceived as impulsive, aggressive, defiant, withdrawn, or less attentive to school activities.)
73
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2016, August 1). Dear Colleague Letter on the Inclusion of Behavioral Supports in Individualized Education
Programs. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/dcl-on-pbis-in-ieps--08-01-2016.pdf
74
Bradshaw, C., Koth, C.W., Thornton, L.A., & Leaf, P.J., (2009). Altering school climate through school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: findings from a
group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science 10(2), 100-115.
75
American School Counselor Association. (2014). Student to School Counselor Ratio: 2013-2014. Retrieved from
http://www.wa-schoolcounselor.org/Files/SchCounsratios50states.pdf
76
RCW 28A.150.260 defines state funding for basic education in a prototypical school. The minimum state allocation for a prototypical high school of 600 students would
include funding for 1/10th of a school nurse and even lower levels for social workers and school psychologists. RCW 28A.150.260(5). The state must allocate at least sufficient
funds for 2.5 guidance counselors (including graduation advising) per high school. Id.
77
Skiba, R.J. et. al. (2004) Beyond Guns, Drugs, and Gangs: The Structure of Student Perceptions of School Safety. Journal of School Violence 3: 149-171.
78
Oakland Unified Sch. Dist. (2016) Welcome to Restorative Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ousd.org/restorativejustice
79
Fronius, T., et. al. (2016, February). Restorative Justice in U.S. Schools: A Research Review. West Ed Justice and Prevention Research Center. Retrieved from
http://jprc.wested.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/RJ_Literature-Review_20160217.pdf
80
Bradshaw, C., et. al. (2012). Effects of School-Wide Behavioral Interventions and Supports on Child Behavior Problems. Pediatrics. 130: 1136-1145.
81
Vincent, C, et. al. (2014). Effectiveness of Schoolwide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports in Reducing Racially Inequitable Disciplinary Exclusion. The National
Institute on Drug Abuse. Retrieved from http://fixschooldiscipline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Vincent-Chapter-Chapter-14-of-Losen-Book.pdf (referencing studies
which suggest that implementation of SWPBIS results in less school discipline incidents and higher academic success); Faer, L., and Omojola, S. Fix School Discipline: How
We Can Fix School Discipline Toolkit. Public Counsel. Retrieved from
http://nyspbis.org/RegionalForum1516/Guides%20and%20Workbooks/Fix%20School%20Discipline%20Toolkit%20for%20Educators.pdf.
82
Faer, et. al, supra n. 80, pp. 7 (referencing studies which show reduction in discipline referrals and problem behaviors in SEL schools as well as increases in academic and
testing performances.)
83
Id. at 46-48
84
McInerney, M., and McKlindon, A. (2014, December). Unlocking the Door to Learning: Trauma-Informed Classrooms & Transformational Schools. Education Law Center.
Retrieved from http://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Trauma-Informed-in-Schools-Classrooms-FINAL-December2014-2.pdf.
85
Steinberg, L. (2014) Age of Opportunity: Lessons from the New Science of Adolescence.
86
Dudley, R. (2015, July). Childhood Trauma and Its Effects: Implications for Police. Harvard Kennedy School and National Institute for Justice.
Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248686.pdf
87
Buckley, P., Gann, G., Thurau, L. and Wald, J. (2013, Febraury). If Not Now, Then When?: A Survey of Juvenile Justice Training in America’s Police Academies. Strategies for
Youth. Retrieved from http://strategiesforyouth.org/sfysite/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/SFYReport_02-2013_rev.pdf
88
Keierleber, supra n. 42; Weier, S. and Cray, M. (2011). Police at School: A Brief History and Current Status of School Resource Officers. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Education Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84:160-160.
89
California, Ca. Ed. Code 32282.1 (training for school police must prioritize mental health and intervention services, restorative and transformative justice programs, and
positive behavior interventions and supports); Colorado, C.R.S.A. 24-31-312 (state peace officers standards and training board shall create and approve school resource officer
training curricula); Connecticut. C.G.S.A. § 17a-22bb, (subject to funding, school police to be trained in nationally-recognized best practices to prevent disproportionate
referral of students with mental health issues); Indiana, Ind. Code 202-6-18.2-1 (school police must have at least 40 hours of specialized school policing training by approved
training board); Mississippi. Miss Admin Code 7-6 2.2. (specific topics for training include juvenile development); Missiouri, V.A.M.S. 168:450 (requires 40 hours of
specialized school police training); New Jersey, NJSA 18A:17-43.1 (any assigned school officer must complete required training course); South Carolina, S.C. Code 5-7-12
(same); Tennessee, TCA 49-6-4217 (school officers must have 40 hours of basic training in the first year and 16 hours per year thereafter); Texas, 37 Tex. Admin Doe 22.43
(school police in larger districts must obtain state proficiency certificate); Utah, U.C.A. 1953 53A-11-1603 (state board of education to create school police training program);
Vermont, V.T.C.A. Occupations Code 1701.262, 263 (school police required to have training in child and adolescent development and psychology)
27
90
United States Department of Education and Department of Civil Rights. (2016). Safe School-based Enforcement through Collaboration, Understanding and Respect
(SECURe) Local Implementation Rubric, at 5, athttp://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/files/sro-local-implementation-rubric.pdf; United States Department
of Education, supra n. 42, Appendix A.
91
Buckley, et. al, supra n. 86
92
These include both districts that require a one-time training course and districts that require specific ongoing training. They are: Auburn; Bellingham; Central Valley; Deer
Park; East Valley (Spokane); Edmonds; Ellensburg; Evergreen (Clark); Lake Stevens; Monroe; Mount Vernon; Mukilteo; North Thurston; Othello; Pasco; Seattle; Spokane;
Shoreline; Snohomish; Sunnyside; Tahoma; Tukwila; Tumwater; West Valley; and Yelm.
93
These are: Bethel; East Valley; Fife; North Kitsap; Prosser; Sequim; Snoqualmie Valley; Stanwood-Camano; and University Place.
94
These include: Aberdeen, Anacortes, Battle Ground, Bellevue, Lake Stevens, and Wapato.
95
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. (2015, March 4). Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, at 37-38. Retrieved from https://www.justice.
gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
96
RCW 28A.600.485
97
United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Dear Colleague Letter on the Non-Discriminatory Application of School Discipline. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.pdf
98
S.R. v. Kenton County, no. 2:15-CV-143 (E.D. KY, October 2, 2015)(Statement of Interest of the United States), at https://www.justice.gov/opa/file/780346/download.
99
RCW 28A.600.485.
100
Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (2016, October 19). Dorn Releases Data on Restraint, Isolation of Students. Retrieved at http://www.k12.wa.us/
Communications/pressreleases2016/Data-Restraint.aspx (noting that only 217 of 295 districts sent data).
101
Morgan, et. al, supra n. 15, pp. 264; Dignity in Schools (2014, August 9), Moratorium-Model Code Training and Strategy Session. Retrieved at http://www.
dignityinschools.org/files/Portland_CRDC_DataSlides.pdf
102
These include the following school districts: Asotin (police must keep a “detailed and accurate records, including a log describing student contact, month, school, grade,
situation”); Bellevue (activity log); Clarkston (log of student contacts); Edmonds (monthly report summarizing SRO activities); Everett (quarterly reports); Highline (monthly
report); Issaquah (quarterly activities report); Mukilteo (monthly report); North Kitsap (activity log and monthly report); Rochester (daily log of activities); Seattle (weekly
reporting); Snohomish (monthly report); South Kitsap (activity log and monthly report); Sultan (monthly report); Wahluke (quarterly activity report); and Yakima (patrol log).
103
These include the following school districts: Ferndale (regular reports as may be requested); Shoreline (report as needed); Sunnyside (quarterly report as may be required);
and Wapato (record of patrol services on request).
104
United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (2012). The Transformed Civil Rights Data Collection Summary. Retrieved at http://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2012-data-summary.pdf (for districts with over 50,000 students).
105
United States Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2014, March). Data Snapshot: School Discipline. Retrieved at http://ocrdata.ed.gov/downloads/crdc-
school-discipline-snapshot.pdf
106
United States Department of Education, Civil Rights Data Collection: 2011-2012 State and National Estimations for Washington. Available from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/
StateNationalEstimations/Estimations_2011_12.
107
Id.
108
See RCW 28A.642.010 (specifically prohibiting discrimination in Washington public schools on the basis of race, creed, religion, color, national origin, sexual orientation,
or disability); 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (prohibiting discrimination in any program receiving federal funds).
109
34 C.F.R. § 100.3 (prohibiting criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discrimination); WAC 392-190-007; United States Department of Education,
Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Dear Colleague Letter, supra n. 96, at 7.
110
United States Department of Education, supra n. 96, pp. 20.
111
For example, one study in Delaware showed that only 9% of SRO arrests were for felony offenses, and the remainder were for misdemeanors. 63% of these cases were
ultimately dismissed by the juvenile court for lack of evidence and via prosecutorial discretion, indicating that the misdemeanor arrests were unnecessary. See Wolf, K. (2013).
Booking Students: An Analysis of School Arrests and Court Outcomes. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy 9:58. Retrieved from http://scholarlycommons.law.
northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1109&context=njlsp
112
Spokane Public Schools (2017). Policy and Procedure 6514, District and Campus Safety. Retrieved from https://weba.spokaneschools.org/polpro/Search.aspx#!6.
113
Oakland School Police Department Public Complaints Process and Complaints Report Policy, 2012, June 27). Retrieved at https://www.aclupa.org/files/2514/2427/8287/
Oakland_Policy.pdf; Black Organizing Project. Frequently Asked Questions About the Oakland Unified School District Police Complaint Policy and Complaint Form.
Retrieved from http://www.publiccounsel.org/tools/assets/files/FAQ-on-Oakland-School-Police-Complaints.pdf

