What fourth amendment
David notes that the 4th Amendment Suspension Bill Passes House:
[T]he House of Representatives has approved a tough new anti-drug and anti-weapon law that would require local districts to develop search policies – including strip searches – with immunity against prosecution for teachers and staff
September 25th, 2006 at 10:39 am
You might want to specify that the bill is for students while on school property not Joe Blow and his home. 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.
That being said, just because the school has the right doesn’t make it right.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:26 am
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).
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.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
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:
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?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
BTW, GovTrack.us rocks! Now all I need to do is to convince bloggers and news-critters to cite the bill number when posting.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
My off-the-cuff reaction mirrored Chris’s, above. If the bill authorizes searches in contravention of 4th amendment restrictions, that’s a problem addressed by injunctions and the exclusion of evidence. Whether students can also sue for monetary damages after their rights are violated is a question of federal (not Constitutional) law.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
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”.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:59 pm
A bigger issue I think a lot of people miss when looking at items like this are “school policy”. I read of an incident at a public school where a child had a pair of scissors larger than the school policy allowed. She was taken by the police, in cuffs, into custody. Now, she (the child) wasn’t breaking the LAW. She wasn’t prosecuted nor charged. When asked why the child was dealt with in such a manner, the school administration said “it’s school policy to have the police detain the child till the parents take custody”. Think about that a minute people. The SCHOOL POLICY dictates a child be arrested. Its not criminal or civil law. It’s SCHOOL POLICY that the police force is now enforcing. That’s possibly more disturbing than this bill although the thought of a teacher randomly asking my kid to strip down is as creepy as it is legally detestable.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Well Ed, it would be fatal if it were my grandchildren, creepy don’t cover it. I meant the grammatical error, btw. It shows even dummies know better than that shit. My children are all out of school except one working on a Master’s.
September 26th, 2006 at 12:40 am
Well… Which is worse, a stated policy that can be fought or a non-policy opening the defense “It is not against policy?”
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.
September 26th, 2006 at 8:25 am
WND is engaging in a bit of hyperbole on this one.
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.
September 26th, 2006 at 5:37 pm
That the staff cannot be prosecuted does not mean that the district cannot be ordered to cease and desist, or to make whatever other remedy a court deems appropriate.
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.