New Jersey Law Case Study

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 State v. Ellis, Central State University RA discovered marijuana in the defendant’s dorm room while they were conducting an authorized, unannounced safety inspection. Campus police officers were then 19 notified and went to the room.While the campus police did not participate in the search, they were present in the room at the resident assistants’ invitation. The Ellis court concluded that the seizure of the marijuana was unconstitutional. It found that while the resident assistants’ search was authorized under the university’s policies and procedures, the later police entry into the room was unlawful because it was made without a warrant, consent, or exigent circumstances. This case would be beneficial to Deary Jones because it

Please give the facts and significance of the two cases, mentioned on your weekly page, involving school searches: NJ v. TLO and Redding v. Safford School District. What is the difference between searches conducted in schools and those conducted in public? NJ v. TLO case was about a female who was caught smoking in her school bathroom. When she was searched money was found on her and list of people who owed her money and weed. In another case Redding v. Safford School District, “Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding,

A major problem that many representative democracies had, and still have, is securing minorities rights within a system ruled by the majority of that country. This is when the term modern pluralism comes into light. Modern pluralism is the idea that having a large number of parties within a government will create more power in the system, which ensures that not a single group will contain total control.

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

The state does not have sufficient support to suspend the licenses of Mr. Jones and Mr. Roberts.

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,

What the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot compel a government employee to self-criminate themselves. What the court also ruled was, the police department had no right to terminate those individuals who decided to use their fifth amendment right (Justia, 2016). The court had asserted that “the option to lose their means of livelihood or pay the penalty of self-incrimination is the antithesis of free choice to speak or to remain silent. (Taylor, 2009). With this being the main concern to the court the courts decided not to reach the question on deeming the voluntariness of the statements as the only issues that was presented. Garrity v. New Jersey was based upon if the officers of his or her own free choice to admit,

In Texas, the therapist owes no duty to warn individuals who are under possible threat, but I strongly believe that there are terrible consequences if under the Texas Constitutions denies the duty to warn. In my personal opinion, the Tarasoff’s Law should be applied to all states because if a patient clearly presents behavioral intentions to hurt an individual, the therapist must inform the possible victim and the law enforcement. I believe that when an individual seeks for help, the therapist might detect signs of threat against others and like the Tarasoff’s case or the Peck case, the individuals states his intentions to damage a person, property or even to third party individuals. The therapist must be allow to “break the patient-client

To be honest, the majority of the topics or cases discuss in the course were interesting in their right. They touched on all aspects in criminal justice,but in a more thought provoking manner. Our first discussion post on the flexibility and stability of the Constitution helped me further understand the goals of the constitution. I have not had the opportunity to study the law from that perspective since my undergraduate studies ten years ago. Unit three’s discussion involved Wisconsin v. Mitchell and Apprendi v. New Jersey. This was a favorite as well. This case viewed racism and bigotry from both sides. Those cases express that hate does not have one particular color. I will continue to agree that Mitchell’s right was not violated (Wisconsin v. Mitchell,1993). When there is proof that the intentions of a criminal are racially motive, there should, in fact, be harsher penalties. For instance, in Apprendi v. New Jersey, where the preponderance of evidence proved that Charles Apprendi crime was to intimidate the African American family that moved into the neighborhood (Apprendi v. New Jersey, 2000). To create a positive shift in the society, we as a

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.

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

This paper discusses the duty to warn and protect in counseling with a high focus with the laws in Ohio. It focused on the laws in dealing with the mentally ill and violent clients and how the Tarasoff legislation effected the laws in Ohio and how therapists handle these cases. Realizing violence is not something that can be predicted with perfection, there are tools that a therapist should follow to make sure they stay within compliance and maintain ethical standards to avoid possible legal ramifications. Through special relationship and good faith, the counselor will try to find ways of ensuring that the client and any named party is warned of potential danger.

The ethical dilemma I wish to explore is The Duty to Warn. This refers to the duty of a counselor, therapist to breach one of the most important bonds between a client and a therapist; the law of confidentiality. The therapist has the right to break confidentiality without the fear of being brought up for legal action. If the therapist believes that the client poses a danger, or is a threat to himself, someone else, or society as a whole, the therapist must decide how serious of a threat the client may be, then if he decides it’s a serious issue, he must notify the person in danger, which would e the third party, or the police, or other people who may be in the

The duty to warn and protect is the result of the Supreme Court case Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California. (Gehring 1982) In this case the courts decided that a psychotherapist having knowledge of the