Court Opinion

ID: 9777494
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:13:33.061659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:23.398253
License: Public Domain

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 (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,

1
  Neither the relevant statutes nor the Amendment defines “agents” of the school district. In the
absence of a definition provided by the Legislature, Minnesota courts would likely apply “its
ordinary legal meaning, which is one who has the authority to act on another’s behalf.” Hogan v.
Brass, 957 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Minn. Ct. App. 2021) (using that definition of “agent” to interpret
chapter 317 of Minnesota law). Whether an individual has authority to act on behalf of the school
district depends on facts specifics to each circumstance.
                                  445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN 55101-2131
                   Office: (651) 296-3353 • Toll Free: (800) 657-3787 • Minnesota Relay: (800) 627-3529
                                     An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity
Commissioner Willie L. Jett, II
August 22, 2023
Page 2

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. 2 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.” Id. at Art. 2, § 36.3 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) (interpreting a “nothing in this section” provision as unambiguous and
“susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation”).

        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. See, e.g., Christensen v. State Dep’t of Conservation, Game
and Fish, 175 N.W.2d 433, 434 (Minn. 1970) (noting that provisions of an act that are
supplementary to each other are construed together so as not to defeat rights); Merriam Webster’s
Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) (defining “supplementary” to mean “additional”).

2
  Teachers and principals may use these restraints only when a threat of bodily harm or death is
imminent. See Act of May 24, 2023, ch. 55, Art. 2, § 36. However, the word “imminent” is not
included in subdivision 1(b), which relates to a broader set of individuals, including school
employees, bus drivers, and other “agent(s) of the district.”
3
   Minnesota Statutes sections 125A.0941-.0942 restrict the actions that may be taken toward
students with disabilities. It explicitly allows the use of reasonable force under section 121A.582.
Minn. Stat. § 125A.0942, subd. 6(b).
Commissioner Willie L. Jett, II
August 22, 2023
Page 3

        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 (stating that when a conflict exists
between two statutory provisions, the specific provision “shall prevail and shall be construed as an
exception to the general provision”); 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) (reiterating that courts cannot add words or meaning to a statute
that the Legislature intentionally or inadvertently omitted).

        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) (“[T]he question of whether the school employees’ acts were a reasonable
use of force is a fact issue to be answered by the jury.”); 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) (declining
to apply official immunity where school dean used force explicitly defined as prohibited in school
restraint training). 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

Cc:      Jeff Potts, Executive Director
         Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association
         Imran Ali, counsel for MPPOA
         Patricia Beety, General Counsel
         League of Minnesota Cities

|#5571238-v2