New Jersey Vs Tlo Overstreet Case Study

T.L.O, (1999), the cases of Terry v. Ohio, Hudson v. Palmer, and Rawlings v. Kentucky examined that a search of a person is an invasion of privacy especially when searches are conduced on closed items. However, the Fourth Amendment commands that searches and seizures be reasonable, and what is reasonable depends on the situation in which the search takes place. Regardless of the child’s privacy, it is the administrators and teachers jobs to maintain discipline within schools. Several cases such as, Terry v. Ohio, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, Delaware v. Prouse, United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, and Camara v. Municipal Court, that recognized the legality of searches and seizures based on reasonable suspicion and not probable cause. Therefore, the Court decided that the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness of the search and “justified at its inception” (“New Jersey v. T.L.O,”

There has been an argument among legal experts that the provisions of the exclusionary rule are merely to deter the misconduct of the law enforcement personnel. In light of this, most courts do not adhere to the provisions of the exclusionary rule as it is viewed as an extension of the Fourth Amendment. Ideally, Police officers deem the law as an obstacle on their endeavors to

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,

If the trial judge did not exclude the evidence from the trial, then the Supreme Court must overturn the conviction. In some cases, the accused will be retried without the use of the illegally obtained evidence. In other cases, there will not be a retrial because the illegally obtained evidence was the basis of the prosecution's case. The story of the birth and evolution of the exclusionary rule is complex and demonstrates the unique problems the Supreme Court has had to face when interpreting the Fourth Amendment."

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.

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.

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

The Exclusionary Rule is a law passed by the United States Supreme Court. It demands that “any evidence obtained by police using methods that violate a person’s constitutional rights be excluded

This case mainly deals with the interpretation of our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects us from unlawful search and seizures. What we can learn from this case are: the differences in court systems, the elements that comprise the Fourth Amendment, and the controversies surrounding it. The text relevant to this case can be found within the first six chapters of our textbook, with an emphasis on Chapter 6 “Criminal Law and Business”.

which stated that when the accused is being tried in a state court, he or she does not have the protection of the exclusionary rule, which protects against illegal search

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

In order for the rights listed in the Constitution to have substance, there must be enforceable remedies imposed on the government for violations of those rights. In 1914, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Weeks v. United States,2 introduced the exclusionary rule as a remedy for violations of the Fourth Amendment.3 The Weeks Court felt that the only effective way to enforce the Fourth Amendment right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures was to adopt a rule that evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment could not be used by the government against a defendant at trial. The Weeks Court further stated that a court should not sanction illegal government conduct by admitting into evidence the fruits of

The exclusionary rule is an important doctrine supporting the ideals of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment provides people under the jurisdiction of the American criminal justice system protections from unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment also delineates the methods members of the criminal justice system may obtain information via judicially sanctioned search warrants based on probable cause. The exclusionary rule exempts some evidence even when the seizure or location of the evidence may violate the Fourth Amendment. The rule also provides some benefits and

Mapp v. Ohio was a historical case in which the United States Supreme Court declared that all evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, could not be held against you in court ("Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court," 2015). The exclusionary rule and selective incorporation were applied to this case. The ?exclusionary rule? which prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution along with selective incorporation which is how the rights out lined in the Constitution apply to the states and the courts must acknowledge these rights. (The Definition of Selective Incorporation, 2015). This case was also significant due to the fact that the decision would open up the court to a number of difficult cases concerning how to apply the exclusionary rule.

According to (Maclin, 2012), to achieve the credibility of the rights enlisted in the United States Constitution, there should be an enforceable rule imposed on the authorities/government for violations of the listed rights. Following the Weeks Vs U.S, the court deemed it necessary to have a rule that safeguards unreasonable searches and seizures. Evidence gathered from unlawful searches and seizures were in violation of the 4th amendment and therefore should not be admitted in a court of law. In its decision, the Week's court went forth to state that a court may not ratify illegal government action through the admission of evidence, regarded as the fruits of the poisonous tree. Initially, the exclusionary rule was inapplicable to states but