T. L. O Vs. Juvenile Court Case

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.

In my case overview decision, I chose New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985). This case there was a high school student who felt she was searched illegally. T.L.O. was a high school student. School officials looked through her handbag presuming she had cigarettes. The officials found cigarettes, a little measure of pot, and a paper containing the names of students who owed T.L.O. cash. T.L.O. was accused of having pot on her person in a school. Before trial, T.L.O. moved the courts to dismiss that there was evidence found when they searched her property, however the Court denied her request to remove the evidence. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County concluded that she was in possession on

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.

felt as if her 4th Amendment rights had been violated and wanted the evidence found in her purse suppressed from the case. On March 23, 1981 the Juvenile Court denied her motion to suppress. The court ruled on January 8, 1982 that the search was reasonable and found T.L.O. to be a delinquent; she was sentenced to one year probation. The case went to the Appellate Division and it was determined that T.L.O.’s 4th Amendment had not been violated, however, the case was revisited to determine if T.L.O. knowingly gave up her 5th Amendment rights when she confessed. On April 1, 1982 the case is appealed in the New Jersey Supreme Court. The court found the search of T.L.O.’s purse to be unreasonable and ordered that all the evidence to be suppressed.

Both the fourth and fifth amendment protect the privacies of individuals from governmental intrusion. Appellant Boyd complained that she was denied her constitutional right to testify. The right to testify comes from many amendments and clauses in the constitution such as the due process clauses, the Fifth, and Fourteenth amendment. The court held that “ the search for and seizure of evidence within an accused’s possession might well result in compelling the accused to be a witness against himself.” Then, the court reasoned that the search was unreasonable “ab initio” and it makes it a violation of the fourth amendment. Justice Black mentioned in his concurrence that if something is obtained illegally, it cannot be used again the appellant. The Boyd’s case was not the only case mentioned in the Mapp v. Ohio opinion. Additionally, Weeks v. United States (1914) was a case that determined the warrantless seizure of items from an individual is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The court should find that the evidence found against the defendant, Mr. Arnold J. Stewart, should not have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution states that “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.” The moment Stewart left his suitcase in the care of Mr. Holt, he gave him possession over it. In the case of United States v. Arango, 912 F.2d 441 (10th Cir. 1990), the court determined that the one who has the right to possession of personal property has the right to exclude others from searching it. In this situation because of Larry Holt’s growing concerns with the suitcase beginning left with him for longer than intended and the concerns of whether the suitcase contained a bomb, he did not exclude

At the urging of her attorney, Mapp appealed her conviction on the grounds that her First Amendment right had been violated. Her argument was that she was well within her rights to have been in the possession of the explicit material found during the search of her home. Interestingly enough, when her case went before the Supreme Court it was not the First Amendment that was addressed, but the Fourth Amendment. The argument supporting Mapp highlighted the fact that a search warrant was never produced at her original trial, so evidence against her should not have been used. Due to the fact that the evidence was seized illegally by the police without a warrant, the police violated her Fourth Amendment right. The Constitutional issue surrounding the case of Mapp v. Ohio involves the Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) Search and Seizure. Amendment IV was passed by Congress on September 25, 1789 and ratified on December 15, 1791. According to the National Constitution Center, “Amendment IV people have the right 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.” (Amendment IV Search and

Lago Vista Independent School Distict. Gebser and her teacher had a sexual relationship that lasted for almost 2 years. The two were caught in the middle of having relations. The teacher was arrested by the local police department and his license were revoked by the state. Gebser never notified administrators or staff about the relationship between her and the teacher. Her parents tried to file a case on the school district for damages and monetary payment. The court ruled in favor of the school district. This case was very interesting and unique in many ways. I support the decision of the court on no to reward the victim monetary payment. Gebser never tried to notify anyone about the situation, it was more so enjoyment for her. This school district was very proactive and moved very quickly after finding out the

I then spoke with Washington. I asked Washington what had happened. Washington said two juvenile males came and knocked on her apartment door at approximately 1500 hours today. Washington said she answered the door and spoke with the juvenile males.

v. New Jersey (1985) was a Supreme Court case that had determined the fate of a young fourteen-year-old girl (for whom T.L.O. was to be her name), was caught by a teacher, smoking in a school bathroom at Piscataway High School in New Jersey. She was sent to the principal’s office, where he had searched her bag and found marijuana inside. She was then arrested, and convicted of selling drugs, but she declared that they had did an illegal search and seizure of the purse. Five years later (it was 1980 when it happened), the case reached the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling, the judges had sided with the school district. Through this, it was an illegal search and seizure, but the court had taken towards the school. They said that the reason why they did was, “legitimate expectations of privacy with the equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place.” This meant that the school officials could do it, but the police couldn’t. They most likely were thinking that schools can be like the parents of children, and take away their belongings inside, and outside the

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school.

Is evidence obtained in violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting “unreasonable searches and seizures” admissible as evidence in criminal

Search and seizure has recently been a communal debated issue for most of society. The controversy is split, one stance is for public safety and the other is for privacy. The Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure, was adopted into The Constitution of the United States to tackle “writ of assistance”, a general search warrant used during British rule. Unlike the general search warrants used during British rule, search and seizure have many guidelines and court precedents preventing law enforcement from randomly going through someone’s property. Like any rule, you will always have rule breakers; if the evidence is illegally seized, then that falls under the exclusionary rule.

Grupo Modelo is the number one beer producer in Mexico and the producer of Corona, one of the leading import beer brands sold in the United States. This paper will highlight the trends in the global beer market and how Grupo Modelo’s international expansion was achieved through strategic partnerships. It will also discuss Grupo Modelo’s strategies to enter new markets and their challenges from competitors. Finally it will discuss the diversification strategies for Corona Beer (Modelo).

In this novel, I developed a thesis statement, which is: The old man’s pride is his strongest enemy. I chose this thesis statement because I believe it is the old man’s pride that motivated him to go too far out to sea. His pride also motivated him to beat the Marlin no matter what happened. Finally, his pride motivated him to fight the sharks until the last second. Hemingway quotes: “It is easy when you are beaten, he thought.