Impact of Court Decisions New Jersey v. T.L.O In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O., the student’s purse was searched after the principal had reasonable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse since she was caught smoking in the bathroom. The court decision in this case concluded that teachers are acting as agents for the state and are therefore allowed to search if they have reasonable suspicion. Students do have the Fourth Amendment right as all people in America have. However, student’s expectation of privacy has to be balanced with the needs of the school to maintain the educational environment. Schools do not have to obtain a warrant to search, but must have reasonable suspicion in order to search a student’s person or property.
New Jersey v. T. L. O. Maggie Anderson EDL 606 Judicial and Ethical Considerations April 25, 2015 William Carey University New Jersey v. T. L. O. 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.
Weingarten and Garrity Rights Two important legal cases have given employees specific rights during investigatory interviews. The case, NLRB v. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975), gave rise to employees’ Weingarten rights: Employees that face disciplinary action, or questioned about matters that could lead to disciplinary actions against them are entitled to their Weingarten rights. In the case Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, decided by the United States Supreme Court, the Garrity Rule was established. The Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to order police officers to answer questions under threat of losing their jobs, and then to use the answers to incriminate them. These two rights are important for employees to know
Legal Research According to New Jersey v. T.L.O Supreme Court Case (1999), a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey discovered two 14-year-old freshmen smoking in a lavatory on March 7, 1980. Since smoking in the lavatory was a violation of a school rule, the teacher took the two girls to the Principal’s office, where they met with Theodore Choplick, the Assistant Vice Principal. During questioning, one girl admitted that has had violated the school rule, while the other girl, T.L.O, denied she smoked at all, much less that she had been smoking in the lavatory. Becoming suspicious, Mr. Choplick asked T.L.O to come into his office and to see her purse. Upon opening the purse, Mr. Choplick found a pack of cigarettes. When he went to grab for the cigarettes he noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers. Suspecting evidence of drug use could be found in the purse, Mr. Choplick proceeded to look through the purse. The searched discovered a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty
Cantwell v. Connecticut Facts: Newton Cantwell, along with his two sons, are arrested and convicted for soliciting money without a license. The three were soliciting money to benefit their faith (Jehovah’s Witnesses). Under Connecticut law, soliciting for money, no matter the purpose, requires a state issued license. Whether someone obtains a license is under the purview of the secretary of the Public Welfare Council. The criteria for an approved license is “whether ‘the cause is a religious one’ or one of a ‘bona fide object of charity.’”
The Fourth Amendment to the constitution protects United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Our forefathers recognized the harm and abuses that occurred in the colonies to innocent people by the British, and they made sure to write protections into the U.S. Constitution. Fearing the police state that
Gonzalez v. Reno, 86 Fla. Supp.2d 1167 (Fla. 2000). FACTS: On November 25, 1999, The Coast Guard rescued 5 year old Elian Gonzalez from the Atlantic Ocean. Elian was found on an inner tube clinging to life with dehydration and hypothermia. His mother, Elisabeth Brotons, along with several others drowned on their trip from Cuba. The INS placed Plaintiff with his uncle, Lazaro Gonzalez, who lives in Miami, Florida. On November 27, 1999, Plaintiff's father, Juan Gonzalez, sent a letter to the Cuban government requesting that his son be in Cuba. The letter stated that the Plaintiff was taken out of Cuba without his father’s consent. On November 29, 1999, Lazaro Gonzalez signed and submitted an application for asylum to the INS on behalf of Elian. Shortly after, another application was submitted with Elian’s signature.
Florida v. Harris 568 U.S. 2012 (2013) Procedural History: The trial court denied Harris’s motion to suppress evidence that was found when Officer Wheetley performed a search, and the court found that Wheetley had probable cause to search Harris’s vehicle. The defendant entered a not guilty plea and appealed to the intermediate state court. The intermediate state court affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Florida Supreme Court reversed the decision stating that Wheetley lacked probable cause. When the case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court, they rejected and reversed the decision that the Florida Supreme court made, and they upheld the decision of the trial court.
Regents of California v Bakke (1978) Question: Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?
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,
Supreme Court Case New Jersey v. T.L.O 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
In the court case Worcester v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1832 that the Cherokee Indians and Samuel Worcester created a nation holding distinct sovereign powers. This decision did not protect the Cherokees from being removed from their tribal birthplace in the Southeast.
In the case of Sibron versus New York was an important case for the United States Constitution. Law enforcement officer, Anthony Martinez, observed Nelson Sibron for several hours, while talking to several narcotics addicts. Officer Anthony Martinez told Sibron that he is after one thing and then Sibron reach into his pocket, which he pulled out several heroin envelopes. Sibron was arrested and charged for drug trafficking. Sibron stated that his constitutional rights was violated, when he was stop and frisk search for no probable cause. The Criminal Court of New York City denied Sibron’s motion, but Sibron appealed to the court decision. The United States Supreme Court review Sibron’s case along with Peters versus New York. John Peters was
1. To start with, Santobello v. New York states that the analysis does not focus on the harmlessness of the breach of a plea agreement. In this case, the original prosecutor agreed not to make any sentencing recommendations in the plea agreement, but the new prosecutor recommended the maximum sentence.
In this week’s readings it is explained that the Supreme Court has addressed questions as it relates to the Fifth (5th) Amendment of police officers (Peak, Gaines, & Glenson, 2009, p. 249). Employees are expected to cooperate fully with departmental investigations. Employees shall not knowingly interfere, in any way, with an investigation. In addition these types of investigations are for non-criminal violations or for violations that may be criminal which should be decided upon by the department per Garrity of which type of investigation to undertake. Garrity basically held that compelled statements couldn’t be used in criminal proceeding against the employee. So if the employee is ordered to respond to questions, which are narrowly and