28
 Appendix A: Districts Surveyed
School District
2013-14 Police Reviewed agreement Approxmiate or
Police Regularly Officers Assigned to Budgets Used to Pay
District Name K-12 Enrollment Program Reported to between police and Average Paid by
Stationed in Schools? Elementary Schools? Officer(s) Salary in
US DOE OCR schools? District Per Officer
Part or Whole?
Aberdeen School
3,218 Y N N Y Y $77,761
District
Anacortes School
2,757 Y N N Y Y 60,000
District
Arlington School
5,503 Y Y Y Y Y $71,170
District
Asotin-Anatone
643 Y Y Y Y Y $77,545
School District
Auburn School
15,621 Y Y Y Y Y $55,400
District
Battle Ground School
13,478 Y Y N Y Y $43,000
District
Bellevue School
19,888 Y Y N Y Y $58,400
District
Bellingham School
11,229 Y N N Y Y $58,400
District
Bethel School
18,692 Y N Y Y $95,440
District
Bremerton School
5,035 Y N N Y Y $60,000
District
Camas School
6,841 Y N N Y Y $57,850
District
Cashmere School
1,532 Y Y N Y Y $49,815
District
Central Kitsap School
10,965 Y N N Y Y $40,000
District
Central Valley School
13,199 Y Y N Y Y $35,552
District
Centralia School
3,595 Y N Y Y Y $72,348
District
Cheney School
4,447 Y Y Y Y Y $127,299
District
Clarkston School
2,653 Y Y Y Y Y $68,089
District
Clover Park School
12,496 Y Y N Y Y
District
Deer Park School
2,486 Y N Y Y $32,552
District
East Valley School
4,227 Y N Y Y $35,410
District (Spokane)
Edmonds School
20,683 Y Y N Y Y $85,565
District
Ellensburg School
3,215 Y N Y Y Y $10,000
District
Everett School District 19,123 Y Y N Y Y $111,282
Evergreen School
25,926 Y Y Y Y Y $105,891
District (Clark)
Federal Way School
22,719 Y Y N Y Y $98,400
District
Ferndale School
4,764 Y N Y Y $57,000
District
Fife School District 3,636 Y N N Y Y $52,275
Finely School District 912 Y N N N/A# N $0
Franklin Pierce
7,662 Y Y Y Y Y $101,800
School District
Freeman School
895 Y Y Y Y Y $17,776*
District
Grandview School
3,653 Y Y Y Y Y $51,492
District
Highline School
19,273 Y Y N Y Y $75,500
District

