I'll feel safer when I know my kids won't be searched by some dirtbag school administrator. I will also feel safer when I can carry my gun wherever I need to...but we all know that this will never happen.
The bill only quotes language from S Ct. decisions, then says that schools need to have policies in place that comply with that language, otherwise lose funds. While I still don't like the bill, it doesn't say anything about immunity, strip searches, body cavity searches, etc. It reads to me that they want schools systems to develop age, sex, and offense specific search practices in writing. Given the S Ct. decisions, teachers already have the ability to do this. Frankly a public process at each school board seems likely to me to yield more reasonable procedures that simply letting each teacher decide on the fly with no written rules. The harms that are foreseen by the WorldNetDaily, if they come, will come at your local school board level, not from this bill.
That's a good thought about the legislation to restrict beyond the S Ct. thoughts on the 4th A. What I particularly don't like is the 'reasonable suspicion or professional judgment' language. I've met some teachers whose professional judgment I wouldn't trust deciding to search my child. Basically, these are state law enforcement questions, so it would seem to me that the GA legislature could define what constitutes reasonable suspicion, or/and require that any searches of the person require parental notification and a witness or two.
As far as the Section 1983 suits, Justice Scalia, et al have now decided that those alone are enough to deter police knock and announce violations. Given what a fabulous deterrent that would be, I'm shocked that you'd feel any further protections might be necessary for little school children, who are surely able to assert the full measure of their rights in the face of the principal standing over them. :roll: