```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5295 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5295

                   To protect students and teachers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 4, 2006

Mr. Davis of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. Kirk, and Mr. Kuhl of New York) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                   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 between 1993 and 2003, 17 
        percent of students in grades 9-12 reported they carried a 
        weapon, with 6 percent reporting they had brought one into 
        school.
            (2) The same survey reported that 29 percent of all 
        students in grades 9-12 reported that someone offered, sold, or 
        gave then an illegal drug on school property within the last 12 
        months.
            (3) The Supreme Court held that the judgments of school 
        officials are immune from suit only as long as courts find that 
        student searches do not violate clearly established statutory 
        or constitutional rights (Harlow vs. Fitzgerald (1982)).
            (4) 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''.
            (5) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the Fourth 
        Amendment's application to students in public schools in New 
        Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court ruled that searches of 
        students do not require warrants issued by judges showing 
        probable cause. The Court held that a search was 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.
            (6) The Federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia 
        later ruled that the smell of marijuana did not provide 
        reasonable suspicion to search book bags, purses, and pockets 
        (Burnham vs. West (1987)) and the Florida Appellate Court ruled 
        that students huddled together with money and goods did not 
        justify a search (A.S. vs. State of Florida (1997)).
            (7) The Supreme Court noted the difficulty in defining a 
        ``reasonable suspicion'' to permit student searches writing 
        ``articulating precisely what reasonable suspicion means ... is 
        not possible. Reasonable suspicion is a commonsense, 
        nontechnical conception that deals with the factual and 
        practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable 
        and prudent men, not legal technicians act (Orleans vs. United 
        States (1996))''.
            (8) That while the Supreme Court held that police officers 
        must have warrants issued by judges based on probable cause to 
        search students (Orleans vs. United States), lower courts are 
        divided on the standards applied to school security officials. 
        In the Interest of Angelia D.C. (1997) a Wisconsin court held 
        police officers in schools did not need a warrant while in 
        State of New Hampshire vs. Heirtzler (2000), the Supreme Court 
        held that they did.
            (9) The Ninth Federal Circuit ruled that a school could not 
        use drug-sniffing dogs unless school officials showed an 
        individualized, reasonable suspicion for each student. 
        Prevention of drug abuse did not justify searches using dogs 
        because it intruded on a child's expectation of privacy in 
        school (B.C. vs Plumas Unified School District (1999)).
            (10) The Seventh Federal Circuit struck down drug tests 
        applied to students suspended for fighting (Willis vs. Anderson 
        School Corp. (1998)), or in the Federal Eastern District of 
        Texas for the general student population (Tannahil vs. Lockney 
        Independent School District (2001)).
            (11) The Supreme Court held in Earls vs. Board of Education 
        of Tecumseh Public School District (2002) that random drug 
        testing was ``reasonable'' and did not violate the Fourth 
        Amendment. The Court also held schools served as ``guardian and 
        tutor'', could exercise ``greater control than those for 
        adults'' and had ``important interests'' in the health and 
        safety of students. The Court finally held that schools did not 
        need to show an ``individualized suspicion'' nor a 
        ``demonstrated problem of drug abuse'' and there was no 
        ``threshold level'' of violation that needed to be satisfied.
            (12) Based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Harlow, the 
        enactment of a clear federal statute defining ``established 
        statutory and constitutional rights'' would help to insulate 
        teachers and school officials who conduct student searches from 
        lawsuits.
            (13) While policies are best chosen by local school boards, 
        policies governing student searches and seizures have been set 
        federally and can only be properly defined and upheld by 
        congressional statute.
            (14) By applying the Court's standards affirming a school's 
        guardian role to not require a threshold of violation in Earls, 
        the Congress can clearly define the rights of teachers and 
        school officials to ensure their classrooms are not just free 
        from drugs but also weapons.

SEC. 3. SEARCHES ON COLORABLE SUSPICION.

    (a) In General.--Each State, local educational agency, and school 
district shall have in effect throughout the jurisdiction of the State, 
agency, or district, as the case may be, 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 
colorable 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, and school 
property remain free of all weapons, dangerous materials, or illegal 
narcotics.

SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND TEACHERS.

    (a) In General.--A State, local educational agency, or school 
district that fails to comply with section 3 shall not, during the 
period of noncompliance, receive any Safe Schools and Citizenship 
Education funds after fiscal year 2008.
    (b) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Safe Schools and 
Citizenship Education funds'' includes any funds under any of the 
following provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965:
            (1) Subpart 3 of part C of title II.
            (2) Part A of title IV.
            (3) Subparts 2, 3, and 10 of part D of title V.
                                 <all>
```