Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the SRO Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal would require SRO MOUs to bar corporal punishment in Nebraska schools
Summary
LB 10-39 would explicitly prohibit school resource officers and contracted security from subjecting students to corporal punishment by inserting that prohibition into SRO memoranda of understanding. Proponents cited recent Nebraska incidents where officers used force in school settings; law enforcement asked for clearer exemption language for emergency responses.
Sen. George Dungan introduced LB 10-39 to ensure memoranda of understanding (MOUs) between school districts and school resource officers (SROs) explicitly prohibit corporal punishment. Dungan said Nebraska law already bans corporal punishment in schools and his bill would harmonize that prohibition with the SRO MOU requirements enacted when SRO programs were established.
Lauren Micek Vargas, a lawyer and former teacher with the Education Rights Council, testified in support and provided concrete Nebraska cases the organization has handled, including a student who was forced to the ground and held for nearly 20 minutes, a student who was pulled by the hair for refusing to leave a bathroom where he had been vaping, and another student who was put in a headlock after refusing to leave an office where he was waiting under an IEP. Vargas said those incidents "reflect SROs stepping into disciplinary roles" and that inserting an explicit MOU prohibition would close a gap between statute and contract enforcement.
Supporters from Sanford Schools, the ACLU and other education advocates said LB 10-39 does not limit SROs' ability to respond in emergencies or to use reasonable force for safety, but it would clarify that punitive physical discipline has no place in schools. Douglas County Sheriff's Office representatives expressed support for the concept but opposed the bill as drafted, urging clearer statutory language to avoid confusion about lawful use-of-force during arrests or harm mitigation.
Senators engaged at length about definitions of corporal punishment versus lawful responses to dangerous incidents; sponsors said they were willing to work with law enforcement to draft clarifying language that preserves officer safety and emergency authority while prohibiting punitive force used as discipline. The committee closed the hearing with discussions ongoing about possible clarifying amendments.
