I 

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. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student and Teacher 

5 Safety Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The United States Department of Edu9 cation’s National Center for Education Statistics re10 ported in the 2005 Indicators of School Crime and 

11 Safety that between 1993 and 2003, 17 percent of 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5295 IH

1 students in grades 9–12 reported they carried a 

2 weapon, with 6 percent reporting they had brought 

3 one into school. 

4 (2) The same survey reported that 29 percent 

5 of all students in grades 9–12 reported that someone 

6 offered, sold, or gave then an illegal drug on school 

7 property within the last 12 months. 

8 (3) The Supreme Court held that the judg9 ments of school officials are immune from suit only 

10 as long as courts find that student searches do not 

11 violate clearly established statutory or constitutional 

12 rights (Harlow vs. Fitzgerald (1982)). 

13 (4) The United States Constitution’s Fourth 

14 Amendment guarantees ‘‘the right of the people to 

15 be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and ef16 fects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’’. 

17 (5) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the 

18 Fourth Amendment’s application to students in pub19 lic schools in New Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court 

20 ruled that searches of students do not require war21 rants issued by judges showing probable cause. The 

22 Court held that a search was permissible if— 

23 (A) there are reasonable grounds for sus24 pecting the search will reveal evidence that the 

25 student violated the law or school rules; and 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5295 IH

1 (B) the measures used to conduct the 

2 search are reasonably related to the search’s ob3 jectives, without being excessively intrusive in 

4 light of the student’s age, sex, and nature of 

5 the offense. 

6 (6) The Federal court in the Eastern District 

7 of Virginia later ruled that the smell of marijuana 

8 did not provide reasonable suspicion to search book 

9 bags, purses, and pockets (Burnham vs. West 

10 (1987)) and the Florida Appellate Court ruled that 

11 students huddled together with money and goods did 

12 not justify a search (A.S. vs. State of Florida 

13 (1997)). 

14 (7) The Supreme Court noted the difficulty in 

15 defining a ‘‘reasonable suspicion’’ to permit student 

16 searches writing ‘‘articulating precisely what reason17 able suspicion means . . . is not possible. Reasonable 

18 suspicion is a commonsense, nontechnical conception 

19 that deals with the factual and practical consider20 ations of everyday life on which reasonable and pru21 dent men, not legal technicians act (Orleans vs. 

22 United States (1996))’’. 

23 (8) That while the Supreme Court held that po24 lice officers must have warrants issued by judges 

25 based on probable cause to search students (Orleans 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
4 

•HR 5295 IH

1 vs. United States), lower courts are divided on the 

2 standards applied to school security officials. In the 

3 Interest of Angelia D.C. (1997) a Wisconsin court 

4 held police officers in schools did not need a warrant 

5 while in State of New Hampshire vs. Heirtzler 

6 (2000), the Supreme Court held that they did. 

7 (9) The Ninth Federal Circuit ruled that a 

8 school could not use drug-sniffing dogs unless school 

9 officials showed an individualized, reasonable sus10 picion for each student. Prevention of drug abuse 

11 did not justify searches using dogs because it 

12 intruded on a child’s expectation of privacy in school 

13 (B.C. vs Plumas Unified School District (1999)). 

14 (10) The Seventh Federal Circuit struck down 

15 drug tests applied to students suspended for fighting 

16 (Willis vs. Anderson School Corp. (1998)), or in the 

17 Federal Eastern District of Texas for the general 

18 student population (Tannahil vs. Lockney Inde19 pendent School District (2001)). 

20 (11) The Supreme Court held in Earls vs. 

21 Board of Education of Tecumseh Public School Dis22 trict (2002) that random drug testing was ‘‘reason23 able’’ and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. 

24 The Court also held schools served as ‘‘guardian and 

25 tutor’’, could exercise ‘‘greater control than those for 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
5 

•HR 5295 IH

1 adults’’ and had ‘‘important interests’’ in the health 

2 and safety of students. The Court finally held that 

3 schools did not need to show an ‘‘individualized sus4 picion’’ nor a ‘‘demonstrated problem of drug abuse’’ 

5 and there was no ‘‘threshold level’’ of violation that 

6 needed to be satisfied. 

7 (12) Based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in 

8 Harlow, the enactment of a clear federal statute de9 fining ‘‘established statutory and constitutional 

10 rights’’ would help to insulate teachers and school 

11 officials who conduct student searches from lawsuits. 

12 (13) While policies are best chosen by local 

13 school boards, policies governing student searches 

14 and seizures have been set federally and can only be 

15 properly defined and upheld by congressional stat16 ute. 

17 (14) By applying the Court’s standards affirm18 ing a school’s guardian role to not require a thresh19 old of violation in Earls, the Congress can clearly 

20 define the rights of teachers and school officials to 

21 ensure their classrooms are not just free from drugs 

22 but also weapons. 

23 SEC. 3. SEARCHES ON COLORABLE SUSPICION. 

24 (a) IN GENERAL.—Each State, local educational 

25 agency, and school district shall have in effect throughout 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
6 

•HR 5295 IH

1 the jurisdiction of the State, agency, or district, as the 

2 case may be, policies that ensure that a search described 

3 in subsection (b) is deemed reasonable and permissible. 

4 (b) SEARCHES COVERED.—A search referred to in 

5 subsection (a) is a search by a full-time teacher or school 

6 official, acting on any colorable suspicion based on profes7 sional experience and judgment, of any minor student on 

8 the grounds of any public school, if the search is conducted 

9 to ensure that classrooms, school buildings, and school 

10 property remain free of all weapons, dangerous materials, 

11 or illegal narcotics. 

12 SEC. 4. ENCOURAGEMENT TO PROTECT STUDENTS AND 

13 TEACHERS. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—A State, local educational agency, 

15 or school district that fails to comply with section 3 shall 

16 not, during the period of noncompliance, receive any Safe 

17 Schools and Citizenship Education funds after fiscal year 

18 2008. 

19 (b) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘Safe 

20 Schools and Citizenship Education funds’’ includes any 

21 funds under any of the following provisions of the Elemen22 tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: 

23 (1) Subpart 3 of part C of title II. 

24 (2) Part A of title IV. 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
7 

•HR 5295 IH

1 (3) Subparts 2, 3, and 10 of part D of title V. 

Æ 


cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS