High School Vs. New Jersey Court Case Essay

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

Facts: Safford Unified School District and April Redding, The dispute of this case is when Savannah’s privacy became violated when Safford School District stripped search her and revealed some private areas and her upper chest area. It got to the Supreme Court, when the district court reward a motion, then the Ninth circuit court reversed the ruling on the strip search because it was unconstitutional for them to strip search Savannah the second time.., The Supreme Court used New Jersey VS. T.L.O in the process of helping in the decision because in that case it was school officials searching a girls pursue because they had reasonable doubt that she was carrying cigs and had a list of the people that owed

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.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

v. New Jersey (1985) was a Supreme Court case that had determined the fate of a young fourteen-year-old girl (for whom T.L.O. was to be her name), was caught by a teacher, smoking in a school bathroom at Piscataway High School in New Jersey. She was sent to the principal’s office, where he had searched her bag and found marijuana inside. She was then arrested, and convicted of selling drugs, but she declared that they had did an illegal search and seizure of the purse. Five years later (it was 1980 when it happened), the case reached the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling, the judges had sided with the school district. Through this, it was an illegal search and seizure, but the court had taken towards the school. They said that the reason why they did was, “legitimate expectations of privacy with the equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place.” This meant that the school officials could do it, but the police couldn’t. They most likely were thinking that schools can be like the parents of children, and take away their belongings inside, and outside the

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.

New Jersey vs TLO would be big in Ohio but is nothing in New Jersey. T.L.O was caught smoking in the school bathroom with another student. She was brought to the principal's office and denied any such action. The principal searched her bag and found evidence that she was selling marijuana in school. She was brought to a juvenile court and she said that they violated the fourth amendment for searching through her stuff without a warrant. The case was brought to the New Jersey Supreme court and eventually it was decided that her fourth amendment rights were not violated.

The Supreme Court sided with Vernonia in a 6-3 decision. The majority opinion of the SCOTUS was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia. (Justices Stevens, O’Connor and Souter sided with Acton; Justices Rehnquist, Thomas, Breyer, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Scalia sided with Vernonia). Scalia argued that the 4th amendment protects citizens against police probing their homes/properties with unjustified reasons. Scalia says that the prevention of drug use was a justified reason for random drug tests. Scalia also pointed out that the amendment usually covers police intruding into someone’s home without a warrant. He says that students are in the temporary custody of the school, and it is the school’s responsibility for them. He argued that public schools

Prior to the landmark ruling by the United States Supreme Court, New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985), the clarity on how search and seizures applied to students in public schools were unclear. A particular case from 1969 can shed some light regarding on how the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution defines student rights in public schools. In Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503, 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d 731 (1969), the court found that: