House Approves Strip Search Bill

[Tom]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Genx87
If this is the same bill I heard about a couple of days ago, this pertains to locker searches. And honestly I dont see the problem with it, it is public property, there should be no inherit right to privacy on public property.

The kids arent paying rent for these lockers.

Their parents are.

And if the parents were more responsible; this type of action would be unneeded.

This bill is not needed. It is nothing but an invasion of privacy and violates every written word of the U.S. constitution. If it is somehow passed by the Senate, it should, without a doubt, be declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There are other ways to stop students from bringing drugs or weapons to school than to violate the very foundations of the United States.

It would be up to the Supreme Court, but on it's face it doesn't seem to violate the Constitution to me.

There is a prohibition against unreasonable search, but it isn't absolute. That's one reason why the circumstances affect the reasonableness.

It would be pretty hard to make an argument that in a public school, privacy is more important than preventing drugs or weapons in the school.
Just like privacy isn't more important than preventing people carrying guns on airplanes.

Fine, but then please stop complaining about the government wanting to wiretap homes of U.S. citizens who may be in contact with terrorists. Your privacy, and the privacy of all U.S. citizens, is certainly not more important than stopping any terrorist plot to kill innocents.

A person in their home is an a completely different circumstance than a student in a school. Sorry you can't see a distinction.

Fine then. Let the government spy on you in your workplace. Same idea as at school.

I'm pretty sure you'd object if your employer was able to, for any reason, search you from head to toe.

Make up your mind, there's a big difference between "government" and "employer".

An employer sure as hell has the right to search their employees, as far as I know.

That's completely different than government "spying", whatever the heck you mean by that.


Based on the way you keep throwing out completely unrelated scenarios, what is your point ? That there is no circumstance where a person can be searched ?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87
If this is the same bill I heard about a couple of days ago, this pertains to locker searches. And honestly I dont see the problem with it, it is public property, there should be no inherit right to privacy on public property.

The kids arent paying rent for these lockers.

I think the thread title alludes to Strip Search.. not locker search.

The title is just sensationalism to make people rise up against this bill. The actual bill has nothing to do with strip searches, not even mentioned in the bill.

Proponents and opponents of bills are always attaching names to them in order to sway the opinion of the public on the bills merits. For Example, the Patriot Act had nothing to do with Patriots, but it is really hard to stand up against a bill with a name like that.

I suppose Republicans could propose a Protect America from Terrorism bill that legalizes the NSA program, data mining and the monitoring of all monetary transactions of ?suspected? terrorists, while at the same time Democrats could propose the Protect America's Freedom bill that would outlaw all of the above. At which point a poll will come out stating that 70% of Americans support both bills.

BTW: Don't most school have police officers right in them now days? I know my high school did and I went to a school in small town Maine with no drug, gun or crime issues.

 

[Extelleron]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Genx87
If this is the same bill I heard about a couple of days ago, this pertains to locker searches. And honestly I dont see the problem with it, it is public property, there should be no inherit right to privacy on public property.

The kids arent paying rent for these lockers.

Their parents are.

And if the parents were more responsible; this type of action would be unneeded.

This bill is not needed. It is nothing but an invasion of privacy and violates every written word of the U.S. constitution. If it is somehow passed by the Senate, it should, without a doubt, be declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There are other ways to stop students from bringing drugs or weapons to school than to violate the very foundations of the United States.

It would be up to the Supreme Court, but on it's face it doesn't seem to violate the Constitution to me.

There is a prohibition against unreasonable search, but it isn't absolute. That's one reason why the circumstances affect the reasonableness.

It would be pretty hard to make an argument that in a public school, privacy is more important than preventing drugs or weapons in the school.
Just like privacy isn't more important than preventing people carrying guns on airplanes.

Fine, but then please stop complaining about the government wanting to wiretap homes of U.S. citizens who may be in contact with terrorists. Your privacy, and the privacy of all U.S. citizens, is certainly not more important than stopping any terrorist plot to kill innocents.

A person in their home is an a completely different circumstance than a student in a school. Sorry you can't see a distinction.

Fine then. Let the government spy on you in your workplace. Same idea as at school.

I'm pretty sure you'd object if your employer was able to, for any reason, search you from head to toe.

Make up your mind, there's a big difference between "government" and "employer".

An employer sure as hell has the right to search their employees, as far as I know.

That's completely different than government "spying", whatever the heck you mean by that.


Based on the way you keep throwing out completely unrelated scenarios, what is your point ? That there is no circumstance where a person can be searched ?

Forget the fancy examples

I'm just saying, you wouldn't like it if you could be searched head to toe for no reason at anytime during the day.

 

[Tom]

That's true, but that isn't what this bill says.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Fine then. Let the government spy on you in your workplace. Same idea as at school.

I'm pretty sure you'd object if your employer was able to, for any reason, search you from head to toe.

Big difference: the states are obligated to provide a free quality education. Schools are obligated to ensure the safety of the students. Your employer is not obligated to do either.

 

[Drift3r]

IMHO schools officials and personnel should not be put in the role of a police officer. There are people who are trained to do searches and have the legal authority to do so in our society already. Teachers and school staff should not have to take on the duel roll of a police officer as well as a educator. This bill puts to broad of a power in the hands of public school officials.

Sorry but you people know damn well that what is reasonable to one person my not be reasonable to another. I am sure that we will see cases of abuse and do we really need to have situation occur in which someone ends up giving a 10 year old a anal cavity search to finally come to our senses ?? Educators should be worrying about providing a better education. Leave the police work of searches and seizures to the police officers who are trained for such matters and already have the pre-established legal ability and right to do so.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87
If this is the same bill I heard about a couple of days ago, this pertains to locker searches. And honestly I dont see the problem with it, it is public property, there should be no inherit right to privacy on public property.

The kids arent paying rent for these lockers.

I think the thread title alludes to Strip Search.. not locker search.

The title is just sensationalism to make people rise up against this bill. The actual bill has nothing to do with strip searches, not even mentioned in the bill.

Proponents and opponents of bills are always attaching names to them in order to sway the opinion of the public on the bills merits. For Example, the Patriot Act had nothing to do with Patriots, but it is really hard to stand up against a bill with a name like that.

I suppose Republicans could propose a Protect America from Terrorism bill that legalizes the NSA program, data mining and the monitoring of all monetary transactions of ?suspected? terrorists, while at the same time Democrats could propose the Protect America's Freedom bill that would outlaw all of the above. At which point a poll will come out stating that 70% of Americans support both bills.

BTW: Don't most school have police officers right in them now days? I know my high school did and I went to a school in small town Maine with no drug, gun or crime issues.

Most schools do have a on campus liaison with the local police department. Well at least in urban schools they do.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Fine then. Let the government spy on you in your workplace. Same idea as at school.

I'm pretty sure you'd object if your employer was able to, for any reason, search you from head to toe.

Big difference: the states are obligated to provide a free quality education. Schools are obligated to ensure the safety of the students. Your employer is not obligated to do either.

OSHA would disagree.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Genx87
If this is the same bill I heard about a couple of days ago, this pertains to locker searches. And honestly I dont see the problem with it, it is public property, there should be no inherit right to privacy on public property.

The kids arent paying rent for these lockers.

Their parents are.

And if the parents were more responsible; this type of action would be unneeded.

This bill is not needed. It is nothing but an invasion of privacy and violates every written word of the U.S. constitution. If it is somehow passed by the Senate, it should, without a doubt, be declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There are other ways to stop students from bringing drugs or weapons to school than to violate the very foundations of the United States.

It would be up to the Supreme Court, but on it's face it doesn't seem to violate the Constitution to me.

There is a prohibition against unreasonable search, but it isn't absolute. That's one reason why the circumstances affect the reasonableness.

It would be pretty hard to make an argument that in a public school, privacy is more important than preventing drugs or weapons in the school.
Just like privacy isn't more important than preventing people carrying guns on airplanes.

Fine, but then please stop complaining about the government wanting to wiretap homes of U.S. citizens who may be in contact with terrorists. Your privacy, and the privacy of all U.S. citizens, is certainly not more important than stopping any terrorist plot to kill innocents.

A person in their home is an a completely different circumstance than a student in a school. Sorry you can't see a distinction.

Fine then. Let the government spy on you in your workplace. Same idea as at school.

I'm pretty sure you'd object if your employer was able to, for any reason, search you from head to toe.

Make up your mind, there's a big difference between "government" and "employer".

An employer sure as hell has the right to search their employees, as far as I know.

That's completely different than government "spying", whatever the heck you mean by that.


Based on the way you keep throwing out completely unrelated scenarios, what is your point ? That there is no circumstance where a person can be searched ?

"An employer sure as hell has the right to search their employees, as far as I know. "

Umm, no they don't.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Extelleron

Originally posted by: Genx87
If this is the same bill I heard about a couple of days ago, this pertains to locker searches. And honestly I dont see the problem with it, it is public property, there should be no inherit right to privacy on public property.

The kids arent paying rent for these lockers.

Their parents are.

And if the parents were more responsible; this type of action would be unneeded.

