Did the 2023 amendment that banned prone restraint and chest/throat-pressure holds in Minnesota schools also ban those holds when a school staffer has to physically prevent a student from hurting someone or themselves?

Plain-English summary

Minnesota’s 2023 school discipline amendment prohibited prone restraint and physical holds that impair a pupil’s breathing or ability to communicate distress. The same amendment addressed reasonable force used by teachers, principals, other school employees, agents, and bus drivers to prevent bodily harm or death. Education Commissioner Willie Jett asked whether the restraint prohibition applied in every situation, including one where force was used to prevent harm.

The Attorney General concluded: “The Amendment does not limit the types of reasonable force that may be used by school staff and agents to prevent bodily harm or death. The test for reasonable force remains unchanged, and is highly fact-specific.” The opinion relied on the savings language in Minn. Stat. § 121A.58, subd. 3 and on § 121A.582, subd. 4, which says rights or defenses under that section supplement those in § 121A.58. It also read the reasonable-force provision as more specific than the general discipline restriction.

The opinion did not decide how much force would be reasonable in a particular incident. It said the level of threat can change rapidly and that an assessment must account for those changes. Questions about school resource officers and other contracted peace officers were expressly outside the request and, the AG said, more appropriately directed to the Legislature.

What this means for you

Teachers and principals: The opinion said the amendment left their reasonable-force authority in place for preventing imminent bodily harm or death. It did not preapprove any particular restraint in any particular incident.

Other school employees, agents, and bus drivers: The opinion described their statutory authority to use reasonable force to prevent bodily harm or death. Whether a particular use of force was reasonable remains a fact question.

School resource officers and contracted peace officers: The AG expressly left questions about the standards governing their conduct unanswered in this opinion.

Common questions

Did the amendment ban every use of prone or compressive restraint, even to prevent harm?

No. The AG concluded that the amendment did not limit the types of reasonable force school staff and agents could use to prevent bodily harm or death. The force still had to be reasonable in the circumstances.

Who determines whether a particular use of force was reasonable?

The opinion said the issue is decided case by case. It cited Moses v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs. for the fact-specific inquiry and noted that the level of threat may change rapidly.

Did the AG decide what standard applies to school resource officers?

No. The opinion says questions about school resource officers and other contracted peace officers were beyond the Commissioner’s request and better directed to the Legislature.

Background and statutory framework

The amendment revised Minn. Stat. § 121A.58 to define prone restraint and prohibit specified compressive holds. It revised § 121A.582 to state when school personnel could use reasonable force to prevent bodily harm or death. The AG read the provisions together, citing the savings sentence in § 121A.58, subd. 3, the supplementary-rights clause in § 121A.582, subd. 4, and the rule in Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 that a more specific provision controls over a more general one.

The opinion’s conclusion addresses reasonable force used by school staff and agents in response to threats of bodily harm or death. It leaves the reasonableness of particular force and the questions raised about peace officers unresolved.

Citations and references

• Minn. Stat. § 121A.58 (restraint restrictions and savings clause)
• Minn. Stat. § 121A.582 (reasonable force)
• Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1 (specific and general provisions)
• Houck v. Houck, 979 N.W.2d 907 (Minn. Ct. App. 2022)
• Connexus Energy v. Commissioner of Revenue, 868 N.W.2d 234 (Minn. 2015)
• In re E.M.B., 987 N.W.2d 597 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023)
• Moses v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., 1998 WL 846546 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 1998)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/169f-20230822.pdf

Original opinion text

SCHOOL PUPILS: DISCIPLINE: Laws of Minnesota 2023 ch. 55, art. 2, § 36 and art. 12, § 4 do not limit the types of reasonable force that may be used by school staff and agents to prevent bodily harm or death. Minn. Stat. §§ 121A.58; 121A.582.

169f
August 22, 2023

Willie L. Jett, II
Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Education
400 NE Stinson Boulevard
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413

Re: Recent Amendments to Student Discipline Laws

Dear Commissioner Jett:

Thank you for your letter of August 18, 2023, which seeks clarity regarding recent amendments to student discipline laws, Minnesota Statutes sections 121A.58 and 121A.582. See Act of May 24, 2023, ch. 55, Art. 2, § 36; Art. 12, § 4 (hereinafter, the Amendment). Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 8.07, I issue this opinion to offer binding guidance on the issue you have raised.