29
 School District
2013-14 Police Reviewed agreement Approxmiate or
Police Regularly Officers Assigned to Budgets Used to Pay
District Name K-12 Enrollment Program Reported to between police and Average Paid by
Stationed in Schools? Elementary Schools? Officer(s) Salary in
US DOE OCR schools? District Per Officer
Part or Whole?
Issaquah School
19,738 Y Y N Y Y $34,000
District
Kelso School District 4,990 Y N N Y Y $86,375
Kennewick School
17,550 Y Y N Y Y
District
Kent School District 27,448 Y Y Y Y Y $83,030
Kiona-Benton City
1,472 Y Y N N/A# N $0
School District
Lake Chelan School
1,426 Y N Y Y $46,000
District
Lake Stevens School
8,485 Y N Y Y $70,979
District
Lake Washington
27,707 Y Y N Y Y $40,000
School District
Liberty School
441 Y Y Y Y Y $17,776*
District
Longview School
6,733 Y Y N Y Y $54,550
District
Manson School
662 Y Y N Y Y
District
Marysville School
11,069 Y Y N Y Y $96,000
District
Mead School District 9,705 Y Y N Y Y $35,552
Mercer Island School
4,412 Y Y N Y Y $24,147
District
Monroe School
6,945 Y Y N Y Y $49,483
District
Moses Lake School
8,285 Y N N Y Y $65,000
District
Mount Vernon
6,686 Y N N Y Y $20,847.00
School District
Mukilteo School
15,244 Y Y Y Y Y $88,123
District
North Kitsap School
6,037 Y N N Y Y $38,791
District
North Thurston
14,789 Y N N Y Y $47,000
Public Schools
Northshore School
21,160 Y Y N Y Y $40,000
District
Oak Harbor School
5,720 Y N N Y N $0
District
Olympia School
9,864 Y N Y Y $76,032
District
Orting School
2,459 Y Y Y Y Y $59,000
District
Othello School
4,253 Y N Y Y Y $40,500
District
Pasco School District 17,403 Y Y N Y Y $71,323
Peninsula School
8,828 Y N Y Y $101,800
District
Port Townsend
1,162 Y N N/A# N $0
School District
Prosser School District 2,789 Y N N Y N $0
Pullman School
2,787 Y Y N/A# N $0
District
Puyallup School
22,665 Y Y N Y Y $65,000
District
Quincy School
2,881 Y Y N Y Y N/A
District
Renton School District 15,648 Y N N Y Y $75,000
Richland School
13,049 Y Y N Y Y $25,000
District

30
 School District
2013-14 Police Reviewed agreement Approxmiate or
Police Regularly Officers Assigned to Budgets Used to Pay
District Name K-12 Enrollment Program Reported to between police and Average Paid by
Stationed in Schools? Elementary Schools? Officer(s) Salary in
US DOE OCR schools? District Per Officer
Part or Whole?
Riverside School
1,460 Y Y Y Y Y $32,000
District
Riverview School
3,219 Y N N Y Y $25,000
District
Rochester School
2,163 Y N N Y Y $60,000
District
Seattle Public Schools 52,630 Y Y N Y N $0
Selah School District 3,586 Y N Y Y Y $38,350
Sequim School
2,810 Y Y Y Y Y
District
Shelton School
4,252 Y Y Y Y Y $58,204
District
Shoreline School
9,322 Y N N Y Y $60,000
District
Snohomish School
10,052 Y N N Y Y $96,646
District
Snoqualmie Valley
6,800 Y N N Y Y $51,391
School District
South Kitsap School
9,610 Y Y Y Y Y $75,400
District
Spokane School
29,852 Y Y Y Y Y $54,781
District
Stanwood-Camano
4,460 Y N N Y Y $57,225
School District
Steilacoom Hist.
3,108 Y N N Y Y $101,000
School District
Sultan School District 1,951 Y Y N Y Y $84,000
Sumner School
9,153 Y N Y Y
District
Sunnyside School
6,703 Y N Y Y Y $125,000
District
Tacoma School
29,044 Y Y N Y Y $65,000
District
Tahoma School
8,075 Y N N Y Y $45,000
District
Tukwila School
3,017 Y N N Y N $0
District
Tumwater School
6,382 Y N N Y N $0
District
University Place
5,580 Y Y N Y Y $58,458
School District
Vancouver School
23,345 Y Y N Y Y $84,000
District
Wahluke School
2,358 Y N Y Y $73,000
District
Walla Walla Public
5,878 Y N N Y Y $51,467
Schools
Wapato School
3,344 Y Y Y Y Y $69,225
District
Washougal School
3,179 Y N N Y Y $44,105
District
Wenatchee School
7,893 Y N N Y Y $90,369
District
West Valley School
3,731 Y N Y Y Y $35,522
District (Spokane)
Yakima School
15,941 Y Y Y Y Y $90,326
District
Yelm School District 5,627 Y Y N Y Y $60,000

Appendix A Endnotes
Note: A blank space indicates that information was not available.
* The Liberty and Freeman School Districts share the cost of a full time school resource officer between them.
# According to school district representatives, the district has no formal agreement governing its school police.

31
 Appendix B: Model School Policy on Police Involvement in Discipline
I. General Principles: District administrators have primary responsibility to ensure consistent enforcement of school rules and policies.
No law enforcement officer shall be engaged in student discipline. Disciplining students is the sole responsibility of [District] staff.

II. Requests for law enforcement assistance:

a. District staff shall not notify or request the assistance of law enforcement officers to resolve student disciplinary issues. School site
administrators and staff may call for law enforcement assistance only when there is a real and imminent physical threat to student,
staff, or the public.

b. District or school staff should not request the involvement of a law enforcement officer in a situation that can be safely and
appropriately handled by the District’s internal student disciplinary procedures. District and school staff and administrators shall
not request the involvement of a law enforcement officer in cases of student conduct involving:

i. Altercations, abuse, and/or harassment over the internet;

ii. Any violations of school rules that do not also violate the criminal code, such as dress code violations, violations of school
policy on personal electronic devices, profanity, or inappropriate public display of affection;
iii. Absenteeism or truancy;
iv. Disorderly conduct;
v. Failure to follow school rules or failure to cooperate with school staff; disturbing school or disrupting school activities;
insubordination or defiance.
vi. Loitering or trespass;
vii. Malicious mischief or destruction of property;
viii. Perceived drunkenness or intoxication;
ix. Physical altercations that do not involve a weapon;
x. Possession of a tool that could be taken to be, but is not intended as a weapon – such as a nail clipper or file, small pen
knife, butter knife, toy gun, pepper spray, etc. – unless that item is being brandished as a weapon; and
xi. Possession of alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana for personal use;
xii. Theft under $750;
xiii. Vandalism and/or graffiti;
xiv. Verbal altercations, abuse, and/or harassment;
xv. Any other offense that would be a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor crime if charged.

c. For all offenses that do not cause or pose a direct threat of harm to students or school staff, District administrators should
exhaust all alternatives before involving law enforcement officers. Alternatives may include: issuing a warning, admonishing and
counseling, and referring the student for community service, restorative justice, or mediation.

d. If a student commits a serious offense, District and school staff may request assistance from Department officers after considering
the totality of the circumstances.

i. Serious offenses include:

1. Armed robbery.
2. Assaults involving serious bodily harm;
3. Possession of a firearm;
4. Serious violent offenses such as rape or kidnapping;
5. Sex offenses;
6. Use of a weapon; or

ii. The totality of the circumstances include:

1. whether a lesser intervention will achieve the desired goal of correcting behavior;
2. whether the child intended to cause serious harm;
3. whether the child acted impulsively without any specific intent to cause serious harm;
4. the child’s age;
5. whether the child has a disability; and
6. other mitigating circumstances.

iii. In an emergency or crisis situation, District and school staff should call 911 or any Department officer or both and notify
school administrators as soon as possible

iv. If there is no immediate danger to students or others, school staff will contact their school site administrator to make the
decision about whether to request Department police assistance for an incident potentially involving a serious offense by
a student, based on the totality of the circumstances set forth above.

32
 Appendix C: Model Memorandum of Understanding Language
on Police Involvement in Student Disicpline
I. General Principles:
a. District administrators have primary responsibility to ensure consistent enforcement of school rules and policies. No law
enforcement officer shall be engaged in student discipline. Disciplining students is the sole responsibility of District and school
staff. Accordingly, officers must refuse to engage in disputes that are related to issues of school discipline, even if District or school
staff requested the assistance.

b. Students who are referred to police officers for school discipline issues or disability related behavior may experience long-term,
negative consequences as a result, including a higher likelihood of not graduating and having future interactions with the criminal
justice system.

c. Young people who are facing behavioral challenges or engaged in minor criminal activity are most likely to benefit from positive
behavioral intervention and supports, access to adults who mentor and guide them, and additional counseling or tutoring rather
than arrest and exclusion from school.

d. Searching and interrogating students, and arresting and referring students to court, unless absolutely necessary, is
counterproductive to the purpose of schools.

e. Meaningful engagement of all stakeholders – including students, parents, teachers, and other school staff – is essential to school
safety and positive school climate.

II. Issues Not Appropriate for Department Officer Intervention:

a. Officers will not generally respond to District or school staff requests for involvement in situations that can be safely and appropriately
handled by the [District]’s internal student disciplinary procedures. These include instances of student conduct including:

i. Altercations, abuse, and/or harassment over the internet;

ii. Any violations of school rules that do not also violate the criminal code, such as dress code violations, violations of school
policy on personal electronic devices, profanity, or inappropriate public display of affection
iii. Absenteeism or truancy;
iv. Disorderly conduct;
v. Failure to follow school rules or failure to cooperate with school staff; disturbing school or disrupting school activities;
insubordination or defiance.
vi. Loitering or trespass
vii. Malicious mischief or destruction of property;
viii. Perceived drunkenness or intoxication;
ix. Physical altercations that do not involve a weapon;
x. Possession of a tool that could be taken to be, but is not intended as a weapon – such as a nail clipper or file, small pen
knife, butter knife, toy gun, pepper spray, etc. – unless that item is being brandished as a weapon; and
xi. Possession of alcohol, tobacco, or marijuana for personal use;
xii. Theft under $750;
xiii. Vandalism and/or graffiti;
xiv. Verbal altercations, abuse, and/or harassment;

b. Department officers who witness any of the above incidents should locate school staff to respond to the situation.

Appendix D: Model Memorandum of Understanding on Officer Use of Force

I. Governing Principles:
a. Both the District and Department recognize that there is no educational or therapeutic benefit to the use of restraint, isolation,
or physical force against students, and that the use of restraints in nonemergency situations poses significant physical and
psychological danger to students and school staff.1

b. The District and Department seek to minimize the use of force by officers against students by prioritizing de-escalation techniques
and limiting the use of force to situations posing an imminent risk of serious harm.

