Author Topic: Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?  (Read 3528 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Deborah

  • Posts: 5383
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« on: September 19, 2006, 01:56:41 PM »
Congress Considering Strip Searching Students
--Congress to vote on HR 5295 Tuesday or Wednesday 18 Sep 2006 (drugpolicy.org)

The Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (HR 5295) is a sloppily written bill that would require any school receiving federal funding (essentially every public school) to adopt policies allowing teachers and school officials to conduct random, warrantless searches of every student, at any time, for essentially any reason they want. These searches could be pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on how far school administrators wanted to go.

Students for Sensible Drug Policy is asking for your help to stop a bill that would further curtail the rights of students in public schools all across the country. The so-called ?Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006? (H.R. 5295) would make it easier for teachers and school administrators to search students? lockers and bags for drugs and other contraband. SSDP needs your help to make sure that this bill never becomes law.

Currently, in order for a teacher to search a student?s locker they need to have ?reasonable suspicion? that the student is in possession of illegal drugs. H.R. 5295 would change the standard needed for a search to ?colorable suspicion,? a term that has been made up entirely for this bill. Essentially, a teacher would need nothing more than a hunch in order to search a student?s locker or possessions.

This bill is nothing more than another attack on the constitutional rights of young people by the federal government. Students should never have to check their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.

Please take two minutes to send a letter to your member of Congress asking him or her to oppose H.R. 5295. SSDP has created a pre-written letter that you can easily send by visiting http://capwiz.com/mobilize/issues/alert ... ID=8779706
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
gt;>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Hidden Lake Academy, after operating 12 years unlicensed will now be monitored by the state. Access information on the Federal Class Action lawsuit against HLA here: http://www.fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?t=17700

Offline Dr Phil

  • Posts: 169
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2006, 02:16:28 PM »
Quote
Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006


what an orwellian name.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
It\'s time to get real!?

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2006, 03:26:12 PM »
I don't even have the words to describe how disgusting this is.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2006, 05:00:35 AM »
Deleted
« Last Edit: December 24, 2006, 06:45:55 PM by Guest »
see the children with their boredom and their vacant stares. God help us all if we\'re to blame for their unanswered prayers,

Billy Joel.

Offline MightyAardvark

  • Posts: 368
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2006, 05:03:43 AM »
Deleted
« Last Edit: December 24, 2006, 06:39:16 PM by Guest »
see the children with their boredom and their vacant stares. God help us all if we\'re to blame for their unanswered prayers,

Billy Joel.

Offline TimeBomb

  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2006, 06:23:08 AM »
Quote from: ""MightyAardvark""
shit.
According to the GOP website this passed yesterday.


Well, it just passed the House. It still has to get through the Senate.

http://geoffdavis.house.gov/Read.aspx?ID=383
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ick, tick.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #6 on: September 20, 2006, 10:50:32 AM »
Assistant Principal: "Jenny, I called you here to my office because I think you've been smoking marijuana at school and I have a duty to investigate."

Jenny: "No Mr. *******, I don't smoke marijuana. Why would you think that?"

Assistant Principal: "Well, you've been acting suspiciously, and I'm afraid I'm going to have to search you. Now if you don't mind, please remove your jeans and your panties and bend over."

(He puts on the latex gloves).

Jenny: "WHAT?!!! Are you crazy?!!!"

Assistant Principal: "Look here, Miss ********, I'm going to search your vaginal and anal cavities to see what kinds of drugs you might be hiding in there. You can make this easy or you can make this difficult."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2006, 10:54:11 AM »
Well fuck.. This business just put a shitty cap on a good day.


TSW.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2006, 11:36:36 AM »
I strongly suggest you call, and email, and write, and send singing telegrams to your state senators.


TSW.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Dr Phil

  • Posts: 169
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2006, 12:47:48 PM »
I strongly suggest you pull your kid out of public school. Or arm them with a cell phone and anytime some school mfer comes near them pick em up immediately and punch them in the face for thinking they could strip search your kid!  :evil:
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
It\'s time to get real!?

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2006, 01:54:01 PM »
I can see two ways to take this.

If you still go to a public school, prepare for strip searches  :cry2:

If you WORK for a public school... prepare for strip searches  :P
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline TimeBomb

  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #11 on: September 20, 2006, 04:27:23 PM »
This bill says nothing about strip searches. Actually, this bill really does nothing at all but give some election year Republicans an opportunity to cite some shocking statistics, and to brag about something they did to "make schools safer".