BACKGROUND

Relevant to your inquiry, the Amendment revises Minnesota Statutes section 121A.58 to include a definition of "prone restraint" and to specify that school employees and agents generally: (1) "shall not use prone restraint" on pupils; and (2) "shall not inflict any form of physical holding that restricts or impairs a pupil's ability to breathe; restricts or impairs a pupil's ability to communicate distress; places pressure or weight on a pupil's head, throat, neck, chest, lungs, sternum, diaphragm, back or abdomen; or results in straddling a pupil's torso" (i.e., compressive restraint techniques). Id. at Art. 2, § 36.

The Amendment also revises Minnesota Statutes section 121A.582 to provide that: (1) teachers and principals may use reasonable force "to correct or restrain a student to prevent imminent bodily harm or death to the student or another"; and (2) other school employees, agents, and bus drivers may use reasonable force "to restrain a student to prevent bodily harm or death to the student or another." Id. at Art. 12, § 4.

QUESTION PRESENTED

You have expressed uncertainty regarding whether the Amendment categorically prohibits prone restraint and compressive restraint techniques in all scenarios. In particular, you ask: "whether the new language in Minnesota Statutes, section 121A.58, subdivision 3 and its reference to Minnesota Statutes, section 121A.582, acts as an exception to the general prohibition on prone restraints and other types of physical holds, thereby allowing the use of these practices when doing so would 'prevent imminent bodily harm or death to the student or to another.'"

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSION

The Amendment does not limit the types of reasonable force that may be used by school staff and agents to prevent bodily harm or death. The test for reasonable force remains unchanged, and is highly fact-specific.

ANALYSIS

Three things support this conclusion. First, the Amendment adds a new sentence to Minnesota Statutes section 121A.58, subdivision 3: "Nothing in this section or section 125A.0941 precludes the use of reasonable force under section 125A.582." By this language, the Legislature expressed its clear intent to not limit the use of reasonable force when faced with the threat of bodily harm or death. See, e.g., Houck v. Houck, 979 N.W.2d 907, 911 (Minn. Ct. App. 2022).

Second, Minnesota Statutes section 121A.582 states that: "Any right or defense under this section is supplementary to those specified in section 121A.58[.]" Minn. Stat. § 121A.582, subd. 4. This further evinces the Legislature's view that the use of reasonable force authorized in Minnesota Statutes section 121A.582 is separate and distinct from the conduct prohibited by Minnesota Statutes section 121A.58.

Third, and relatedly, even without those clear indications of intent from the Legislature, the usual canons of statutory construction support the same result. Section 121A.582 specifically governs responses to threats of violence, and therefore controls over the more general statute about acceptable punishments. See Minn. Stat. § 645.26, subd. 1; accord Connexus Energy v. Commissioner of Revenue, 868 N.W.2d 234, 242 (Minn. 2015). Furthermore, had the Legislature intended to exclude prone restraint and compressive restraint techniques from the reasonable force permitted under Minnesota Statutes section 121A.582, it would have clearly said so. See In re E.M.B., 987 N.W.2d 597, 601 (Minn. Ct. App. 2023).

Accordingly, the Legislature did not change the types of reasonable force that school staff and agents are authorized to use in responding to a situation involving a threat of bodily harm or death. Of course, what force is "reasonable" is not defined in law and is determined on a case-by-case basis. See Moses v. Minneapolis Pub. Schs., No. C4-98-1073, 1998 WL 846546, at 3 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 8, 1998); cf. Bond by and through Bond v. Indep. Sch. Dist. #191, No. A21-0688, 2022 WL 92661, at 5 (Minn. Ct. App. Jan. 10, 2022). In addition, the level of threat posed by a particular student or situation can change rapidly, and any assessment of what use of force was reasonable must take that into account.

In a recent meeting with representatives of your staff, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, participants raised other important questions about the standards applicable to school resource officers or other contracted peace officers at school events. Those questions are beyond the scope of your August 18 request and more appropriately directed at the Legislature.

Sincerely,

KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General