II. Definitions
a. Restraint means physical intervention or force used to control a student, including the use of a restraint device to restrict a
student’s freedom of movement.2

33
 b. Restraint device means a device used to assist in controlling a student, including but not limited to metal handcuffs, plastic ties,
ankle restraints, leather cuffs, plastic or flexicuffs, oleoresin capsiscum (pepper spray), tasers, or batons.3

c. Likelihood of serious harm means a substantial risk that physical harm will be inflicted by a person upon another, as evidenced by
behavior that has caused such harm or that places another person or persons in reasonable fear of sustaining such harm.

d. Serious bodily injury means bodily injury which involves a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious
disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.

III. Limitations on Use of Force

a. Police officers in school may not use physical force or restraint on a student except when reasonably necessary to control
spontaneous behavior posing an imminent likelihood of serious harm.

b. Officers shall not use force or other restraint unless they have attempted de-escalation tactics as described in subsection (3) of
this policy, except where the student’s behavior poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury to students, school staff, or the
officer.

c. In determining whether to use physical force or restraint, the officer shall consider the totality of the circumstances, including:

i. The student’s size, age, and weight

ii. The emotional and physical capacity of the student
iii. Whether the student’s primary language is other than English
iv. The severity of the potential harm
v. Number of students and adults present
vi. Whether the officer is aware of any additional limitations on use of force or restraint contained within the student’s
individualized education plan or accommodation plan.

d. Even when the restraint or physical force is reasonable necessary to control spontaneous behavior posing an imminent likelihood
of serious harm, the officer shall use the least restrictive force technique necessary to end the threat. In assessing whether the use of
force is proportionate and necessary to end, the officer must consider:

i. Is this how I would want a child I love and care for to be treated?
ii. How would the general public view the action? Would the public think this action is appropriate to the situation and
the severity of the threat posed?

e. The use of force must be closely monitored to prevent harm to the student, and must be discontinued as soon as the likelihood of
serious harm has dissipated.

f. Neither physical force nor restraint shall ever be used:

i. to punish or discipline the student;4

ii. against students who only verbally confront officers or school officials;
iii. as a result of refusal of the student to comply with school rules or a staff directive, unless the student’s spontaneous
behavior poses an imminent likelihood of serious harm.

IV. De-Escalation Tactics:

Except where there is a real and immediate threat of serious bodily injury to students, school staff, or the officer, the first course of
action should be the application of specific strategies designed to diffuse the situation by addressing students’ needs and de-escalating
the immediate behavior. The intent of de-escalation is to restore the student’s capacity to control his or her immediate impulse or
behavior and to move toward safer or more constructive resolution of the immediate problem situation. The following de-escalation
tactics should be employed:

a. Identify the student distress level and employ staff response using appropriate verbal, nonverbal, and paraverbal communication
strategies (i.e., identifying precipitating factors of behaviors, limit setting, empathetic listening, respecting personal space, and
utilizing appropriate body language).

Do... Don't...
Remain calm Raise your voice
Use positive body language Continue to argue
Take a step back Use negative body language
Recognize the student's feelings Give ultimatums

34
 Use "I" statements Use sarcasm to defuse the situation
Suggest talking about the issue at a later time
Tell the person what you are doing at all times,
preferably before you do it
Conduct yourself so as to avoid or minimize the possibility of
accidentally rouching private areas

Always respect the student's history and cultural background

b. Slow down the situation by means of tactical disengagement: If an officer can calm the situation down and walk away from a
minor confrontation – and nothing bad will happen upon the officer’s exit – the officer should find a way to tactically disengage.

c. Other examples of de-escalation include:

i. Placing barriers between an uncooperative student and an officer;

ii. Withdrawing;
iii. Decreasing the exposure to the potential threat by using distance or cover;
iv. Concealing oneself or others
v. Communicating from a safe position that is intended to gain compliance using verbal persuasion, advisements,
and/or warnings:
vi. Avoiding physical confrontation unless immediately necessary, using verbal techniques such as Listen and Explain with
Equity and Dignity (LEED) Training, to calm an agitated subject and promote rational decision making; and
vii. Calling additional support like a trusted teacher, administrator, parent, or other officer.

Officers should expect that a significant portion of the students they interact with have disabilities, and that many disabilities are
not immediately visible.

d. When permitted by educational privacy laws, any school staff member who calls an officer to respond to an incident involving a
student with a disability shall inform the officer of any limitations on the use of force contained in the student’s IEP.

V. Use of Force to Effectuate an Arrest of a Student:

a. The standard approach to student behavior is to use restorative practices and seek to ensure that students remain connected to the
learning environment and school community.

b. Officers should limit arrests of students to those situations involving a direct threat of physical harm.

c. An officer may use restraint or other force to effectuate an arrest of the student only if necessary to control spontaneous behavior
that poses an imminent risk of serious harm, or if the subject flees or forcibly resists.

VI. Medical Attention: Medical assistance shall be provided to any person who requests it or who is injured as a result of use of force or
restraint. Decontamination efforts should take place as soon as possible for persons who been exposed to the use of oleoresin capsicum
(i.e. pepper spray).

VII. Training Required of Officers Using Restraint: Officers may only use those restraints for which they have successfully completed
approved training.

VIII. Documenting Use of Force: Any officer who uses force on a student during school-sponsored instruction or activities must
inform the building administrator or designee as soon as possible, and within two business days submit a written report of the incident
to the district office. The written report must include:

a. date and time of the incident;

b. the name and job title of the officer who administered the force;
c. a description of the circumstances that led to the use of force;
d. any de-escalation tactics used by the officer to avoid the use of force;
e. whether the student or any staff were physically injured during the use of force and any medical care provided;
f. any recommendations for changing the amount or nature of resources available to the student or staff to avoid such incidents in
the future.

The building administrator or his designee must verbally inform the student or parent’s guardian of the use of force within 24 hours of
the incident, and must send a copy of the written report of the incident to the district office no later than five business days after the
use of force.

