NJ V. TLO Case Comparison Essay

Facts: Kyle John Kelbel was convicted of first-degree murder, past pattern of child abuse, in violation of Minnesota state statute section 609.185(5) and second-degree murder, in violation of Minnesota statute 609.19, subdivision 2(1). He was sentenced to life in prison for the death of Kailyn Marie Montgomery. Kelbel appealed, and argued that the district court failed to instruct the jury that it must find that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the acts that constituted the past pattern of child abuse and he also argued that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove past pattern of child abuse

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,

Facts of the Case: On March 17, 1980, a 14 year-old student and her classmate in Piscataway Township High School had gotten caught smoking cigarettes in the public school bathroom by a teacher. This violated the school rule. The teacher took them to Theodore Choplick, the assistant principal’s office. The assistant principal then questioned girls about smoking in the bathroom. One girl admitted to smoking. However, one female denied that they had been smoking at all. The assistant principal requested that he look into the student’s purse. He then found a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, a pipe, marijuana, substantial amounts of

Maria A. Cardona, write this opinion to support the majority opinion on the case of T.M v. State of Florida.

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, 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.

2. The Supreme Court established that a warrant isn’t necessary in school due to the fact that students aren’t under the protection of police officers but instead by the school. The court decided that a search is reasonable if a) “specific facts, together with rational inference from those facts, justified the intrusion, and b) the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying it. Also, there can be random drug testing for students in school involved in extracurricular activities, and

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. 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.

The ruling was decided at 5-4 that this did not violate the constitution. Reimbursement of the parents is only a part

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.

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

The Majority Opinion: The Fourth Amendment does apply to searches performed on students in public schools, but it would be unreasonable for a school to be required to get a warrant every time they need to perform a search. As minors, students do not have the same rights as adults. Any searched must be of a student of the school who is reasonably suspected of wrongdoing. Student must be suspected of violating the law or school rules before the search and the search must not be inappropriate for the age and sex of the person being searched. Because the search of T.L.O.’s purse was conducted on reasonable suspicion of violating the school’s rules, the search was valid. Based on these points, the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey was reversed by a vote of 6 to

The Essential Question surrounding this case is, “May school administrators search a student or their belongings absent of probable cause?”

After very nearly eight years of the Christie organization, New Jersey is prepared for a change, prepared for a representative focused on administering the Garden State, not looking for higher office. What's more, on that score, gubernatorial candidates, Lieutenant Gov. Kim Guadagno, a Republican, and previous U.S. Envoy to Germany Phil Murphy, a Democrat. Races are about decisions and both Monmouth County occupants Guadagno and Murphy are not too bad, good people. Guadagno, 58, has been a prosecutor, a province sheriff and Chris Christie's lieutenant senator. Murphy, 60, made millions at Goldman Sachs, headed a state annuity board for previous Gov. Dick Codey, filled in as a U.S. representative amid the Obama organization and has