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. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives 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 Edu-
cation’s National Center for Education Statistics re-
ported in the 2005 Indicators of School Crime and 
Safety that between 1993 and 2003, 17 percent of 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:27 May 08, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5295.IH
H5295
cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
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 judg-
ments 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 ef-
fects, against unreasonable searches and seizures’’. 
(5) That while the Supreme Court affirmed the 
Fourth Amendment’s application to students in pub-
lic schools in New Jersey vs. TLO (1985), the Court 
ruled that searches of students do not require war-
rants issued by judges showing probable cause. The 
Court held that a search was permissible if— 
(A) there are reasonable grounds for sus-
pecting the search will reveal evidence that the 
student violated the law or school rules; and 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:27 May 08, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5295.IH
H5295
cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
(B) the measures used to conduct the 
search are reasonably related to the search’s ob-
jectives, 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 reason-
able suspicion means . . . is not possible. Reasonable 
suspicion is a commonsense, nontechnical conception 
that deals with the factual and practical consider-
ations of everyday life on which reasonable and pru-
dent men, not legal technicians act (Orleans vs. 
United States (1996))’’. 
(8) That while the Supreme Court held that po-
lice officers must have warrants issued by judges 
based on probable cause to search students (Orleans 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:27 May 08, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5295.IH
H5295
cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
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 sus-
picion 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 Inde-
pendent School District (2001)). 
(11) The Supreme Court held in Earls vs. 
Board of Education of Tecumseh Public School Dis-
trict (2002) that random drug testing was ‘‘reason-
able’’ and did not violate the Fourth Amendment. 
The Court also held schools served as ‘‘guardian and 
tutor’’, could exercise ‘‘greater control than those for 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:27 May 08, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5295.IH
H5295
cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
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 sus-
picion’’ 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 de-
fining ‘‘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 stat-
ute. 
(14) By applying the Court’s standards affirm-
ing a school’s guardian role to not require a thresh-
old 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 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:27 May 08, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5295.IH
H5295
cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
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 profes-
sional 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 Elemen-
tary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: 
(1) Subpart 3 of part C of title II. 
(2) Part A of title IV. 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:27 May 08, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H5295.IH
H5295
cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS
(3) Subparts 2, 3, and 10 of part D of title V. 
Æ 
VerDate Aug 31 2005 
20:27 May 08, 2006
Jkt 049200
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H5295.IH
H5295
cchase on PROD1PC60 with BILLS