35
IX. Resolution of Complaints About Use of Force:
a. A student or his/her parent or guardian who has concerns regarding a specific incident involving restraint or other forms of
physical force may seek to resolve the concern by filing a complaint with the Superintendent or the Department.

b. Notifying Parents and Students Regarding Complaint Procedures: The District shall publish on its website, and make available in
student handbooks and in every school building, a procedure for filing complaints regarding school police with the District. The
procedure shall permit parents or students to file complaints in person, via mail or electronic mail, orally or in writing.

c. Sharing Complaints: The District & Department will each forward all complaints received regarding officer use of force to the other entity.

d. The District shall investigate the actions of school staff leading up to and during the use of force incident. The Superintendent
shall respond to the complaint within 10 business days of receipt.

e. The Department shall investigate the actions of officers involved in use of force in accordance with its internal procedures, and
shall transmit to the complaining party a notice of those procedures within 10 business days of receipt of the complaint.

Appendix D Endnotes 3
RCW 28A.600.485(1)(c)
1
See RCW 28A.155.020 (notes of legislative finding) 4
U.S. Dep’t of Educ, Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document 16 (May 2012),
2
RCW 28A.600.485 (1)(b) available at:

Appendix E: Model School Policy on Student Questioning, Search, & Arrest

I. Questioning by District Staff:
a. Staff may informally question students about safety-related concerns if staff has a reasonable suspicion that the student knows
information that would help ensure the safety of students or staff.

i. Reasonable suspicion shall be based on specific and objective facts that the questioning will produce evidence related to
an alleged violation of law or school rules.
ii. Curiosity, rumor, hunch, mere disruptive activity, attempts to shield private possessions from view or invocations of a
student’s constitutional rights cannot form the basis for reasonable suspicion.

b. Where the student is suspected of having committed a crime, District staff shall first notify the student’s parent or guardian before
questioning the student about the alleged violation of law, even if the alleged violation of the law is also a violation of school rules.

i. Efforts to contact parents by the principal or designee must include calling all numbers listed on the student’s emergency
card and all numbers supplied by the student. The principal or designee shall record the time(s) of contact or attempted
contact with the parent/guardian.
ii. If the student is 12 years of age or older, District staff shall inform the parent or guardian of his or her right to be present
for the questioning. Unless the parent or guardian waives his or her right to be present for questioning, District staff
shall cease questioning until the parent or guardian can arrive.
iii. If the student is below the age of 12, District staff shall not question the student without his or her parent or guardian present.
iv. District staff shall further notify the student in age-appropriate language that anything he/she says may be shared with
school officials or police and can be used against him/her in a criminal case.

II. Questioning by Law Enforcement:

a. Warrant or Other Legal Authority: As a general rule, law enforcement should interview students off campus. Law enforcement
officers may not remove students from class for questioning without a court order or arrest warrant permitting questioning unless
there is an immediate threat of bodily injury. Where there is no court order, arrest warrant, or immediate threat, law enforcement
officers should wait until after school or, at a minimum, after class to approach the student.

b. Identification of Officer: When any law enforcement official requests an interview with a student, the principal or designee shall
request that the official provide verification of his/her identity and official capacity and certify the legal authority under which the
interview is being conducted. If the officer refuses to provide certification of the legal authority for the interview, the principal
or designee shall document such refusal and should consult with [District] legal counsel and receive approval before allowing the
interview to proceed.

c. Location of Interview: Where practicable, the school shall identify a private location out of sight and hearing of other students for
any interview by law enforcement.

d. Parental Notification and Presence:

i. No student under 12 shall be interviewed or questioned by law enforcement on school grounds without the consent
of that student’s parent or guardian. District staff must inform the parent or guardian of the law enforcement officer’s
presence, and the parent or guardian’s right to refuse consent to student questioning.

36
 ii. If the student is age 12 or older, District staff must, prior to the commencement of questioning, contact the student’s
parent or guardian and give the parent or guardian a reasonable opportunity to be present when a student is questioned
by a law enforcement officer, unless the student is a suspected victim of child abuse.

1. If the parent/guardian requests that the student not be questioned until the parent/guardian can be present, the
staff member shall notify the student and police officer of the parent’s request and advise the student of his or her
right to remain silent.
2. Efforts to contact the student’s parent/guardian by the principal or designee must include calling all numbers listed on
the student’s emergency card, including work numbers, cell phone numbers, and all numbers supplied by the student.
The principal or designee shall record the time(s) of contact or attempted contact with the parent/guardian.
3. If the principal or designee cannot reach the parent, he/she should leave messages where applicable and follow up
with written documentation.
4. If a parent/guardian cannot be found, the school site should offer the student the option of having an adult of his
or her choice from the school available during the interrogation.

III. Search of Students By School Officials

a. General Principles:

i. As necessary to protect the health and welfare of students and staff, under limited circumstances outlined in this policy,
school officials and staff may search students, their property, and/or district property under their control and may seize
illegal, unsafe, or otherwise prohibited items under the circumstances described in this policy.
ii. The District Board urges that employees exercise discretion and good judgment that respects student dignity and
promotes a positive school climate. When conducting a search or seizure, school officials and staff shall act in accordance
with the law, Board policy, and administrative regulations.

b. Individual Searches: School officials and staff may search any individual student or his/her property within the student’s
possession, or district property under the student’s control when there is individualized and reasonable suspicion that the search
will uncover evidence that the student is violating the law, district policy, or administrative regulations.

i. Reasonable suspicion shall be based on specific and objective facts that the search will produce evidence related to the
alleged violation.
ii. Curiosity, rumor, hunch, mere disruptive activity, attempts to shield private possessions from view, or invocations of a
student’s constitutional rights cannot form the basis for said reasonable suspicion.
iii. Any search of a student, his/her property, or district property under the student’s control shall be limited in scope and
designed to produce evidence related to the alleged violation.
iv. Factors to be considered by school officials when determining the scope of the search shall include:

