Analyzing The Impact Of New Jersey V.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. was an important case concerning the rights of the accused and had to do with the exclusionary rule. This case furthered the knowledge of the exclusionary rule that is mentioned in the Fourth Amendment. It was decided that the exclusionary rule applies to searches and seizures that occur at school by the officials.

T.L.O. and The New Jersey State School system.T.L.O.was found in the lavatory smoking by a teacher and was brought to the Vice Principal's office. The vice principal searched her purse and found illegal substances and turned them into the legal authority after contacting them and her mother. The student claimed that it goes against the fourth amendment because it was an illegal search and seizure. Their dispute was whether the school had the right to search and take illegal substances found when they do search the students.The case got to the supreme court by appeals through the lower court systems because it dealt with the interpretation of the fourth amendment.

In the case of New Jersey v T.L.O a high school student was suspected of trying to hide cigarettes in her bag. An official searched the bag and found cigarettes,marijuana, and a list of names of students who owed T.L.O. money, she argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches was violated. She was then charged with possession of marijuana and sentenced to one year of probation. Before trial, T.L.O. wanted to suppress the evidence discovered in the search, but the Court denied her motion. The supreme court said school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because students already have a reduced expectation of privacy when in

T.L.O. case “...school officials do not have to meet the same standards as police officers when conducting searches” (New Jersey v. T.L.O.). The T.L.O. case was just one of the cases concerning schools and there were many others, including the Safford Unified School District v. Redding case. This case specifically concerned searching for drugs in schools. The Court ruled in this case, “...no indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity or any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying these pills in her underwear. Given these deficiencies, we conclude that the search was unreasonable. T.L.O. directed school officials to limit the intrusiveness of a search in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding). Basically, if there is no disturbance in the school day, then there should be a search procedure with a warrant. However, if there is a disturbance in the school day, the school should not be required to get a search

The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O was a resultant case of a search conducted by the then assistant vice principal- Theodore Choplick at Piscataway township high school with two freshmen girls -T.L.O inclusive, after a teacher had caught them smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The first girl had admitted to the offense, however, T.L.O denied this. This prompted Theodore to demand to search her purse where he found implicating evidence. In short, she was expelled and fined for 1000 USD. This led to a court case with an intent on proving that the school had violated the Fourth Amendment since the school was a Governmental organization. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,

The State Supreme Court overturned the decision, stated that TLO's fourth amendment rights have been violated. The state of New Jersey asked that the supreme court hear it's appeal. Questions are, do students in school have the same rights under the fourth amendment as adults. Does "probable cause" have to be established for the search of a student in school or is "reasonable cause" enough?

New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.

Introduction Of Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) is a court case heard and ruled on by the Supreme Court of the United States. The case dealt with the constitutionality of the search of a public school student after she had gotten caught smoking in a public school bathroom. The search provided evidence of drug paraphernalia, marijuana, and the intent of sale of drugs. The student fought the charges, stating that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3, that the search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act was passed to promote equal access to federally funded programs for people with disabilities. It was focused on nondiscrimination in the programs or activities that receive federal funding. A person would be defined as disabled if they have physical or mental impairment, has a record of the impairment, and is regarded as having the impairment. Section 504 is used for students who do not qualify for special education and is most frequently used for students with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and AIDS. To be eligible under Section 504 the child must undergo an evaluation with assessment tools that will accurately demonstrate the child’s specific area of educational need.

Section 504 and the ADA directly impact schools on several levels. First, all educational programs must be available to the qualifying individuals. Each eligible student who is classified as a 504 student must be offered regular or special education with the needed

Must be “based on the individual needs of the students and not on a disability category.”

The Supreme Court set a precedent on school searches with the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. In that particular case, a student was observed smoking in the bathroom of the high school. The student denied smoking and upon search of her belongings by the assistant vice principal, a pack of cigarettes were found along with rolling papers. Since there is a parallel between rolling papers and marijuana, the assistant vice principal decided to further search her purse and found marijuana, empty

In 1991 the Public Law 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This law was passed to provide free and appropriate public education to every child with a disability. It requires that each child with a disability “have access to the program best suited to that child’s special needs which is as close as possible to a normal child’s educational program” (Martin, 1978). The Individualized education program (IEP) was developed to help provide a written record of students’ needs and procedures for each child that receives special education services. The IEP will list all the services to be provided, the student's performance level, academic performance, and

The right of entry to education resources is more than uncomplicated admission to a college. The right to use means to provide students with the devices they will need to be victorious in higher learning. Students with a recognized disability ought to be no omission. In reality, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, “ensure that all qualified persons have equal access to education regardless of the presence of any disability.” Objective replacement, class waivers, and revision of classroom management, testing and course necessities are all illustrations of behavior to supply access for the learner with a disability. A break down to the creation of such practical adjustments can place schools in breach of federal and state statutes, ensuing expensive fines.

A second law dealing with special needs students is section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This act requires that schools, which receive federal funding, provide equal education to all handicapped children in the schools jurisdiction (W.E.A.C, 2001). This act also requires that handicapped children be educated with other children who are not handicapped to the maximum extent (W.E.A.C, 2001). This requirement clearly points to inclusion as the best option available for handicapped students, in the opinion of the federal government. Section 504 has helped handicapped people in other areas as well. The act requires that public buildings make architectural changes to increase accessibility for those with special needs (Choate, 1997). This part of the act was important because it put an end to school?s using the structure of the school building as an excuse for providing an unequal education to those children who were handicapped or disabled.