IE, what Chris said. Remedies are not the same as the rights they help protect. Prohibiting a specific remedy does not necessarily (and in this case does not seem to actually) injure the right to be protected.

(And as Mischief says, the text of the bill on thomas.loc.gov (Search for HR 5295) doesn’t mention anything about immunity to prosecution or any specific type of search.

The bill appears to do exactly what Jed says; codify existing jurisprudence. And it sets a penalty (witholding of some funding) for schools that don’t comply.)

WND appears to be, as is distressingly common, smoking big fat crack-rocks.

This bill requires schools to adopt policies that comply with the 4th A. jurisperudence currently on the books regarding searches in schools. The standard for a 4th A. search and seizure in school is not changed from what was already authorized, but this bill would require schools to adopt policies that track the established precedent.

I would argue the latter, because of an incident from my own past. When I entered university, I was placed in first-semester Algebra despite my having had three years of it (and Plane and Solid Geometry, Trigonometry, and a year of Calculus) and objecting to going backward. Then, noting that the student handbook stated that the U “has no cut policy,” I only showed up for tests – in which I maintained a 98 average. I was flunked for cutting class. Asked about the obvious conflict with the handbook, I was told that there was no contradiction – while the U did not penalize for cutting class, each professor was free to establish his/her own. If the U had had a policy, even one saying each class defined its own, I would have been better off.

Actually, the civil immunity component of the proposed legislation probably relates to amending US Code Section 1981 or 1983 (I am a little rusty on this area, among others).

Again, I’m looking at the text of the bill (linked in my above comment) I does not look like this bill amends current law. It does not look like this creates a new numbered statute either.

My experience is limited, but this thingy seems to create a “statute-at-large”.

The courts have ruled for years that students on school property have no more a right to privacy than your kids do in your house.

I had to follow Dave’s link to get the bill number, but it was in the news article: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5295

In it, in the “preamble”, they both quote the 4th, and New Jersey v. T.L.O. That case, BTW, reinforces 4th amendment rights, the fact that the 14th makes it apply to the state, and the fact that school officals have to honor student’s 4th amendment rights.

There’s a bunch more of the “preamble” and then the law states that school districts must enact rules that allow the following searches, or they will be defunded from some type of pork:

(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.

I’m unable to find “strip searches” or “immunity against prosecution” anywhere in the enrolled bill. WTF? Is World Net Daily just making stuff up?

It doesn’t relate to the 4th, because the 4th doesn’t provide a private right of action for damages against someone who violates it.

I don’t know much about the rights or lack of rights of a student in K-12 on school grounds.

That being said, just because the school has the right doesn’t make it right.