It simply says that certain federal funds will be withheld from schools if they don't have a clear policy in place regarding student  searches, and it leaves the specifics of that policy in the hands of the schools themselves. Schools already have these policies.


Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HR 5295 EH

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5295

AN ACT

To protect students and teachers.

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

      This Act may be cited as the `Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

      Congress finds the following:

            (1) The United States Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics reported in the 2005 Indicators of School Crime and Safety that in 2003 seventeen percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they carried a weapon. Six percent reported having carried a weapon on school grounds.

            (2) The same survey reported that 29 percent of all students in grades 9-12 reported that someone offered, sold, or gave them an illegal drug on school property within the last 12 months.

            (3) The United States Constitution's Fourth Amendment guarantees `the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'.

            (4) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth Amendment's application to students in public schools in New Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court held that searches of students by school officials do not require warrants issued by judges showing probable cause. The Court will ordinarily hold that such a search is permissible if--

                  (A) there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will reveal evidence that the student violated the law or school rules; and

                  (B) the measures used to conduct the search are reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and nature of the offense.

            (5) The Supreme Court held in Board of Education of Independent Sch. Dist. 92 of Pottawatomie County vs. Earls (2002) that random drug testing of students who were participating in extracurricular activities was reasonable and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court stated that such search policies effectively serve the School Districts interest in protecting its students' health and safety.

SEC. 3. SEARCHES BASED ON REASONABLE SUSPICION.

      (a) In General- Each local educational agency shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the agency policies that ensure that a search described in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible.

      (b) Searches Covered- A search referred to in subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school official, acting on any reasonable suspicion based on professional experience and judgment, of any minor student on the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, school property and students remain free from the threat of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal narcotics. The measures used to conduct any search must be reasonably related to the search's objectives, without being excessively intrusive in light of the student's age, sex, and the nature of the offense.

SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.

      (a) In General- A local educational agency that fails to comply with section 3 shall not, during the period of noncompliance, receive any Safe and Drug Free School funds after fiscal year 2008.

      (b) Definition- In this section, the term `Safe and Drug Free School funds' includes any funds under Part A of Title IV of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Passed the House of Representatives September 19, 2006.

Attest:

Clerk.

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 5295

AN ACT

To protect students and teachers.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ick, tick.

Offline TimeBomb

  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #12 on: September 20, 2006, 11:12:11 PM »
Quote from: ""Deborah""
(drugpolicy.org)
Currently, in order for a teacher to search a student?s locker they need to have ?reasonable suspicion? that the student is in possession of illegal drugs. H.R. 5295 would change the standard needed for a search to ?colorable suspicion,? a term that has been made up entirely for this bill. Essentially, a teacher would need nothing more than a hunch in order to search a student?s locker or possessions.


The part about "colorable suspicion" -- half the bill -- mysteriously disappeared before it was passed. Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't find any evidence in the congressional record showing when or where it was amended.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5295.IH:

The version that did pass doesn't change a thing. Searches of students based on reasonable suspicion have been going on for years.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ick, tick.

Offline Nihilanthic

  • Posts: 3931
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #13 on: September 20, 2006, 11:31:17 PM »
Quote from: ""Three Springs Waygookin""
Isn't there a big distinction between a search of the student's pockets, bag, and locker vs. a Full strip search?


What I wonder is just how a random school official can relaly force it.

Technically, AFAIK, they cant, but they could try shit like 'well call the popos or your parents' or threaten suspension, etc.

So just how is this gonna have teeth except assuming kids will be too scared to resist or not know their own rights?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
DannyB on the internet:I CALLED A LAWYER TODAY TO SEE IF I COULD SUE YOUR ASSES FOR DOING THIS BUT THAT WAS NOT POSSIBLE.

CCMGirl on program restraints: "DON\'T TAZ ME BRO!!!!!"

TheWho on program survivors: "From where I sit I see all the anit-program[sic] people doing all the complaining and crying."

Offline TimeBomb

  • Posts: 124
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Strips Searches in Federally Funded Schools?
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2006, 11:33:42 PM »
Quote from: ""Three Springs Waygookin""
Isn't there a big distinction between a search of the student's pockets, bag, and locker vs. a Full strip search?


Sure, but it doesn't say anything about strip searches -- never did. The problem was that they were trying to lower the standard and say that reasonable suspicion wasn't required. And this action does nothing but require the schools to have a policy in place regarding the searches it already conducts. And it still has to get thru the senate.

I kinda think they knew the shit wasn't gonna fly, and they only put it in there in the first place so they could point the finger at the "liberals who don't want to keep our children safe" when it was opposed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
ick, tick.