1. the danger to the health or safety of students or staff, such as the possession of weapons or other dangerous instruments;
2. whether the item(s) to be searched by school officials are reasonably related to the contraband to be found;
3. the intrusiveness of the search in light of the student’s age, gender, and the nature of the alleged violation.

v. School officials and staff shall not conduct strip searches or body cavity searches of any student.
vi. School officials and staff may not require students to remove or lift any items of clothing during a search.
vii. Searches will be conducted by or under the supervision of the school site administrator or certificated designee. It is
preferred that searches be made in the presence of at least two [District] employees. Any [District] employee conducting
a student search shall be of the gender identity of the student’s choosing.
viii. The principal or designee shall notify the parent/guardian of a student subjected to an individualized search verbally and
in writing immediately after the search.
ix. All searches and pat downs that take place at school should happen outside the view of other youth (unless emergency
situations make it impossible), to maintain the student’s privacy and to decrease public embarrassment, humiliation, and
any other future stigmatization and discrimination against the student(s) involved.
x. The Superintendent shall create and disseminate a policy regarding the return of seized student property. Seized items,
such as electronics, clothing, or personal effects will be returned to the student at the end of the school day unless they
are controlled or illegal substances. Seized items will only be turned over to law enforcement if these items are part of a
criminal investigation, otherwise, seized items will be disposed of by the administration.

c. Searches of Student Lockers/Desks:

i. School officials shall have the ability to open and inspect any school locker or desk without student permission or prior
notice when they have reasonable suspicion that the search will uncover evidence of illegal possessions or activities or
when odors, smoke, fire and/or other threats to health, welfare or safety emanate from the locker or desk.
ii. Any items contained in a locker or desk shall be considered to be the property of the student to whom the locker or desk
was assigned. The contents of any closed or sealed student belongings found in a locker shall not be searched without
37
 individualized and reasonable suspicion that it will contain evidence that the student is violating the law, district policy,
or administrative regulation.
iii. Immediately upon seizing any item from a student locker or desk, the District official who conducted the search shall
record the time, place, circumstances of the search, and list all items seized. The District official shall file such report
with the school principal’s office along with any item seized which shall be sealed and stored appropriately to assure that
it is not tampered with or destroyed. The student shall be dealt with in accordance with District policies concerning
disciplinary procedures.
iv. If District officials confiscate any student possessions that should be returned to the student, they must maintain it in a
secure location and make it available to the student at the end of the school day.

d. Search of Personal Electronic Devices:

i. School administrators may only search an individual student’s cell phone or electronic device with the informed consent
of the student, pursuant to a search warrant based on probable cause to believe the phone contains evidence of criminal
activity, or pursuant to a good faith belief that an emergency involving threat of death or serious physical injury exists
that requires an immediate search of the device.
ii. Simple possession or use of a cell phone or electronic device in violation of a school rule is insufficient justification for a
search of the device.
iii. In no instance shall a school administrator require a student to log into his or her email, chat, messaging, social media, or
other accounts on the student’s electronic device.
iv. In conducting any search of a student’s personal device pursuant to a search warrant, school staff shall:

1. document the individualized facts that supported the finding of probable cause;
2. notify the student and the student’s parent or legal guardian of the particular suspected criminal activity and the
type of data to be searched for as evidence; and
3. provide the student’s parent or legal guardian the opportunity to be present during the search.

v. In conducting any search of a student’s personal device pursuant to a good faith belief that an emergency exists, school
staff shall, no later than 72 hours after accessing the device, provide to the student, the student’s parent or legal guardian,
and the principal’s office:

1. a written description of the emergency, including the facts that supported the good faith belief that an emergency
required an immediate search of the device;
2. a description of the search conducted, including a summary of the data accessed and/or seized when the device was
searched.

vi. In the course of conducting a search, a school official shall not copy, share, or in any way transmit any information from
a student’s cell phone or electronic device, or modify or delete any information. The scope of any search shall not extend
beyond that to which the student consents, that which is necessary to produce evidence of criminal activity, or that which
is required in an emergency.
vii. Log of Searches: The school principal’s office shall maintain a personal device access log in which the following
information shall be recorded for each search of a student’s personal device by school staff or other public employees:
the name of the school official or other public employee accessing the device; the business address and other contact
information for the person accessing the device; the date of access; the data or functions accessed; and the basis for
the search. The log shall include documentation of searches undertaken in emergencies. Personal device access logs
maintained pursuant to this provision shall not contain any personally identifiable student data, shall be made available
to members of the public upon request, and shall be public records subject to the public records law. Confiscated
electronic devices, as well as information obtained from the electronic device through a search under this policy, will only
be turned over to law enforcement when there is a real and immediate physical threat to student, teacher, or public safety
or law enforcement requests the device or information pursuant to a warrant.

e. Search of Students by Law Enforcement Official:

i. Warrant Requirement: No sworn law enforcement officer (whether regularly stationed at school through a cooperative
agreement with a law enforcement agency, employed by a school or school district, or responding to a call for service or
assistance) shall search a student or property within the student’s possession unless the officer has a warrant authorizing
the search, or is operating pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement. No sworn law enforcement
officer may seize property within the student’s possession unless the officer has a warrant authorizing the seizure or is
operating pursuant to a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.
ii. School Official Exception Prohibited: A sworn law enforcement officer is not a “school official” authorized to invoke the
school official exception to the warrant requirement.
iii. An officer shall not in any way request or encourage a school official to search a student in an effort to circumvent these
protections. School and district personnel shall refuse to cooperate with law enforcement requests to search students that
are designed to circumvent these protections.
38
 Appendix F: Model School Policy on Data & Accountability
I. Definitions: For purposes of this section:
a. “School-related offenses” is defined as a criminal offense occurring or originating on a [District] school site during hours the
school site is regularly open to the public or its students for school-related business.

b. “School site” is defined as the property upon which the school is located. It also includes any location where a school-sponsored
event is being held for the duration of such event.

c. “Student” refers only to youth who are enrolled in a [District] public school.