This bill is not needed. It is nothing but an invasion of privacy and violates every written word of the U.S. constitution. If it is somehow passed by the Senate, it should, without a doubt, be declared Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There are other ways to stop students from bringing drugs or weapons to school than to violate the very foundations of the United States.

It would be up to the Supreme Court, but on it's face it doesn't seem to violate the Constitution to me.

There is a prohibition against unreasonable search, but it isn't absolute. That's one reason why the circumstances affect the reasonableness.

It would be pretty hard to make an argument that in a public school, privacy is more important than preventing drugs or weapons in the school.
Just like privacy isn't more important than preventing people carrying guns on airplanes.

Fine, but then please stop complaining about the government wanting to wiretap homes of U.S. citizens who may be in contact with terrorists. Your privacy, and the privacy of all U.S. citizens, is certainly not more important than stopping any terrorist plot to kill innocents.

A person in their home is an a completely different circumstance than a student in a school. Sorry you can't see a distinction.

Fine then. Let the government spy on you in your workplace. Same idea as at school.

I'm pretty sure you'd object if your employer was able to, for any reason, search you from head to toe.

Make up your mind, there's a big difference between "government" and "employer".

An employer sure as hell has the right to search their employees, as far as I know.

That's completely different than government "spying", whatever the heck you mean by that.


Based on the way you keep throwing out completely unrelated scenarios, what is your point ? That there is no circumstance where a person can be searched ?

"An employer sure as hell has the right to search their employees, as far as I know. "

Umm, no they don't.

I suggest you read this..

Text

"Private sector employees, on the other hand, have virtually no
protection against even the most intrusive practices."

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tom



I suggest you read this..

Text

"Private sector employees, on the other hand, have virtually no
protection against even the most intrusive practices."

And the employees are free to tell their employer to "take this job and shove it" if they don't want to submit to a employers request. I'll repeat that for the freedom challenged...EMPLOYERS REQUEST.

Even if a student had the option of changing schoolds if he didn't like the one he is in, once someone "fingers" them for a strip search you think they're just going to let them quit school and walk out of the building.

For a law like this to work , it requires the people to trust authorites and authority hasn't done jack to deserve any trust for a long time. If fact, it's quite the opposite, see my sig for the proof!!!!!

Trust them?? LMFAO They don't trust us so why should we trust them?

 

[myocardia]

This bill includes searches of bags, purses, lockers, and students:

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.

Library of Congress-- H.R. 5295

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: Genx87
If this is the same bill I heard about a couple of days ago, this pertains to locker searches. And honestly I dont see the problem with it, it is public property, there should be no inherit right to privacy on public property.

The kids arent paying rent for these lockers.

I think the thread title alludes to Strip Search.. not locker search.

The title is just sensationalism to make people rise up against this bill. The actual bill has nothing to do with strip searches, not even mentioned in the bill.

Proponents and opponents of bills are always attaching names to them in order to sway the opinion of the public on the bills merits. For Example, the Patriot Act had nothing to do with Patriots, but it is really hard to stand up against a bill with a name like that.

I suppose Republicans could propose a Protect America from Terrorism bill that legalizes the NSA program, data mining and the monitoring of all monetary transactions of ?suspected? terrorists, while at the same time Democrats could propose the Protect America's Freedom bill that would outlaw all of the above. At which point a poll will come out stating that 70% of Americans support both bills.

BTW: Don't most school have police officers right in them now days? I know my high school did and I went to a school in small town Maine with no drug, gun or crime issues.

"A bill approved by the U.S. House yesterday would require school districts around the country to establish policies making it easier for teachers and school officials to conduct wide scale searches of students. These searches could take the form of pat-downs, bag searches, or strip searches depending on how administrators interpret the law.

The Student Teacher Safety Act of 2006 (HR 5295) would require any school receiving federal funding--essentially every public school--to adopt policies allowing teachers and school officials to conduct random, warrantless searches of every student, at any time, on the flimsiest of pretexts. Saying they suspect that one student might have drugs could give officials the authority to search every student in the building."

That is how I read the bill as well... english being a funny language and all... but we both know that the folks charged with executing the law have to interpret what the law intends... Seems to me pretty clear that it could be and probably would be wide reaching as the author of the first two para of the above link indicates..

 

[LumbergTech]

imagine how many more children child molesters could attack if they could say let me strip search you or i will declare that you have drugs..this type of crap just puts certain people in positions they should never be allowd in, a student should never have to take off his or her pants or shirt to be searched for drugs, especially not by a teacher

 

[fitzov]

I would go along with this, but only if the person searching me is the hot blond teacher.

