T. L. O. Case Essay

What would a normal student do if their vice principal called them to the office, took their bags, and searched through them thoroughly ,without the student’s permission? This, normally, is thought of as being wrong. Americans would not normally think of this as being okay. And yet this case has been brought to the Supreme Court of America. T.L.O. may have had illegal items in her possession, but the search conducted by the school was unlawful, unreasonable, and violated two Amendments in the Constitution of the United States of America. T.L.O. suffered many charges pressed against her in the lower level courts, so she has now been brought to The Supreme Court’s attention. T.L.O. was first discovered smoking in a school lavatory along with an acquaintance by a teacher. Her accomplice admitted to smoking but T.L.O. denied it. She was brought to the principal who conducted the search and accused her of breaking the law. Upon this accusation, New Jersey state filed delinquency charges against T.L.O. in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts. Moreover, she moved to have the evidence suppressed because of violation of her Fourth Amendment rights, but the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, and still held the charges on delinquency. Then, “The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and ordered the suppression of the evidence found in respondent's purse, holding that the search of the purse was unreasonable” (“New Jersey v. T.L.O.”). The school did not agree with the State Supreme Court’s decision and now has brought it to the National Supreme Court. T.L.O.’s rights were invaded and thus this case should be decided in her favor. …show more content…
The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the clearly states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (“Fourth Amendment”). Its laws also apply to searches done by public school officials. Public school officials, such as vice principal Theodore Choplick, are not exempt from the Amendment’s dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren. On the other hand, school officials represent the State itself in carrying out searches such as this one and cannot claim the parents’ immunity from the Fourth Amendment. Vice principal Choplick not only violated T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights, but also her Fifth Amendment rights. The Fifth Amendment is distinctly written as, “no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due processes of law” (“Fifth Amendment”). T.L.O.’s constitutional rights were violated in the search conducted, and because of this breaching, she should win this case. The opposition may argue that the school had the right to search T.L.O. because she was found in the possession of marijuana. They may say that the Amendments were not violated because the search was a reasonable one and that T.L.O. was not only breaking a school rule, but also selling illegal items in school. All this may be correct, but the search itself was unreasonable. The vice principal may have found cigarettes in her bag, which was a reasonable search but, he continued to abuse T.L.O.’s privacy and search even more thoroughly. But what proof did he have that she was in fact, smoking? She