II. Monthly Written Report:

a. District staff shall compile a monthly written report of law enforcement officers who respond to situations within the District’s
jurisdiction. These monthly written reports shall be filed with the School Board and shall include:

i. School site crime incidents reported to, or observed by, any law enforcement officer;
ii. Number of times that a law enforcement officer was called to a school site, and included for each incident: the type of
call, related offense (e.g., trespassing, disruption, battery, possession of a weapon), and resolution of call;
iii. Number of times a law enforcement officer referred a student for prosecution
iv. Number of times that law enforcement officers handcuffed, restrained, or summoned a student on campus and the basis
for each incident.
v. Number of arrests of students made:
1. By a law enforcement officer on District school sites for school-related offenses;
2. By a law enforcement officer on District school sites for non-school-related offenses; and
3. By a law enforcement officer off District school sites for school-related offenses.
vi. Such data shall be disaggregated by school site, offense, and student subgroup, including age, race, ethnicity,
student English Learner status, foster youth status, gender, and disability (if applicable), whether the student has an
Individualized Education Plan or section 504 Plan, and the disposition of the matter.

b. Complaints/grievances: To the extent known by District staff, the number of complaints/grievances against law enforcement
officers, present or acting in District schools, disaggregated by the number of complaints lodged against individual officers,
identified by the officer’s individual assigned code number. Complaint/grievances should include but not be limited to any reports
of injuries or excessive force. All complaints against law enforcement officers shall be handled according to police department
policy and procedure. All complaints received by [District] shall be forwarded to the law enforcement officer’s supervisors and/or
directly to police department Internal Affairs.

c. Referrals: Number of referrals by law enforcement officers of students from school sites to wellness centers, medical facilities,
tutors, mentors, or other resources in lieu of arrest or citation.

III. Bi-Yearly Report and Yearly Review

a. The District School Board shall request and obtain a written report from District staff twice a year (in January and July, or as soon
as reasonably possible thereafter) during open session of a regularly scheduled public Board meeting regarding:

i. the information contained in the aforementioned monthly reports; and

ii. the percentage of percentage of officer time spent on the following activities, based on a review of officer’s daily activity
logs submitted to the district:

1. Teaching lessons
2. Supervising or facilitating extracurricular activities, electives, or school clubs
3. Patrolling campus
4. Investigating criminal activity
5. Other activities

iii. the impact of District policies and practices regarding law enforcement involvement with students,
iv. the District’s efforts to reduce disproportionate contact between high risk or high-need populations and the police and/or
juvenile justice system, as well as to reduce the rate of school-based arrests and citations while maintaining a safe school
climate.

b. The District should request the police department chief or designee be available to answer any questions posed by the Board or
community related to safety, disproportionate minority contact with law enforcement, if any, student arrest or citation rates, and
any other issues.

c. The written report shall be made publicly available through the standard Board process and thereafter shall be posted on the
39
 [District] website, consistent with applicable federal, state, and local privacy laws.

d. The District shall provide the public with the following information by posting the information on its website, updated on an
annual basis unless stated otherwise

i. Regulations, policies, and protocols governing law enforcement officer interactions with students, including any changes
made in the prior year;
ii. Training materials for law enforcement officers about working with students; i
iii. Number of law enforcement officers regularly interacting with particular school sites; and
iv. The aforementioned monthly written report.

e. On a yearly basis, the District shall convene a community oversight committee on school policing to review and make
recommendations regarding the policies and procedures governing law enforcement involvement with students, and to review the
bi-yearly report and make recommendations about continuing law enforcement engagement in the District.

IV. Complaint Process

a. Any person who believes that any law enforcement officer or District staff have violated Board policy regarding law enforcement
involvement in school may file a complaint with the Superintendent or his/her designee within 60 days of the alleged misconduct.

b. The District shall establish a central complaint form, which will be available at the Superintendent’s office, at each school in the
central office, and online at [insert URL]. Complaint forms shall be available in languages other than English. A complainant may
make a complaint using the central complaint form, or may make a complaint in writing.

c. The Superintendent or designee shall investigate any complaints regarding District staff who may be violating Board policy
regarding law enforcement involvement in school.

i. The Superintendent shall report the on District investigation to the complainant no later than 30 days after submission
of the complaint, and shall use his or her best efforts to complete the investigation within 45 days of the filing of the
complaint.
ii. An investigation shall not exceed 90 days unless circumstances beyond the District’s control render completing the
investigation within 90 days is impossible.

d. Each report of disposition of a complaint shall include:

i. Whether the complaint was sustained or not sustained;

ii. A description of the investigation;
iii. Findings of fact (i.e., a detailed description of what the investigator believes occurred and what, if any, laws or policies
were violated);
iv. An explanation of and rationale for the result and conclusion;
v. If a violation occurred, what remedies must be effectuated.
vi. The Superintendent and his or her designee shall keep a log of all complaints received by his or her office, and shall log
each disposition.

e. If the complainant disagrees with the Superintendent’s resolution of the complaint, s/he shall have a right to appeal the resolution
to the District Board. Within 60 days, the District Board shall either: a. Uphold the Superintendent’s decision; or b. Reverse the
Superintendent’s decision and request further investigation. The Board’s decision shall be made public, unless the complainant
requests that the results of the appeal remain confidential.

f. No officer or employee of the District or law enforcement officer In District schools shall retaliate against, intimidate, harass,
or threaten any person making a complaint. Any District employee found to have retaliated against, intimidated, threatened, or
harassed any person attempting to make or who has made a complaint will be disciplined to the full extent of the law.

40
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF WA SHINGTON FOUNDATION
901 FIF TH AVENUE #630, SE AT TLE, WA 98164
W W W.ACLU–WA.ORG
4 /2017