At a high school in Piscataway, NJ two teenage girls were caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The girls reported to the assistant principal, Theodore Choplick’s, office. A freshmen in high school, T.L.O. (the student's’ initials), denied the allegations even though her friend confessed. Principal Choplick proceeded to search the purse of T.L.O. and found cigarettes. His findings prompted a deeper search into T.L.O.’s purse in which he found cigarette rolling papers, marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic baggies, a large quantity of money, and a list of individuals that owed T.L.O. money. As the evidence mounted, both T.L.O.’s mother and the police got involved. A confession to marijuana dealing by T.L.O. resulted in criminal delinquency charges in juvenile court and placing T.L.O on probation. T.L.O. was
…show more content…
THE HOLDING (i.e. DECISION)
The initial lower court ruling from Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County, N.J found no violation of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment. They sentenced T.L.O. to one year of probation.
The second lower court ruling, Appellate Division (New Jersey State Court System), also ruled no violation of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The third lower court ruling, New Jersey State Supreme Court, confirmed the decisions of the prior rulings. There were no violations of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights. However, the possession of cigarettes by T.L.O. did not violate any of the school’s rules or policies. Principal Theodore Choplick had no reason to search T.L.O.’s purse. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision by the prior courts.
The issue brought forth to the U.S. Supreme Court pertained to whether or not evidence seized by a school official, without the involvement of law officials, was permissible in juvenile delinquency hearings. The U.S. Supreme Court never reached this issue because it ruled that the search of T.L.O.’s purse was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
V. LEGAL
THE HOLDING (i.e. DECISION)
The initial lower court ruling from Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County, N.J found no violation of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment. They sentenced T.L.O. to one year of probation.
The second lower court ruling, Appellate Division (New Jersey State Court System), also ruled no violation of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights.
The third lower court ruling, New Jersey State Supreme Court, confirmed the decisions of the prior rulings. There were no violations of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights. However, the possession of cigarettes by T.L.O. did not violate any of the school’s rules or policies. Principal Theodore Choplick had no reason to search T.L.O.’s purse. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision by the prior courts.
The issue brought forth to the U.S. Supreme Court pertained to whether or not evidence seized by a school official, without the involvement of law officials, was permissible in juvenile delinquency hearings. The U.S. Supreme Court never reached this issue because it ruled that the search of T.L.O.’s purse was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
V. LEGAL