 

[Tom]

"Even if a student had the option of changing schoolds if he didn't like the one he is in, once someone "fingers" them for a strip search you think they're just going to let them quit school and walk out of the building. "


Depending on the circumstances, that is probably exactly what would happen if a student refused a legal search. They would be suspended or expelled , I imagine.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tom
"Even if a student had the option of changing schoolds if he didn't like the one he is in, once someone "fingers" them for a strip search you think they're just going to let them quit school and walk out of the building. "


Depending on the circumstances, that is probably exactly what would happen if a student refused a legal search. They would be suspended or expelled , I imagine.

Don't kid yourself. If they want to search them and they have the right (by law) to search them, then the student won't be getting out of there without being searched. I'm sure they wouldn't think twice about calling in the cops for a forcefull search on anybody who refuses. If a student who they SUSPECT of having drugs refuses a search then he must be carrying right?

How could this law actually catch anybody with drugs if the SUSPECT could just refuse and walk out without being searched? It either has teeth or it doesn't. Face it, no matter how you look at it, this proposed law is just a stupid idea.

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Tom
"Even if a student had the option of changing schoolds if he didn't like the one he is in, once someone "fingers" them for a strip search you think they're just going to let them quit school and walk out of the building. "


Depending on the circumstances, that is probably exactly what would happen if a student refused a legal search. They would be suspended or expelled , I imagine.

Don't kid yourself. If they want to search them and they have the right (by law) to search them, then the student won't be getting out of there without being searched. I'm sure they wouldn't think twice about calling in the cops for a forcefull search on anybody who refuses. If a student who they SUSPECT of having drugs refuses a search then he must be carrying right?

How could this law actually catch anybody with drugs if the SUSPECT could just refuse and walk out without being searched? It either has teeth or it doesn't. Face it, no matter how you look at it, this proposed law is just a stupid idea.

You and I have a different perspective on the world, I don't see the police and school officials as the enemy. I don't want drugs or weapons in public schools.

If school officials think a student is violating the law, I hope they would call the police. In a case where a student won't follow school policy, like some sort of search that this law permits, then I am confident the student would be suspended or expelled.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: Tom
"Even if a student had the option of changing schoolds if he didn't like the one he is in, once someone "fingers" them for a strip search you think they're just going to let them quit school and walk out of the building. "


Depending on the circumstances, that is probably exactly what would happen if a student refused a legal search. They would be suspended or expelled , I imagine.

Don't kid yourself. If they want to search them and they have the right (by law) to search them, then the student won't be getting out of there without being searched. I'm sure they wouldn't think twice about calling in the cops for a forcefull search on anybody who refuses. If a student who they SUSPECT of having drugs refuses a search then he must be carrying right?

How could this law actually catch anybody with drugs if the SUSPECT could just refuse and walk out without being searched? It either has teeth or it doesn't. Face it, no matter how you look at it, this proposed law is just a stupid idea.

You and I have a different perspective on the world, I don't see the police and school officials as the enemy. I don't want drugs or weapons in public schools.

If school officials think a student is violating the law, I hope they would call the police. In a case where a student won't follow school policy, like some sort of search that this law permits, then I am confident the student would be suspended or expelled.

YEAH, AFTER HE WAS SEARCHED AGAINST HIS WILL.

Hey, if you want to put your total trust in the authorites, your employer, whomever, that is your business. Just because your willing to do that doesn't mean that you have the right to decide that for everybody else to. Call up your school and tell them they are free to strip search your kids anytoime they feel the need.

I personally don't want them having that kind of authority/power. They're educators, not police and I don't want them creating a "police state" type of enviroment in our centers of EDUCATION. Is that too hard to understand?

We SUPPOSEDLY live in a free country. Sadly, I see more and more people who don't want the hassle of defending their freedoms. They want the authorites to take care of everything for them. Kind of a "just pass a law" and that will fix everything mentality. I think that's a paradox, because the more power you give away to the authorities to defend your freedom, the less free you become.

Out here they do random searches of the cars and lockers with drug dogs. If they have reasonable cause to think a particular student might be carrying, then pull that student in and have the cops search him. If he refuses then call his parents and see what they have to say about it. If that doesn't work then expell him.

You seem like a smarter then average guy and I don't really understand how you can interpert the fact that I don't want to give school officals or the police any more authority then they need to do their jobs as being for guns and drugs in school. One has nothing to do with the other and I take it as an insult that you would try and imply that.

 

[Tom]

I don't like people putting their spin on what I say anymore than you do.

I said nothing about putting "total" trust in any authority. I don't want to give them any more authority then they need either, but while I'm willing to live with the fact that our rights against unreasonable search means there are people walking the streets with drugs and weapons, I'm not willing to live with that circumstance in schools.

