Law & Courts

Appeals Court Rules for School Resource Officer on Role in Police Interrogation of Student

By Mark Walsh — March 22, 2021 3 min read
Image of a gavel.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A federal appeals court has granted qualified immunity to a school resource officer who escorted a 16-year-old high school student to a school office to be questioned by two city police officers who were investigating an off-campus sexual assault.

The ruling by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit, in St. Louis, reverses a federal district judge who had ruled that the SRO had conducted an unreasonable seizure of the student in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The SRO’s “involvement in the alleged seizure was relatively minimal and ministerial,” the unanimous 8th Circuit panel said in its March 18 decision in L.G. v. Columbia Public Schools.

The case stems from a day in May 2019 at Rock Bridge High School in Columbia, Mo., when city police officers were investigating an alleged sexual assault of a female student at a house. They asked to question the student identified as L.G. because they believed she may have had information about the alleged crime, court papers say.

L.G. is described in court papers as a straight-A student who suffers from anxiety disorder and other conditions. She was taking a final exam in her geometry class when she was summoned to the school office, though her teacher had her finish the exam first.

When L.G. reported to the office, SRO Keisha Edwards escorted the student to another office where the city police officers were waiting. Edwards shut the door and left the student with the city police officers, who did not have a warrant to question L.G. They asked her about the alleged off-campus assault, but L.G. told them she was not aware of it.

The questioning took 10 to 20 minutes, during which L.G. did not feel free to leave. She became distraught, and she called her mother right after, court papers say. L.G. suffered longer-term anxiety and her schoolwork suffered following the incident, her suit says.

The family sued Edwards, the school principal, the school district, the city, and the two city police officers. In a ruling last year, the federal district judge dismissed some claims and allowed others to proceed.

The judge declined qualified immunity to the SRO, ruling that Edwards had unconstitutionally seized L.G. by calling her out of class, escorting her to the room with the city officers, and closing the door. The district judge further held that the right of a student not to be seized in school without a warrant had been clearly established by 8th Circuit precedent.

Edwards appealed her denial of qualified immunity, and the 8th Circuit court panel took a different view than the district judge.

“Edwards merely escorted L.G. to a room and closed a door,” the appeals court said. The student’s suit “does not allege that Edwards positioned herself to limit L.G.’s movements, displayed a weapon, touched L.G., used language or tone indicating compliance was necessary, or retained L.G.'s property,” the panel added.

The 8th Circuit court also suggested that while constitutional protections against a seizure without probable cause generally apply to students as well as to others, the school setting presents some unique considerations.

“Even though students have some Fourth Amendment protection, an officer in Edwards’s situation would not know, without more guidance, whether her escorting L.G. to a room with other officers and closing a door constitutes a seizure,” the court said. “[T]he answers to Fourth Amendment questions in cases like these are not so obvious as to put an officer in Edwards’s situation on notice that her actions would violate L.G.'s constitutional rights.”

The 8th Circuit opinion dealt only with the SRO’s appeal of the denial of qualified immunity. With the reversal, the SRO cannot be held personally liable for any violations of L.G.'s rights stemming from the incident.

When it comes to the two city police officers and the other defendants, it appears that the district court’s May 12, 2020, opinion denied L.G.’s claim for an injunction barring Columbia police officers from interrogating students in school without a warrant or probable cause or outside presence of a parent or guardian.

Related Tags:

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Special Education Webinar
Bridging the Math Gap: What’s New in Dyscalculia Identification, Instruction & State Action
Discover the latest dyscalculia research insights, state-level policy trends, and classroom strategies to make math more accessible for all.
Content provided by TouchMath
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School Climate & Safety Webinar
Belonging as a Leadership Strategy for Today’s Schools
Belonging isn’t a slogan—it’s a leadership strategy. Learn what research shows actually works to improve attendance, culture, and learning.
Content provided by Harmony Academy
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
Too Many Initiatives, Not Enough Alignment: A Change Management Playbook for Leaders
Learn how leadership teams can increase alignment and evaluate every program, practice, and purchase against a clear strategic plan.
Content provided by Otus

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Law & Courts Social Media Companies Face Legal Reckoning Over Mental Health Harms to Children
Some of the biggest players from Meta to TikTok are getting a chance to make their case in courtrooms around the country.
6 min read
Social Media Kids Trial 26050035983057
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg leaves court after testifying in a landmark trial over whether social media platforms deliberately addict and harm children, on Feb. 18, 2026, in Los Angeles.
AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes
Law & Courts Supreme Court Strikes Trump Tariffs in Case Brought by Educational Toy Companies
Two educational toy companies were among the leading challengers to the president's tariff policies
3 min read
Members of the Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the Supreme Court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. Bottom row, from left, Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Top row, from left, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Members of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for a new group portrait following the addition of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, at the court building in Washington, Oct. 7, 2022. On Feb. 20, 2026, the court ruled 6-3 to strike down President Donald Trump's broad tariff policies, ruling that they were not authorized by the federal statute that he cited for them.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Law & Courts Mark Zuckerberg Quizzed on Kids' Instagram Use in Landmark Social Media Trial
The Meta chief testified in a court case examining whether the company's platforms are addictive and harmful.
5 min read
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives for a landmark trial over whether social media platforms deliberately addict and harm children, Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2026, in Los Angeles.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg arrives at a federal courthouse in Los Angeles on Feb. 18, 2026. Zuckerberg was questioned about the features of his company's platform, Instagram, and about his previous congressional testimony.
Ryan Sun/AP
Law & Courts California Sues Ed. Dept. in Clash Over Gender Disclosures to Parents
California challenges U.S. Department of Education findings on state policies over gender disclosure.
4 min read
California Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks to reporters as Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, left, and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, right, listen outside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Nov. 5, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)
California Attorney General Rob Bonta speaks to reporters outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Nov. 5, 2025, with Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield behind him. Bonta this week sued the U.S. Department of Education, asking a court to block the agency's finding that the state is violating FERPA by <ins data-user-label="Matt Stone" data-time="02/13/2026 4:22:45 PM" data-user-id="00000185-c5a3-d6ff-a38d-d7a32f6d0001" data-target-id="">not requiring schools to disclose</ins> students’ gender transitions <ins data-user-label="Matt Stone" data-time="02/13/2026 4:22:45 PM" data-user-id="00000185-c5a3-d6ff-a38d-d7a32f6d0001" data-target-id="">to</ins> parents.
Mark Schiefelbein/AP