New Jersey Vs Tlo Case Study

There are lots of different situations where students of a public school are deprived of their right of free expression given in the fourth amendment. One example of this is the case of Engel vs Vitale. This court case took place in 1962 when a parent of a child sued because of a New York State law that required students to recite a nondenominational prayer every morning, "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country”. This law goes against the Establishment of Religion clause of the fourth amendment. Another violation of The Bill of Rights is the Tinker v. Des Moines case. This case took place in 1969 when two students, MaryBeth Tinker, and her brother wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. However, the result of this action, according to the article, Supreme Court Landmarks from the United States Courts, “ Fearing a disruption, the

There are two cases that are being compared; New Jersey v. T.L.O. and Safford v. Redding. The rulings in both of these cases were just. In the case New Jersey v. T.L.O. the defendant (T.L.O.) was found guilty for smoking cigarettes and for possessing drug paraphernalia in her purse. In court, her lawyer argued that the way that her purse was searched, was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Since she was a delinquent and her rights were not, in fact, violated, she was sentenced to probation for one year. In the Safford v. Redding case the defendant was strip-searched for ibuprofen by her school officials, which was a violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. She was proven innocent from her charges and in turn, she filed suit against her school district and the school officials involved in the case. Redding claimed that her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. Both cases have a few things in common as well as many differences.

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

I stand before you, in this court, to try and sway the majority decision regarding Safford United School District v. Redding (June 5, 2009). With agreeance of Justice Clarence Thomas, the act of searching Ms. Redding for drugs that violated the school’s policy, was not a direct violation of her fourth amendment right. It is no secret that maintaining order in any school environment can be a challenging task. It is more evident in today’s society school officials must take an even more proactive stance, when it does come down to maintaining order. With the recent surge of violent crimes and drug abuse that plague our schools, officials should have the right to try to prevent these actions from perpetuating into an epidemic.

In two Supreme Court cases and one Court of Appeals case, the Fourth Amendment’s clause on searches and seizures has been questioned in a public school setting. These cases are based on the question of what constitutes a reasonable search in a public school, as well as, what is defined as a search and how far that search and seizure can go. These cases collectively examine the exclusionary rule, the change from probable cause to reasonable suspicion, what constitutes a search and how far that search can go. In a public school setting, students rights to be free from searches and seizures differ from others, as shown in TLO v. New Jersey, Vernonia v. Acton, and Doe v. Renfrow.

Procedural History: Savana’s mother filed suit against Safford Unified School District #1, Wilson, Romero, Schwallier for conducting a strip search in violation of Savana’s Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court for the District of Arizona granted the motion on ground that there was no fourth violation, and a panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed. A closely divided Circuit sitting en banc, however, reversed. The ninth circuit held that the strip search was unjustified under the Fourth Amendment test for searches of children by school officials set out in New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Regardless of the possibility of students having illicit substances on campus, the 4th Amendment should apply to students because students could have embarrassing items in their bag. If a student was coming in from being off campus, they could have their bag searched by an adult in the school if they suspected they were carrying illegal items. However, if the student had personal items in their backpack and were embarrassed about them in any way, having a person dig through their bag to look for illicit substances that they would most likely not possess in the first place would cause the student mental strain and a possible loss of trust in the adult carrying out the search and others in the school that didn’t challenge the validity of the search. In the court case of Safford Unified School District, the administrators of Safford Middle School strip searched a thirteen year old girl. The administrators were informed that she was in the possession of prescription strength ibuprofen and had given some to another student. The school was not provided a specific time or location that this had occurred. They had no evidence besides the word of another student that she possessed the pills, and therefore the search was unreasonable. More importantly, there was no reason for the school authorities to strip search a thirteen year old girl and cause her and her mother emotional trauma, especially not for alleged non-specific possession of an amount of ibuprofen equivalent to two Advil

In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. a young girl, T.L.O., had her purse searched, suspected of having cigarettes in her purse. The school officials of Piscataway High School uncovered cigarettes, miniature quantity of marijuana, and a list for students who owe her money. T.L.O. was now imposed charge of possession of marijuana. T.L.O. was not content and moved to terminate evidence discovered in the search, but was however contradicted her motion. She was sentenced to probation for one year, after confirmed guilty from the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division proclaimed the contradiction of the process to terminate evidence. Holding that the exclusionary rule of the fourth amendment involves the search and seizures regulated by the school officials in public schools, the New Jersey Supreme Court interchanged.

New Jersey v. TLO was an example of the 4th amendment being broken.After having suspicion and reason to search for cigarettes the principal found marijuana. This breaks the fourth amendment because if something is suspected any other evidence found on the person is

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

T.L.O. case “...school officials do not have to meet the same standards as police officers when conducting searches” (New Jersey v. T.L.O.). The T.L.O. case was just one of the cases concerning schools and there were many others, including the Safford Unified School District v. Redding case. This case specifically concerned searching for drugs in schools. The Court ruled in this case, “...no indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity or any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying these pills in her underwear. Given these deficiencies, we conclude that the search was unreasonable. T.L.O. directed school officials to limit the intrusiveness of a search in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction” (Safford Unified School District v. Redding). Basically, if there is no disturbance in the school day, then there should be a search procedure with a warrant. However, if there is a disturbance in the school day, the school should not be required to get a search

The 4th Amendment protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. In contrast, although public school officials are representatives of the state, in order to maintain a learning atmosphere, school officials are not subject to warrant when there is reasonable suspicion of violation.

It is clear that individuals that don’t understand the law to its full degree are the usual victims to the ones that know the ins and outs of the law. This case was based on the notion of search and seizure, also it concerns with when does officials have the right to search students. For us to understand and analyze this segment of the law, we must first understand what is Search and Seizure. It is in which police or other authorities and their agents have suspicion that a crime has been committed, with this information they conduct a search to seize any items that can be used for evidence. Fortunately for average citizens, police can’t randomly search individuals without either probable cause or obtain a search warrant before engaging in any forms of search and seizure. For police officers or other officials, they must abide by this rule and play fair because In cases where evidence is seized in a search, that evidence might be rejected by court procedures, such as with a motion to suppress the evidence under the exclusionary

Public high school students have the First Amendment right of free expression and the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches while they’re at school. These protections extend a student’s social media and to the digital contents of their cell phones. At the same time, public high schools have special characteristics associated with their duty to educate students and provide a safe and orderly place conducive to learning and so students accept greater restrictions of their constitutional rights while in school. At issue with respect to Rocktown High School’s 2016 AP History class is whether the school’s “search” of history student’s social media “friends,” obtained under threat of suspension, was reasonable, whether the

The court determined that Mr. Choplick did not need to secure a warrant because he had enough evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, T. L. O ’s initial violation in the school bathroom gave Mr. Choplick the suspicion of further wrong doing, and in turn allowed him to search T. L. O ’s belongings. In an effort to combat further school violations, Mr, Choplick was able to legally search T. L.O.’s purse for any other cause of disruption. Although the court agreed that the Fourth Amendment pertains to school administrators actions, it was decided that Mr. Choplick’s actions did not breach the Fourth