NJ V. TLO Case Comparison Essay

New Jersey v. T.L.O. was an important case concerning the rights of the accused and had to do with the exclusionary rule. This case furthered the knowledge of the exclusionary rule that is mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. It was decided that the exclusionary rule applies to searches and seizures that occur at school by the officials.

The case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding regards a 13 year old student, Savana Redding, who was accused by others of alleged drug dealing (prescription strength ibuprofen & over the counter naproxen) in school. After Redding was confronted by principal, Kerry Wilson, she denied any wrong doing and agreed to let Wilson and school administrator, Helen Romero, search her bag and outer clothing where nothing was found. Nevertheless, Redding was instructed by Wilson to the nurse’s office, and was striped searched by Romero and nurse, Peggy Schwallier. Wilson’s decision to strip search Redding was without reasonable cause (Scotusblog, 2017). The school officials clearly violated Redding’s fourth amendment right by conducting a strip

T.L.O. and The New Jersey State School system.T.L.O.was found in the lavatory smoking by a teacher and was brought to the Vice Principal's office. The vice principal searched her purse and found illegal substances and turned them into the legal authority after contacting them and her mother. The student claimed that it goes against the fourth amendment because it was an illegal search and seizure. Their dispute was whether the school had the right to search and take illegal substances found when they do search the students.The case got to the supreme court by appeals through the lower court systems because it dealt with the interpretation of the fourth amendment.

Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse

A major problem that many representative democracies had, and still have, is securing minorities rights within a system ruled by the majority of that country. This is when the term modern pluralism comes into light. Modern pluralism is the idea that having a large number of parties within a government will create more power in the system, which ensures that not a single group will contain total control.

The ruling was decided at 5-4 that this did not violate the constitution. Reimbursement of the parents is only a part

In the case of New Jersey v T.L.O a high school student was suspected of trying to hide cigarettes in her bag. An official searched the bag and found cigarettes,marijuana, and a list of names of students who owed T.L.O. money, she argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches was violated. She was then charged with possession of marijuana and sentenced to one year of probation. Before trial, T.L.O. wanted to suppress the evidence discovered in the search, but the Court denied her motion. The supreme court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students already have a reduced expectation of privacy when in

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

The State Supreme Court overturned the decision, stated that TLO's fourth amendment rights have been violated. The state of New Jersey asked that the supreme court hear it's appeal. Questions are, do students in school have the same rights under the fourth amendment as adults. Does "probable cause" have to be established for the search of a student in school or is "reasonable cause" enough?

The Majority Opinion: The Fourth Amendment does apply to searches performed on students in public schools, but it would be unreasonable for a school to be required to get a warrant every time they need to perform a search. As minors, students do not have the same rights as adults. Any searched must be of a student of the school who is reasonably suspected of wrongdoing. Student must be suspected of violating the law or school rules before the search and the search must not be inappropriate for the age and sex of the person being searched. Because the search of T.L.O.’s purse was conducted on reasonable suspicion of violating the school’s rules, the search was valid. Based on these points, the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey was reversed by a vote of 6 to

New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.

The Essential Question surrounding this case is, “May school administrators search a student or their belongings absent of probable cause?”

Maria A. Cardona, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M v. State of Florida.

2. The Supreme Court established that a warrant isn’t necessary in school due to the fact that students aren’t under the protection of police officers but instead by the school. The court decided that a search is reasonable if a) “specific facts, together with rational inference from those facts, justified the intrusion, and b) the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying it. Also, there can be random drug testing for students in school involved in extracurricular activities, and

To fully understand the role and related responsibilities of search and seizure in the public schools, the Constitutional rights of the students and case law must be examined.