T. V. Lbo Case Summary

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.

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,

Facts of the Case: On March 17, 1980, a 14 year-old student and her classmate in Piscataway Township High School had gotten caught smoking cigarettes in the public school bathroom by a teacher. This violated the school rule. The teacher took them to Theodore Choplick, the assistant principal’s office. The assistant principal then questioned girls about smoking in the bathroom. One girl admitted to smoking. However, one female denied that they had been smoking at all. The assistant principal requested that he look into the student’s purse. He then found a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, a pipe, marijuana, substantial amounts of

Facts: Safford Unified School District and April Redding, The dispute of this case is when Savannah’s privacy became violated when Safford School District stripped search her and revealed some private areas and her upper chest area. It got to the Supreme Court, when the district court reward a motion, then the Ninth circuit court reversed the ruling on the strip search because it was unconstitutional for them to strip search Savannah the second time.., The Supreme Court used New Jersey VS. T.L.O in the process of helping in the decision because in that case it was school officials searching a girls pursue because they had reasonable doubt that she was carrying cigs and had a list of the people that owed

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.

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.

Justice Thomas had a dissenting opinion and stated that the fourth amendment right does protect us against unreasonable search and seizures (as did most of the judges). But it is the context of were it takes place he says students have the fourth amendment right just not on school property. The reason is the responsibility the school and the officials have is to ensure the safety of the students. Thomas concurred in the

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.

The New Jersey V. T.L.O. court case is seen as a pretty tricky one because many people saw different sides in this case and thought that different people should be getting in trouble. This court case takes place in a New Jersey high school where there was a teacher that caught a student smoking in the bathroom and took them to the principal’s office. In the principal’s office, the student denied everything. The vice principal ended up deciding to take the students purse and look through it. Inside the purse, the principal found proof that the student had been selling marijuana in the school and called the police. This would usually be a pretty easy case in court because the student was selling and smoking marijuana in a school

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

On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey found two girls smoking in the restroom of the high school. The defendant, a fourteen year old, high school freshman, who is referred to as T.L.O. along with her companion were sent to the Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick’s office for violating the school rule of smoking in the restroom. During questioning T.L.O.’s companion admitted to smoking in the restroom and had violated the school’s rule. However, T.L.O. denied smoking in the restroom by stating that she does not smoke at all. Mr. Choplick asked T.L.O. to come into his private office and ordered to see the purse she was carrying. Upon opening the purse he found

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).

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:

In 2002, the Pottawattamie vs. Earls case went before the Supreme Court. In that case, a high school choir student challenged her Board of Education over their drug prevention policies. The school required participation in a random drug sampling program for all students participating in any extracurricular activity. The petitioner claimed that this was a violation of her fourth amendment rights against unjustified search and seizure. The court ruled in favor of the school deciding that the school had the right to mandatory drug testing in the interests of student’s

The use of illicit drugs for all grades combined was 27.2% in the year 2014(“DrugFacts: High School and Youth Trends”). At a New Jersey high school, two girls were found smoking in the bathroom by a teacher. The teacher took the girls up to the vice principal immediately, then the vice principal asked both of the girls if they had been smoking in the bathroom. The first girl admitted she had, but the second girl (known as “T.L.O.”), denied everything. The vice principal asked to check her purse because he knew she was lying. He saw cigarettes, which led him into the search more, he found: cigarette rolling papers, a pipe, a bag of marijuana, and a booklet of people’s names who owed T.L.O. money. The second girl’s lawyer argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated, however, the Supreme Court agreed the vice principal’s actions were “reasonable under the circumstances” (Ramen 75). The Supreme Court ruling that your belongings can be searched at school; but not arbitrarily is the appropriate decision because school administrators should be able to search students’ belongings in order to maintain a safe environment for students.