New jersey v tlo issue. New Jersey v. T. L. O. 2022-10-29
New jersey v tlo issue Rating:
4,4/10
182
reviews
New Jersey v. T.L.O. is a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with the search and seizure of students by school officials. The case arose in 1980 when a New Jersey high school assistant principal searched a student's purse and found evidence of marijuana use. The student, T.L.O., challenged the search, arguing that it violated her Fourth Amendment rights, which protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the search, but established a new standard for searches of students by school officials. Specifically, the Court held that searches of students by school officials do not need to meet the same probable cause standard that is required for searches by law enforcement. Instead, the Court held that school officials only need reasonable suspicion, a lower standard, to justify a search.
In reaching its decision, the Court noted the unique role that schools play in the lives of students. Schools are responsible for the safety and well-being of their students, and they have a legitimate interest in maintaining a safe and orderly learning environment. As a result, the Court reasoned that school officials should have some leeway to search students in order to maintain this environment.
However, the Court also recognized the importance of protecting students' privacy rights and emphasized that searches must be reasonable and limited in scope. The Court stated that school officials may only search a student's possessions if there is a reasonable suspicion that the search will uncover evidence of a violation of the law or school rules.
In the end, the Court's decision in New Jersey v. T.L.O. established a new standard for searches of students by school officials and balanced the competing interests of school safety and student privacy. The case has had a significant impact on the rights of students and the authority of school officials, and it continues to be cited in legal cases involving searches in schools.
New Jersey v. T.L.O.: The Fourth Amendment in public schools
After continuing his search, he found a small amount of marijuana, money, and a list of students who owed her money. Taylor, per curiam , with Thompson v. Retrieved 17 November 2020. This conclusion is puzzling. I do contend, however, that this Court has an obligation to provide some coherent framework to resolve such questions on the basis of more than a conclusory recitation of the results of a "balancing test.
Ohio, United States v. Wright, supra, at yet ready to hold that the schools and the prisons need be equated for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Supreme Court decesion was 6 to 3. O denied smoking, which prompted the administrator to search her purse. United States, Dunaway v. In addition, students may carry on their persons or in purses or wallets such nondisruptive yet highly personal items as photographs, letters, and diaries. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist.
That petition only raised one question: "Whether the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule applies to searches made by public school officials and teachers in school. This is where the justices disagreed. Thus, although the Court today paints with a broad brush and holds its undefined "reasonableness" standard applicable to all school searches, I would approach the question with considerably more reserve. This case is restored to the calendar for reargument. Had he not removed the cigarettes from the purse, she asserts, he would not have observed the rolling papers that suggested the presence of marihuana, and the search for marihuana could not have taken place.
Even though school officials have a special type of authority over schoolchildren, they are still representatives of the state. While Justices Brennan and Marshall agreed that students have Fourth Amendment protections, they disagreed with the new standard for searches the majority created. Lopez, case in which the U. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Prouse, United States v. United States, Burdeau v. Discussing the issue of school searches, Professor LaFave has noted that the cases that have reached the appellate courts "strongly suggest that in most instances the evidence of wrongdoing prompting teachers or principals to conduct searches is sufficiently detailed and specific to meet the traditional probable cause test.
Syllabus A teacher at a New Jersey high school, upon discovering respondent, then a 14-year-old freshman, and her companion smoking cigarettes in a school lavatory in violation of a school rule, took them to the Principal's office, where they met with the Assistant Vice Principal. Although the students were aware of the policy the administration created, they arrived to school wearing the black armbands days later, and were promptly sent home and suspended. United States, Sibron v. There is no mystery, however, in the state court's finding that the search in this case was unconstitutional; the decision below was not based on a manipulation of reasonable suspicion, but on the trivial character of the activity that promoted the official search. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. III 105 The Court embraces the standard applied by the New Jersey Supreme Court as equivalent to its own, and then deprecates the state court's application of the standard as reflecting "a somewhat crabbed notion of reasonableness. JUSTICE STEVENS' suggestion that the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision rested on the perceived triviality of the smoking infraction appears to be a reflection of his own views rather than those of the New Jersey court.
Argued May 10, 1983. Pico, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Municipal Court, supra, 28 This standard will, we trust, neither unduly burden the efforts of school authorities to maintain order in their schools nor authorize unrestrained intrusions upon the privacy of schoolchildren. For the Court, a search for curlers and sunglasses in order to enforce the school dress code 99 The majority, however, does not contend that school administrators have a compelling need to search students in order to achieve optimum enforcement of minor school regulations. The Warrant Clause is something more than an exhortation to this Court to maximize social welfare as we see fit. When the vice-principal was searching for the cigarettes, the drug-related evidence was in plain view.
A comparison of the language of the standard "reasonableness under all the circumstances" with the traditional language of probable cause "facts sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in believing that a crime had been committed and the evidence would be found in the designated place" suggests that the Court's new standard may turn out to be probable cause under a new guise. The need to up held the need to protect agaisnt espionage outweight kormes rights. But the requirement of reasonable suspicion is not a requirement of absolute certainty: "sufficient probability, not certainty, is the touchstone of reasonableness under the Hill v. Therefore, the fruits of this illegal search must be excluded and the judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. The protest was a nonviolent one and no one standing nearby was hurt or threatened. While the Court acknowledged that students should have some privacy at school, they argued the school educational environment must be maintained.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. :: 469 U.S. 325 (1985) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
In this context, the prerequisite of a warrant could easily frustrate inspection. It is this portion of the New Jersey Supreme Court's reasoning -- a portion that was not necessary to its holding -- to which this Court makes its principal response. I had never thought that our pre- Gates understanding of probable cause defied either reason or common sense. Thereafter, the State brought delinquency charges against respondent in the Juvenile Court, which, after denying respondent's motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse, held that the Fourth Amendment applied to searches by school officials, but that the search in question was a reasonable one, and adjudged respondent to be a delinquent. Thus, the reasonable search for cigarettes led to some of the drug related material being discovered, which justified a search including the zippered compartments inside the bag resulting in the discovery of the cigarettes and other evidence including a small bag of marijuana and cigarette rolling papers.
Of course, this is not correct. It would be incongruous and futile to charge teachers with the task of embuing their students with an understanding of our system of constitutional democracy, while at the same time immunizing those same teachers from the need to respect constitutional protections. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Before getting into the Supreme Court's decision, it helps to understand certain aspects of search and seizure law. See post, at 337-382.
