Student And Teacher Safety Act Of 2006

STUDENT AND TEACHER SAFETY ACT OF 2006 -- (Extensions of Remarks - September 21, 2006)

SPEECH OF HON. ROBERT C. SCOTT OF VIRGINIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2006

* Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Maintaining school safety is an important objective of school administrators and communities around the country, but this bill will only serve to complicate the lives of school officials and probably violate students' Constitutional rights in the process.

* In 1969, the Supreme Court stated in Tinker v. Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1969) that students do not ``shed their constitutional rights when they enter the schoolhouse door.'' While Tinker was a free speech case, the principle applies here as well. The vague legislative language of H.R. 5295 would lead school officials to believe that they have the authority to conduct searches that could be at odds with the standards set out by the Supreme Court in the 1985 decision of New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985), the 1 guiding case on this issue, in which the Court attempted to strike a balance between student privacy and school discipline and safety.

* While this bill correctly requires that school officials have ``reasonable suspicion'' before conducting a search of a student, it describes too broadly the purpose and the scope of the search that school administrators can conduct. The bill incorrectly suggests that school officials can conduct random, wide scale searches of students without having any individualized suspicion that a particular student to be searched is participating in criminal activity or breaking the school rules.

* When schools officials do not focus student searches on individuals who are suspected of violating the law or school rules, the results of the searches are often fruitless. School administrators will do more to improve children's safety by concentrating on suspicious behavior and credible information from teachers and students that school rules or criminal laws are being broken, than by conducting widespread unsubstantiated searches.

* While this legislation is well intentioned, it nonetheless constitutes bad policy and is constitutionally unsound. Even if the language in the bill accurately reflects today's constitutional standards, Court decisions are often modified by subsequent decisions. School officials may therefore find themselves in the future caught between complying with an obsolete statute or obeying the modified Court decision and risking the loss of funding under this bill.

* School districts have a long history of abiding by search and seizure policies that are consistent with court rulings. This legislative directive is unnecessary and will only serve to further complicate the lives of students and teachers. This is the reason why the American Federation of Teachers, National School Board Association, the Council of the Great City Schools, the National PTA, the American Association of School Administrators and the ACLU all oppose the bill. I urge my colleagues to vote no.

http://thomas.loc.gov/