T. V. Lbo Case Summary

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.

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.

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,

In 2005, Albert Florence was admitted to a New Jerseyś Burlington County Jail for a minor offense and was thoroughly searched. According to Florence, his 4th Amendment was violated, and the searches conducted against him were unreasonable. He was forced to disrobe, squat while naked, shower in front of security, and prove that there was no contraband stored in or under his genitals. After Florence 's release from jail, he sued the government and went to the federal trial court, which ruled in favor of the petitioner (Albert Florence). However, the Third Circuit reversed, deeming that searches done in jail were constitutional due to the fact that they were promoting and protecting safety. The law states that “Strip search, including a digital rectal search, of a prisoner who allegedly refused to cooperate and injured a guard in resisting was reasonable and justified by a legitimate interest in maintaining order and security.” After the Third Circuit 's reversal the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. After viewing the precedent cases, the Supreme Court ruled that searches were lawful and did not in any way revoke 4th Amendment rights.

A. Rule: The court case of T.L.O. also establishes a more compassionate standard of what they review as a “reasonable suspicion”, in what goes on to determine whether or not the lawfulness of the search was in the school policy or follows district policy too. To lead reasonable suspicion can sum up and equalized,when it leans toward a lessen of any chance of finding evidence of wrongful behavior in a student or individual. Of all the information Wilson acquired from the Faculty and other questionable sources from students, Marissa’s statement of the pills came from Savannah that lead was sufficient in justification of a search upon Savannah’s backpack. In addition the Savannah’s outer clothing. Savannah reasoning could be possibly was reckoning of carrying the tylenol. The disgraceful strip search and seizure that ultimately exposed her private areas to some degree.The content of this belief failed to match the degree of intrusiveness she was getting from the school. Nothing was led to suggested the amount and quantity of the drugs, could appeal to pose a real danger to any of the students or to that of Savannah in carrying pills in her underwear or in bra.School officials are allowed and can search any students belongings and lockers. They are entitled to qualified immunity where it clearly states and establishes as qualified immunity and established

In the case Mapp V. Ohio of 1961, police forced their way into Dollree Mapps, house, suspecting her of harboring a suspected bomber. No suspect was found and Mapp was arrested of possessing obscene pictures and was convicted in an Ohio court. Mapp appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the decision was made that the Supreme Court said “evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts” (USCourts). The ruling was decided by the fourth amendment, which is protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

Her attorney argued that she should never have been brought to trial because the material evidence resulted from an illegal, warrant less search. Because the search was unlawful, he maintained that the evidence was illegally obtained and must also be excluded. In its ruling, the Supreme Court of Ohio recognized that ?a reasonable argument? could be made that the conviction should be reversed ?because the ?methods? employed to obtain the evidence?were such as to offend a sense of justice.? But the court also stated that the materials were admissible evidence. The Court explained its ruling by differentiating between evidence that was peacefully seized from an inanimate object, such as a trunk, rather than forcibly seized from an individual. Based on this decision, Mapp's appeal was denied and her conviction was upheld.

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.

T.L.O went to the supreme court and said her purse was searched and seized unlawfully by a school official. She stated that her purse was searched without the involvement of law enforcement officials. Therefore should not be allowed in as evidence at the juvenile court proceedings.

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 recent years, schools have been increasingly subjected to weaponry, drugs, and violence. School officials are seeking ways to help maintain a safe environment for their students. The increase of violence has led to many cases of controversy over students’ Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires a warrant to be presented and supported by probable cause. The problem with this is that requiring school officials to bring in police and for them to obtain a warrant takes time, time that these people do not have. If there is a threat that a student may possess drugs, the administration of the school needs to take immediate action in order to maintain a safe environment. Schools should be able to take any necessary action in order to keep other students safe, but should also have guidelines they must follow in extreme cases, such as strip searches.

Prior to the landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985), the clarity on how search and seizures applied to students in public schools were unclear. A particular case from 1969 can shed some light regarding on how the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defines student rights in public schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the court found that:

The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee security against unreasonable governmental searches. Because school officials are actually

In 1995 New Jersey v. T.L.O, two high school students were found smoking in the bathroom at school. One girl admitted to smoking but the other one denied it. The student who denied smoking and her purse was inspected by the principal and evidence was found that the student was also selling marijuana. The student was taken to the police station where she confessed and later the state of New Jersey brought charges against the student. In juvenile court the student argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizer were violated. The court sided with the school. The case was then taken to the New Jersey Supreme Court which sided with the student and found that the search was unreasonable and the evidence found could not be used. The case was then appealed to the U.S. Supreme court where it was decided that school administrators do not need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students have a reduced expectation of privacy when in school (New Jersey v. T. L.O., 1985).

Of course, most would agree that Choplick (the vice principle) violated T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights. One cannot argue with the fact that in the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case, the vice principal had violated