Does the 2023 ban on prone restraint and compressive restraint in Minnesota schools restrict school resource officers and other peace officers when they're carrying out arrests, enforcing court orders, or otherwise doing their police job at a school?

Plain-English summary

Attorney General Keith Ellison supplemented his August school restraint opinion after law enforcement and local government representatives raised questions about how the amendment applied to peace officers in schools. The supplement repeats the August conclusion for school staff and adds that the amendment “does not limit the types of reasonable force that may be used by public officers to carry out their lawful duties, as described in Minnesota Statutes section 609.06, subdivision 1(1).”

The supplement explains that chapter 609 is referenced in Minn. Stat. § 121A.58, subd. 3 and § 121A.582, subds. 3 and 4. It concludes that the prone and compressive restraint restrictions do not apply in the circumstances enumerated in § 609.06, subd. 1(1). It expressly includes school resource officers and other peace officers acting as school district agents when they use force reasonably necessary for official duties, such as making arrests or enforcing court orders.

The AG said the test for reasonable force remained highly fact-specific. The opinion also said coordinated training and guidance from law enforcement leaders could help and that the Legislature might provide further clarification.

What this means for you

Peace officers in schools: The supplement says the amendment did not remove the authority of peace officers, including school resource officers, to use force reasonably necessary to carry out official duties under § 609.06, subd. 1(1). It does not decide whether any particular use of force is reasonable.

School staff and agents: The supplement repeats the August opinion’s conclusion that the amendment did not limit the types of reasonable force they may use to prevent bodily harm or death. Reasonableness remains a case-specific question.

Common questions

Does the school restraint amendment prohibit every prone or compressive hold by a peace officer?

No. The AG concluded that the restrictions do not apply in the circumstances described in § 609.06, subd. 1(1). The force used still must be reasonably necessary for the officer’s lawful duty.

Does the conclusion include school resource officers?

Yes. The supplement expressly says “all peace officers, including those who are ‘school resource officers’ or otherwise agents of a school district,” may use reasonably necessary force to carry out official duties.

Did the AG decide whether a particular restraint was reasonable?

No. The supplement says the reasonable-force test is highly fact-specific and that the threat posed by a student or situation can change rapidly.

Background and statutory framework

Minn. Stat. § 121A.58 contains the school restraint restrictions and states that it does not preclude reasonable force under § 121A.582. Section 121A.582 says its rights or defenses supplement those in § 121A.58. The supplement also reads the references to chapter 609 in those provisions together with § 609.06, subd. 1(1), which addresses force reasonably necessary for a public officer’s lawful duties.

Minn. Stat. § 8.07 is quoted in the supplement: the opinion is “decisive until the question involved shall be decided otherwise by a court.” The official text contains no footnote or discussion of other cases on that point.

Citations and references

• Minn. Stat. § 8.07
• Minn. Stat. § 121A.58
• Minn. Stat. § 121A.582
• Minn. Stat. § 609.06, subd. 1(1)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/169f-20230920.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 or to carry out lawful duties as set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 609.06, subd. 1(1). Minn. Stat. §§ 121A.58; 121A.582. Op. Atty. Gen. 169f (August 22, 2023) supplemented.

169f
September 20, 2023

Willie L. Jett, II
Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Education

Dear Commissioner Jett:

Thank you for your letter of August 18, 2023, which seeks clarity regarding recent amendments to student discipline laws. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 8.07, I issued an opinion on August 22, 2023, with binding guidance on the issue you raised. Since that date I have met with many stakeholders, including the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, Minnesota Sheriffs' Association, Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, individual police chiefs, legislators, city elected officials, and county attorneys, who brought forward valid questions about the application of the new law. As a result, I supplement that opinion today. By operation of section 8.07, this opinion is "decisive until the question involved shall be decided otherwise by a court," and therefore it may be relied upon.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

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. It also does not limit the types of reasonable force that may be used by public officers to carry out their lawful duties, as described in Minnesota Statutes section 609.06, subdivision 1(1). The test for reasonable force remains unchanged, and is highly fact-specific.

ANALYSIS

Three things support these conclusions. 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 121A.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.

Second, Minnesota Statutes section 121A.582 states that: "Any right or defense under this section is supplementary to those specified in section 121A.58[.]" 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.

Similarly, because chapter 609 is referenced in section 121A.58, subdivision 3, as well as in section 121A.582, subdivisions 3 and 4, the restrictions on prone and compressive restraints do not apply under the circumstances enumerated in section 609.06, subdivision 1(1). Therefore, all peace officers, including those who are "school resource officers" or otherwise agents of a school district, may use force as reasonably necessary to carry out official duties, including, but not limited to, making arrests and enforcing orders of the court. See Minn. Stat. § 609.06.

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.

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. In addition, the level of threat posed by a particular student or situation can change rapidly, and any assessment of what use of force is reasonable must take that into account.

In recent meetings with representatives of your staff, the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association, the League of Minnesota Cities, the Minnesota Sheriffs' Association, and the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association, participants raised other important questions. Those questions demonstrate that coordinated training and guidance from trusted law enforcement leaders could be very beneficial in this area and there may be room for additional clarification from the Legislature.

Sincerely,

KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General