A person becomes an employee, a student, even a customer in a store, they have entered into a kind of agreement with an authority to live by the rules of the circumstance they put themself in. That didn't violate their freeedom, they gave up some measure of it voluntarily. The choice they had was not to become the employee, the customer, the student. But once they make the choice, there exists a compromise between the rights of the authority and the rights of the individual.

It's up to the courts to decide if the details of the compromise are Constitutional, and you could have a valid opinion that the court makes the wrong decisions. But so far your position seems to be there exists some sort of absolute freedom, which in reality cannot exist, and has never existed.

Your description of what they do "out here", sounds perfectly appropriate to me.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tom
I don't like people putting their spin on what I say anymore than you do.

I said nothing about putting "total" trust in any authority. I don't want to give them any more authority then they need either, but while I'm willing to live with the fact that our rights against unreasonable search means there are people walking the streets with drugs and weapons, I'm not willing to live with that circumstance in schools.

A person becomes an employee, a student, even a customer in a store, they have entered into a kind of agreement with an authority to live by the rules of the circumstance they put themself in. That didn't violate their freeedom, they gave up some measure of it voluntarily. The choice they had was not to become the employee, the customer, the student. But once they make the choice, there exists a compromise between the rights of the authority and the rights of the individual.

It's up to the courts to decide if the details of the compromise are Constitutional, and you could have a valid opinion that the court makes the wrong decisions. But so far your position seems to be there exists some sort of absolute freedom, which in reality cannot exist, and has never existed.

Your description of what they do "out here", sounds perfectly appropriate to me.

You see, I feel it you who are trying to spin this. You have the standard answer , Well, you agreed to this when you became a student. If that were even close to true then they wouldn't need to pass this legislation, now would they. Now who's spinning who here?

f I go into a store and they want to pull me over and search me for whatever, then by God they had better be right or I'll sue their asses off. I've never sued anybody over anything in my life and I have had plent of opportuinity to do so. I'm sure I could have collected a sizeable sum of money, but I don't really believe is suing unless I feel it is something important and I feel protecting my rights (and my children's rights) is sufficent reason.

And the way we do things "out here" is appropiate and it is also SUFFICENT. No need to go passing any uneeded laws that really don't accomplish anything they can't do now, all it does is to make it easier for them to do such.

 

[Tom]

I didn't mean that going into a business gives the store owner the right to search you, necessarily. I was referring to a range of infringements to absolute freedom, like requiring a tie, for example.

Although, lots of businesses do have metal detectors, wands, and other forms of "search".

You may be right and this law isn't necessary, because the type of search it talks about may already be permissable.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Tom
I didn't mean that going into a business gives the store owner the right to search you, necessarily. I was referring to a range of infringements to absolute freedom, like requiring a tie, for example.

Although, lots of businesses do have metal detectors, wands, and other forms of "search".

You may be right and this law isn't necessary, because the type of search it talks about may already be permissable.

I think a search is permissable if they have good reason and they can certainly search their lockers anytime they feel the need so why do they need the power to search any person without a reason? This law would open the door to searching people at random and is ripe for abuse.

To me this is a statement of how messed up our goverment has become that they are even trying to pass laws like this.

 

[LtPage1]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Not that I agree with the bill in its current form.
However, posting a news article about a drug law from what looks to be a pro-drug legalization web site is not exactly presenting an unbiased look at the bill.

Perhaps someone can find a mainstream media article on the bill and see what the opinons of it are there.

BTW: Calling it the "Strip Search Bill" smacks of sensationalism. As if to make people think they will drag every student in school into the locker room and strip search them because some teacher smelt pot in the bath room.

I can't think of any circumstance, whatsoever, that would make any kind of search of a student's person by a school official acceptable. To allow strip searches is beyond reprehensible.

 

[VooDooAddict]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Regardless of the language in the bill I am against any and all intrusion into the privacy of the minor individuals who'd be subjected to a search beyond the pockets and possessions of said individuals.. IF they are so sure someone has drugs then a crime has been committed and the appropriate law enforcement folks should be called in.. THEY are the trained professionals equipped to deal with this issue not some Full Time Teacher or other School Professional!

There are legal issues at stake here like chain of evidence that would cause issues beyond the search for drugs.. Unless the School teachers are all to be deputized and schooled as a law enforcement professional..

This would be my issue with the bill. "Stip Search Bill" is a horrible way to explain the problem. It sensationalizes it and makes it somethig for parents to 'fear'. I'm not going to stoup to the same level as the right and exploit fears (true I might see prefered canidates and laws loose because of it ... but I'll be able to sleep at night.)