Kevin Stursberg
Rough Draft
New Jersey v T.L.O. In 1980, in New Jersey, two young girls were found smoking in the girl’s bathroom which was a violation of school rules. Following this, the assistant principal searched one of the girl’s ( T.L.O.’s) bag to find other evidence suggesting her involvement with illegal drugs. This later went to Juvenile Court where T.L.O. believed that the search had violated her rights; on appeal the case went to the Supreme Court.(New Jersey v TLO Legal Information Institute) On January 15, 1985, The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that school officials have the right to perform unwarranted searches in schools if the student is reasonably suspected of being involved in criminal activity or if the student …show more content…
As a result of this, the two girls were taken to the principal 's office. (New Jersey v TLO Legal Information Institute) There, Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick searched T.L.O.’s bag to find a large amount of money, cigarette rolling papers (usually used with marijuana), a pipe, a small amount of marijuana, and a list of names that owed T.L.O. money. This evidence suggested that she was involved with the dealing of marijuana. ("Landmark") She was then brought up on charges from the state in Juvenile Court. When in The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey, T.L.O. tried to have the evidence that was found by her assistant principal suppressed because she believed that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant and to be supported by a probable cause. (New Jersey v TLO Legal Information Institute) The Juvenile Court however denied her request to suppress the evidence. T.L.O. was found guilty and was sentenced to one year probation. After appealing in March of 1984, The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the previous ruling which was decided on January 15,1985. (New Jersey v T.L.O. The Oyez Project) The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does apply to school officials but if there is a reasonable cause for a search, the school has the right to perform searches in order to …show more content…
The Supreme Court of The United States deemed that T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment Right had not been violated. The Court ruled that a school official may perform a search if there is reasonable suspicion that the student is involved in a crime related activity or if there is reasonable cause jeopardizing a safe learning environment for the other students. (New Jersey v TLO Legal Information Institute) However, the Supreme Court Officials did not vote unanimously on this case; there were six votes in favor of New Jersey and three votes against. In the decision written by Justice Byron White, it stated that students do not have the same rights as adults. It also stated that within a school setting, student 's rights are limited in order to maintain a safe school environment. This decision held up the previous ruling of Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District. The school tried to combat drug use within the school by bringing in drug-sniffing dogs to search the students, their lockers, and their cars. As a result, three students sued Goose Creek for violating their Fourth Amendment Right. The court ruled that it was acceptable for the school to use drug-sniffing dogs to search cars and lockers but that school officials cannot search individual students without having suspicion that the student is in possession of an inappropriate substance. ("New Jersey v T.L.O.
Rough Draft
New Jersey v T.L.O. In 1980, in New Jersey, two young girls were found smoking in the girl’s bathroom which was a violation of school rules. Following this, the assistant principal searched one of the girl’s ( T.L.O.’s) bag to find other evidence suggesting her involvement with illegal drugs. This later went to Juvenile Court where T.L.O. believed that the search had violated her rights; on appeal the case went to the Supreme Court.(New Jersey v TLO Legal Information Institute) On January 15, 1985, The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled that school officials have the right to perform unwarranted searches in schools if the student is reasonably suspected of being involved in criminal activity or if the student …show more content…
As a result of this, the two girls were taken to the principal 's office. (New Jersey v TLO Legal Information Institute) There, Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick searched T.L.O.’s bag to find a large amount of money, cigarette rolling papers (usually used with marijuana), a pipe, a small amount of marijuana, and a list of names that owed T.L.O. money. This evidence suggested that she was involved with the dealing of marijuana. ("Landmark") She was then brought up on charges from the state in Juvenile Court. When in The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey, T.L.O. tried to have the evidence that was found by her assistant principal suppressed because she believed that it violated the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches without a warrant and to be supported by a probable cause. (New Jersey v TLO Legal Information Institute) The Juvenile Court however denied her request to suppress the evidence. T.L.O. was found guilty and was sentenced to one year probation. After appealing in March of 1984, The New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the previous ruling which was decided on January 15,1985. (New Jersey v T.L.O. The Oyez Project) The Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does apply to school officials but if there is a reasonable cause for a search, the school has the right to perform searches in order to …show more content…
The Supreme Court of The United States deemed that T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment Right had not been violated. The Court ruled that a school official may perform a search if there is reasonable suspicion that the student is involved in a crime related activity or if there is reasonable cause jeopardizing a safe learning environment for the other students. (New Jersey v TLO Legal Information Institute) However, the Supreme Court Officials did not vote unanimously on this case; there were six votes in favor of New Jersey and three votes against. In the decision written by Justice Byron White, it stated that students do not have the same rights as adults. It also stated that within a school setting, student 's rights are limited in order to maintain a safe school environment. This decision held up the previous ruling of Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District. The school tried to combat drug use within the school by bringing in drug-sniffing dogs to search the students, their lockers, and their cars. As a result, three students sued Goose Creek for violating their Fourth Amendment Right. The court ruled that it was acceptable for the school to use drug-sniffing dogs to search cars and lockers but that school officials cannot search individual students without having suspicion that the student is in possession of an inappropriate substance. ("New Jersey v T.L.O.