In 1997, when I was lobbying for the Iowa Civil Liberties Union (the forerunner to the ACLU of Iowa), a bill was introduced in the Iowa House of Representatives that would have allowed school officials to randomly conduct searches of students’ lockers. I didn’t think about it seriously because it was introduced by a Democrat, and Republicans controlled the chamber 54-46. The majority party rarely, if ever, allows a minority party member to sponsor a bill that is taken up for consideration.
Moreover, if the bill did move through the House, surely the Senate wouldn’t consider the bill since Republicans also maintained control in the upper chamber, 28-22.
I was so wrong! The bill, House File 141, was referred to the House Education Committee where it was assigned to a subcommittee consisting of the committee’s chairperson, ranking member, and a future Speaker of the House as the subcommittee’s chairperson.
Boring you to death is not my intention, so I’ll stop with the procedural mumbo-jumbo and get on with the problem. After having passed both chambers and blessed with the governor’s signature, making it law, the fun began for me.
The law covered more than just locker searches. Excuse me, locker “inspections.” The word “inspection” was intended to mean that it wasn’t a search. And, of course, the students did not ‘own’ the lockers, the school did: “Allowing students to use a separate lock on a locker, desk, or other facility or space owned by the school and provided to the student shall also not give rise to an expectation of privacy on a student’s part with respect to that locker, desk, facility, or space.”
I was invited to talk to a class of junior high school students on two different occasions on the same day shortly after the locker search law was enacted. While speaking to the first class, I mentioned that students have the right to stand by their assigned locker while the search is being conducted. I don’t think I said “inspection.” I wanted to make myself clear. [“An inspection under this subsection shall either occur in the presence of the students whose lockers are being inspected or the inspection shall be conducted in the presence of at least one other person.”]
One astute student raised her hand and bravely told me that the administration conducts searches of the lockers while the students are sitting at their desks. I told the class that was illegal. I should have known school administers would locate the loophole (conducted in the presence of at least one other person). As a lobbyist, I attempted to get that language out of the bill. Representatives Bill Brand and Keith Kreiman introduced an amendment to get rid of the ‘one other person’ language and require students to be present.
As I began to talk to the next group of students, an administrator took up a chair next to the door to listen to what I had to say. I didn’t back down from what I had to say, but there were no astute students in the second group.
Now, I find out that some schools are built without lockers. Everyone uses backpacks. Sure, a student can rent a locker from the school; they might actually wear a coat to school and need a place to store it between the first bell and the final bell.
What! Some schools no longer have bells? Must have gone out the window like the lockers, due process, and other constitutional rights.
***
Please help Fawkes-Lee & Ryan maintain this website by donating $10, $20, $30, $50, $100, or more.
Your support is appreciated.
Subscribe (It’s FREE): Email mrtyryn@gmail.com with “Subscribe” in the Subject Line.
Fawkes-Lee & Ryan
2516 Lynner Dr.
Des Moines, IA 50310
Copyright (c) 2025. Fawkes-Lee & Ryan. All rights reserved.