Case Study: T. L. V. Texas

In this case two students who were female where smoking in the laboratory. When caught one of the students admitted to smoking as for the other she denied when asked to search her purse she denied so instead the vice principal still searched and found the cigarettes and rolling paper. When digging deeper he found little amounts of marijuana and a pipe zip lock bags and a card with many of

Banks, was the handling of the searches. According to Shade v. City of Farmington (2002), administrators should conduct a search first and then utilize expertise of SRO if evidence is discovered. The administration was not involved in the initial search. In both Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District (1983) and New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) the court deemed it legal to conduct drug searches for probable cause of school lockers and cars in parking lot, so the search of Truant’s belongings was justified if it had been completed by administration first. Ms. Banks should not have conducted any search. The cigarettes and lighter found in the car should be returned to Truant’s parents. Since no drugs were found during the mishandled searches, a drug test should not have been conducted. This was a violation of Truant’s rights. There were no reliable sources corroborating Truant’s use of drugs, nor did any of the searches reveal a reasonable suspicion of his drug

Unreasonable searches are to be prohibited in middle schools. Since the reasons for Redding being search was at the request of the principal. Wilson, he was the main person discussed. The nurse and secretary were acting as agents for Wilson in order to perform the search that he was unable to do because he was male. The school’s rules for the suspicions of illicit drugs were modified to adjust to how it should be handled by school officials. The reasonable standard of suspicion and probable cause has an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge of what is known and discovered. The rules of the school do strictly prohibited the use of nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on the school grounds. The majority feels that the manner in which she was searched was unjust and that it should have been more proof before they proceeded to perform a strip search of the student. The search of the backpack and outer clothes could be expected because of reasonable suspicion of concealing drugs, but the strip search was unnecessary because her clothes did not have pockets and they did not have the right or enough proof to proceed with the strip search in the manner that they did. The Court has adopted a different standard for searches involving an intrusion into the human

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,

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.

Savana sued her school district, claiming unreasonable search and seizure, and her case went all the way to the Supreme Court(Amy E. Feldman).”School Officers claimed that Ms.Redding was holding Ibuprofen on school grounds. She was called to the office following another student who confessed that she was receiving pills from Ms.Redding. Another student’s confession is not reliable enough for a search or a seizure. The student who was called down has had previous records of drug usage, therefore the probability of her telling a lie was very high at this point.”In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding—25 years after the T.L.O. case—the Supreme Court found that Savana’s rights had, in fact, been violated and stated that a search by a school must not be "excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.(Amy E. Feldman).” The officers at the school claimed Ms.Reddings to be possessing IBuprofen.A probable cause would be to search her purse or backpack, which was the initial search. Nevertheless, subsequently, the school nurse checked her body from her head to her toe, till the only thing covering her, was her underwear.After finding

A. Rule: The court case of T.L.O. also establishes a more compassionate standard of what they review as a “reasonable suspicion”, in what goes on to determine whether or not the lawfulness of the search was in the school policy or follows district policy too. To lead reasonable suspicion can sum up and equalized,when it leans toward a lessen of any chance of finding evidence of wrongful behavior in a student or individual. Of all the information Wilson acquired from the Faculty and other questionable sources from students, Marissa’s statement of the pills came from Savannah that lead was sufficient in justification of a search upon Savannah’s backpack. In addition the Savannah’s outer clothing. Savannah reasoning could be possibly was reckoning of carrying the tylenol. The disgraceful strip search and seizure that ultimately exposed her private areas to some degree.The content of this belief failed to match the degree of intrusiveness she was getting from the school. Nothing was led to suggested the amount and quantity of the drugs, could appeal to pose a real danger to any of the students or to that of Savannah in carrying pills in her underwear or in bra.School officials are allowed and can search any students belongings and lockers. They are entitled to qualified immunity where it clearly states and establishes as qualified immunity and established

Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court saying that the search did violate Savanna Fourth Amendment right because no drugs were suspected to be concealed in her bra and underwear so they had no reason . The judge felt the school officials were not liable and entitled to qualified immunity because school officials were just trying to prevent drugs distributed throughout the school.

Nodes, think that the exclusionary rule did apply to school officials to conducted searches in public schools. Per Allan J. Nodes, “the Journal of Law and Education set forth the way the exclusionary rule could work, and basically, the journal suggested that in the school situation administrators and teachers could identify people in schools who were likely to cause trouble” (New Jersey v. T.L.O, Oral Argument-March 28, 1984). In another word, the teachers can observe students in the school that were likely to get into trouble to keep the school safe. In addition, the school teacher is different than the police “who actually conduct searches” (New Jersey v. T.L.O, Oral Argument- March 28, 1984). Their interest is to ensure “that there is discipline in the schools” (New Jersey v. T.L.O, Oral Argument-March 28, 1984) and “to educate the students” (New Jersey v. T.L.O, Oral Argument- March 28, 1984), while the police’s interest is to enforce the laws (New Jersey v. T.L.O, Oral Argument- March 28, 1984). Since “the interest in law enforcement is so secondary, the benefits of the exclusionary rule in the school search situation would be even less than they are in the general criminal law situation” (New Jersey v. T.L.O, Oral Argument- March 28, 1984). Clearly, the exclusionary rule did apply to school officials to conducted searches in public

Two years later, the charge was dropped by the court, and the judge ruled that based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the police had conducted an unreasonable search of the students locker. Even though the student was guilty, the court had to drop the charge because it was violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” (Nelson Education, 2008) The Charter did an effective job in protecting the student’s legal rights even though the student was guilty.

To fully understand the role and related responsibilities of search and seizure in the public schools, the Constitutional rights of the students and case law must be examined.

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

Although the officials were acting on reasonable suspicion, and there was no reason to suspect that the prescription drugs were hidden in her underwear or presented a danger, the school was not justified in searching the student since the search was a violation of the Constitution. Additionally, T.L.O. directs school officials to limit search inappropriateness concerning the student’s sex and age as well as the nature of the infraction. As such, the inappropriateness of the search conducted in this case is unjustifiable with relation to the circumstances.

We affirm. Resolved: In United States public K-12 schools, the probable cause standard ought to apply to searches of students. If we prove that it is unsafe for students to learn in an environment where they can be subject to search at any time, we win.

Public school administrators are state actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and are subject to the constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 333-334, 341 (1985). Public school administrators are state actors for purposes of the Fourth Amendment and are subject to the constitutional prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Id. at 341. Searches by