Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
May 2006
M T W T F S S
« Apr   Jun »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives

Authors

Colorable Suspicion?

Just got this from Tom at DARE Generation Diary

Stop Congress From Expanding School Searches
Students for Sensible Drug Policy is asking for your help to stop a bill that would further curtail the rights of students in public schools all across the country. The so-called “Student and Teacher Safety Act of 2006” (H.R. 5295) would make it easier for teachers and school administrators to search students’ lockers and bags for drugs and other contraband. SSDP needs your help to make sure that this bill never becomes law.
Currently, in order for a teacher to search a student’s locker they need to have “reasonable suspicion” that the student is in possession of illegal drugs. H.R. 5295 would change the standard needed for a search to “colorable suspicion,” a term that has been made up entirely for this bill. Essentially, a teacher would need nothing more than a hunch in order to search a student’s locker or possessions.
This bill is nothing more than another attack on the constitutional rights of young people by the federal government. Students should never have to check their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.
Please take two minutes to send a letter to your member of Congress asking him or her to oppose H.R. 5295. SSDP has created a pre-written letter that you can easily send by visiting http://capwiz.com/mobilize/issues/alert/?alertID=8779706

Colorable Suspicion? WTF?
As far as I knew, a blank sheet of paper is “colorable” and that doesn’t seem to be much of a standard for searching anything. So I decided to look up “colorable”.

  1. Meant to deceive; not genuine.
  2. Seemingly true or genuine; plausible.

So… a suspicion that is not genuine? Or maybe one that is seemingly true?
“Well, gee, my suspicion was… plausible.”
Ah, yes, we see the direction the Fourth Amendment is heading.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In general, people and their possessions shouldn’t be searched unless someone can come up with a plausible reason to do so.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Comments are closed.