Justice White's Argumentative Analysis

Concurrence Despite agreeing with Justice White’s opinion, Justice Powell, joined by Justice O’Connor, and Justice Blackmun wrote concurring opinions. Justice Powell believed that Justice White should have spent more time discussing the fact that students should not have the same constitutional protections as individuals in non-school settings. Justice Powell noted that, “It is simply unrealistic to think that students have the same subjective expectation of privacy as the population generally.” Because of the special environment in which school officials must constantly protect students from threats to students and teachers, Justice Powell felt that it was “unreasonable and at odds with history” to afford students the same constitutional protections as other individuals outside of schools. Justice Blackmun, on the other hand, emphasized his approval of the reasonable suspicion …show more content…
Justice Stevens agreed with the other Justices that school officials do not need a warrant in order to conduct a search. However, Justice Stevens disagreed with the Court establishing the reasonable suspicion standard. Justice Stevens noted, “I believe the nature of the suspected infraction is a matter of first importance in deciding whether any invasion of privacy is permissible.” Justice Stevens believed that conduct should be “unlawful” or at the very least “significantly disruptive” in order to provoke a search such as the one Choplick performed on T.L.O. In his dissent, Justice Stevens explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in this case would communicate to school officials that they may “search students suspected of violating only the most trivial school regulations and guidelines for behavior.” Justice Stevens worried that with the reasonable suspicion standard in place, the Court allowed for school officials to abuse their