New Jersey V. T. L. O. Case Summary

The case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding regards a 13 year old student, Savana Redding, who was accused by others of alleged drug dealing (prescription strength ibuprofen & over the counter naproxen) in school. After Redding was confronted by principal, Kerry Wilson, she denied any wrong doing and agreed to let Wilson and school administrator, Helen Romero, search her bag and outer clothing where nothing was found. Nevertheless, Redding was instructed by Wilson to the nurse’s office, and was striped searched by Romero and nurse, Peggy Schwallier. Wilson’s decision to strip search Redding was without reasonable cause (Scotusblog, 2017). The school officials clearly violated Redding’s fourth amendment right by conducting a strip

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 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

In my case overview decision, I chose New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985). This case there was a high school student who felt she was searched illegally. T.L.O. was a high school student. School officials looked through her handbag presuming she had cigarettes. The officials found cigarettes, a little measure of pot, and a paper containing the names of students who owed T.L.O. cash. T.L.O. was accused of having pot on her person in a school. Before trial, T.L.O. moved the courts to dismiss that there was evidence found when they searched her property, however the Court denied her request to remove the evidence. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County concluded that she was in possession on

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

Justice Thomas had a dissenting opinion and stated that the fourth amendment right does protect us against unreasonable search and seizures (as did most of the judges). But it is the context of were it takes place he says students have the fourth amendment right just not on school property. The reason is the responsibility the school and the officials have is to ensure the safety of the students. Thomas concurred in the

The case was argued to the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended via the Fourteenth Amendment to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools. Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, the Court decided a reasonableness test would be required. As a result, the court stated that while school officials are technically agents of the state, because of their custodial relationship with their students, the school faculty have authority to act in-loco-parentis to make sure the children they are responsible for are kept safe. The court

Should law officials and school staff members be allowed to search students. This is an important topic because many kids are having their privacy violated or getting hurt in school. A variety of arguments have been started because of this issue. This essay will consider arguments about the Fourth Amendment and the problems of people that follow and do not follow this law. Proving that searching kids can either be a good or bad.

The fourth amendment to the constitution of the United States of America protect individuals from illegal search and seizure. Nonetheless, students are protected under the fourth amendment in school; however, the standard for the courts have applied a different standard for what constitute a legal search. In New Jersey v. T.L.O the courts ruled that the, “unique need to maintain a safe learning environment requires a lessening of the restrictions normally imposed for public officials to conduct searches.” Thus, the requirement for schools to search a student is reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. There are some factors that must exist raise reasonable suspicion. For example, reasonable suspicion may include: a call from a concern

During, the court process T.L.O's motion to keep out her confession was suppressed with the evidence from the search. Her lawyer argued that the search of her purse was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. After appealing the case, the U.S Supreme Court of the United States took on the case. There were three justifications for the search One, the lower court of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County N.J ruled the, Fourth Amendment applies to searches carried out by school officials. (United States Court, 2016)There must be reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed. In other words, to believe the search must be done to enforce school rules. The court held, the Fourth Amendment was not violated. Second, Appellate Division of the New Jersey Court System, ruled there was no violation to the search. Also, Tracy Lois Odem had knowingly waived her Fifth Amendment right of self incrimination before confessing. Third, the New Jersey State Supreme Court ruled the school officials are allowed to conduct warrantless searches of students. With, the believe of reasonable grounds of illegal

This whole process has been put in place to keep citizens from having their privacy violated, but since its creation, the fourth amendment has been altered. One of the alterations deals with the reduction of public schools students’ Fourth Amendment rights while on public school campuses. This reduction has been put in place for the safety of students and school staff. Because schools are meant to be a safe place for children, school administrators are given the authority to search any student who is suspected of violating school rules with less evidence required than that of a police officer to complete a search or seizure. The administrator only requires reasonable suspicion to search a student. Reasonable suspicion requires some facts but less hard evidence than probable cause.

The Fourth Amendment defends people from being neglected by an authoritative and controlling government. Conflicting to popular belief, the right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Over the years, the courts have translated the Fourth Amendment, along with other Amendments such as the ninth, to protect privacy in many situations. In question, is there a limitation for those rights to be exercised at school? Is a student protected from unreasonable searches and seizures at school? New Jersey v. T.L.O., (1985), a case where a 14-year old girl female student caught smoking in the bathroom at school was searched at school, and the evidence collected was used by the state in her delinquency trial in juvenile court.

Such actions that may violate a student’s constitutional rights as a citizen would be an administrator or school law enforcement searching a student or their personal belongings for unjustified reasons while in school. The boundaries of the fourth amendment are very complicated when dealing with the rights of students being that the school systems have

The right of entry to education resources is more than uncomplicated admission to a college. The right to use means to provide students with the devices they will need to be victorious in higher learning. Students with a recognized disability ought to be no omission. In reality, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, “ensure that all qualified persons have equal access to education regardless of the presence of any disability.” Objective replacement, class waivers, and revision of classroom management, testing and course necessities are all illustrations of behavior to supply access for the learner with a disability. A break down to the creation of such practical adjustments can place schools in breach of federal and state statutes, ensuing expensive fines.

The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee security against unreasonable governmental searches. Because school officials are actually