New Jersey V. Case Analysis

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.

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

Please give the facts and significance of the two cases, mentioned on your weekly page, involving school searches: NJ v. TLO and Redding v. Safford School District. What is the difference between searches conducted in schools and those conducted in public? NJ v. TLO case was about a female who was caught smoking in her school bathroom. When she was searched money was found on her and list of people who owed her money and weed. In another case Redding v. Safford School District, “Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding,

The school board of Vernonia, Oregon implemented this policy in their school. This applied even more so to athletes, who were seen as the “leaders of the drug culture” at the time. The policy “...required all those who wished to play on interscholastic athletic teams to submit to urinalysis drug testing.” (“Vernonia School District. [Brit.]) In the year 1991, after the policy was put into place for two years, a student challenged the policy. He, known by the name of James Acton, as well as his parents, refused to sign a consent form for the drug testing. Due to this, he was not allowed to be a part of football team, and is what led to their first trials. They were named “Wayne and Judy Acton, guardians ad litem (representing) for James Acton v. Vernonia School District 47J”. In these very first cases, the plaintiff were the Actons, and the defendant was the school district. The family lost in the U.S District Court, but later had the decision overturned by Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who claimed that the district had truly violated Acton’s Fourth Amendment rights. The school district attempted to overturn the decision again, which led to the Supreme Court case, Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton,

In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a young girl, T.L.O., had her purse searched, suspected of having cigarettes in her purse. The school officials of Piscataway High School uncovered cigarettes, miniature quantity of marijuana, and a list for students who owe her money. T.L.O. was now imposed charge of possession of marijuana. T.L.O. was not content and moved to terminate evidence discovered in the search, but was however contradicted her motion. She was sentenced to probation for one year, after confirmed guilty from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division proclaimed the contradiction of the process to terminate evidence. Holding that the exclusionary rule of the fourth amendment involves the search and seizures regulated by the school officials in public schools, the New Jersey Supreme Court interchanged.

In 1980, at Piscataway Township High School, 14-year-old T.L.O. and a peer were caught smoking cigarettes in a school restroom which violated school rules. The two violators were taken to the Assistant Vice Principal’s office where one student confessed to smoking while the other, T.L.O., denied the allegation. The Assistant Vice Principal demanded T.L.O to hand over her purse where he found cigarette papers, cigarettes, a pipe, marijuana, a list of students who owed T.L.O., and a large amount of money. The school authorities contacted T.L.O.’s mother who then brought T.L.O. to turn herself in; she eventually confessed to having sold marijuana on school grounds. Juvenile delinquency charges were brought upon T.L.O. in the Juvenile and Domestic

T.L.O. was a high school student at Piscataway in Middlesex County. She was caught smoking in the lavatory by a teacher, and was taken to the Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick who searched her purse after he suspected cigarettes. Mr. Choplick discovered cigarettes, small amount of marijuana, and a list that contained students’ names who are owning her money. T.L.O was charged with possession of marijuana. Before the trial, T.L.O. moved to suppress the evidence found during the search, but the court denied her motion. The juvenile and domestic relations court of New Jersey found her guilty and sentenced her to one-year probation. On appeal, the Superior court of New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed the denial of motion to suppress

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?

Redding case, she was searched in a more serious way for ibuprofen which is not illegal and in New Jersey v. T.L.O. her bag was searched for cigarettes which is illegal, since she is underage. Also, T.L.O. was caught in the act of smoking by a teacher in the school bathroom and Redding was not caught in the act of doing anything. T.L.O. denied the allegations against her before the search and then she was proved wrong and she lied to her school officials. Redding did not deny any allegations and she did not lie to anyone. Lastly, the jury ruled 6-3 in New Jersey v. T.L.O. and 8-1 in Safford v.

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.

Facts: In a New Jersey high school, two freshman girls were caught smoking in a bathroom. When taken to the Assistant Vice Principal, the first student admitted to smoking while the second, designated T.L.O due to her age, denied smoking in a restricted area. The VP proceeded to take student into his private office and searched her purse and discovered a pack of cigarettes. However, as he was searching, he also identified a stack of rolling papers, which led to a more thorough search of the purse which produced a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a significant amount of money, as wells an index card with names of various people who owed T.L.O money. This evidence implicated that the student was dealing, and T.L.O admitted to selling marijuana. The authorities were called and T.L.O was arrested.

People generally think that it is wrong to go through someone else’s stuff without their permission. This usually continues when you are in high school and the school administrator goes through your purse. This is what happened for T.L.O. when she was a freshman caught smoking marijuana in the bathroom and the vice principle thought that it was okay to look through her purse for proof of what she had done. They both obviously did something that was going to be seen as wrong to different people. Today we will discuss how the T.L.O. V. New Jersey court case was created, the steps that it went through and the final decision and how it still impacts lives today. The T.L.O. court case made an impact on schools especially students and their administrators.

In this case two students who were female where smoking in the laboratory. When caught one of the students admitted to smoking as for the other she denied when asked to search her purse she denied so instead the vice principal still searched and found the cigarettes and rolling paper. When digging deeper he found little amounts of marijuana and a pipe zip lock bags and a card with many of

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

The Supreme Court set a precedent on school searches with the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. In that particular case, a student was observed smoking in the bathroom of the high school. The student denied smoking and upon search of her belongings by the assistant vice principal, a pack of cigarettes were found along with rolling papers. Since there is a parallel between rolling papers and marijuana, the assistant vice principal decided to further search her purse and found marijuana, empty