Smoking Case Solution Essay

Because of this case, Exclusionary rule was created. Exclusionary rule states that any evidence obtained through a violation of the Fourth Amendment, cannot be used in the court of law. The evidence becomes inadmissible and cannot be used against the defendant. The fourth amendment has two separate sections. One being the search, the other being the seizure. In order to get the right to search, the officers need to go to a court and get a warrant signed by the judge. Once that judge signs the warrant, the officers can go over to the defendant’s home or work and search for the evidence they think is necessary to put them in jail. When it comes to the seizure part, the officers take said items they were searching for and mark it as evidence. This evidence is booked and can later be used in the trial against the defendant.

Savana sued her school district, claiming unreasonable search and seizure, and her case went all the way to the Supreme Court(Amy E. Feldman).”School Officers claimed that Ms.Redding was holding Ibuprofen on school grounds. She was called to the office following another student who confessed that she was receiving pills from Ms.Redding. Another student’s confession is not reliable enough for a search or a seizure. The student who was called down has had previous records of drug usage, therefore the probability of her telling a lie was very high at this point.”In the case of Safford Unified School District v. Redding—25 years after the T.L.O. case—the Supreme Court found that Savana’s rights had, in fact, been violated and stated that a search by a school must not be "excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.(Amy E. Feldman).” The officers at the school claimed Ms.Reddings to be possessing IBuprofen.A probable cause would be to search her purse or backpack, which was the initial search. Nevertheless, subsequently, the school nurse checked her body from her head to her toe, till the only thing covering her, was her underwear.After finding

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?

A court first applied the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in 1914, in Weeks v. United States. In that case, the court determined that because federal officials had violated the Fourth Amendment in their search of the defendant’s domicile and their seizure of his document, the document should have been returned to the defendant and not held for introduction at his criminal trial. The Court deemed the use of the unlawfully seized evidence at trial to be a disadvantageous error, and it reversed a lower court’s decision to confirm the defendant’s conviction by benefiting him. The Court had an opportunity to rethink the exclusionary rule in 1949. In 1949, the judicial system held that the right against unreasonable searches and seizures does expand to state government officials, via the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, contrary to the holding of Weeks. Nonetheless, the Court rejected to

The Supreme Court set a precedent on school searches with the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. In that particular case, a student was observed smoking in the bathroom of the high school. The student denied smoking and upon search of her belongings by the assistant vice principal, a pack of cigarettes were found along with rolling papers. Since there is a parallel between rolling papers and marijuana, the assistant vice principal decided to further search her purse and found marijuana, empty

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.

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.

This Amicus Brief is on behalf of the Bristol School District. Suzie and her boyfriend Cyrus are both students at a high school in Bristol, Virginia. Suzie sent inappropriate photos of herself to her boyfriend, Cyrus, but shortly after that their relationship soured. Cyrus forwarded some of the photos to upperclassmen in the school. Suzie and her parents were upset with Cyrus and demanded the principal take action. The principal confronted Cyrus, but he denied the allegations. Principal Sheevers told the school security guard to frisk Cyrus for his phone, but the security guard was not able to find Cyrus’s phone. Principal Sheevers proceeded to Cyrus’s locker and opened it and found his cell phone. Principal Sheevers found the photos on Cyrus’s phone and suspended him for two weeks. Cyrus sued the school for accusing the school of violating his fourth amendment. The search of Cyrus’s cell phone by the school principal was not a violation of his

The upshot was reversal of summary judgment as to Wilson, while affirming the judgments in favor of Schwallier, the school nurse, and Romero, the administrative assistant, since they had not acted as independent decision makers. It is noted and recognized that the school setting requires some modification of the level of suspicion of illicit activity needed to justify a search, and held that for searches by school officials. The standard of reasonable suspicion has been declared on the school and the legality of a school administrator's search of a student. Cases that are on probable cause have an implicit bearing on the reliable knowledge element of reasonable suspicion, as we have attempted to flesh out the knowledge component by looking to the degree to which known facts imply prohibited conduct, the specificity of the information received. The lesser standard for school searches could as readily be described as a moderate chance of finding evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, the school's policies strictly prohibit the nonmedical use, possession, or sale of any drug on school grounds, including any prescription or over-the-counter drug, except those for which permission to use in school has been granted pursuant to board policy. The majority finds that subjective and reasonable societal expectations of personal privacy support this type of search, which it labels a strip search, as categorically distinct, requiring distinct elements of justification on the part of school authorities for going beyond a search of outer clothing and belongings., in the majority's view, although the school officials had reasonable suspicion to believe that Redding had the pills on her person, they needed some greater level of particularized suspicion to

The search of T.L.O’s purse did not violate the fourth amendment to the U.S. constitution. They don't think unlawfully seized evidence should be suppressed in juvenile court. Even though the fourth amendment provides: the right of the people to be secure and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

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 Court established from Aguliar v. Texas (1964) and Spinelli v. United States (1969), the Aguilar-Spinelli test determined whether an informants’ tips or letters could be used as probable cause to obtain a search warrant. This two pronged test established that [1] the tip had to “reveal adequately” the informant’s “basis of knowledge”, [2] the tip had to “provide facts sufficiently establishing either the veracity of the affiant’s informant, or, alternatively the ‘reliability’ of the informant’s report. The anonymous tip did not meet the Aguilar-Spinelli test which was proved not credible for two reasons. [1] The Principal received an anonymous tip that ‘one of her students’ was distributing condoms to students during lunch break which was in violation of school policy. The anonymous person did not specifically state that Bradley was the person who was distributing the condoms and also did not provide any description of the person was provided to the

Our modern world looks for ways to get out of a stressful situation, or just to put it on pause to find a way to get the stress off our shoulders. People try to find ways to just let the stress leave without fixing the problem. So they go towards a product that won't fix the problem but makes them feel better.

What if you were to live in a place where our government debts weren’t severe? What about living in a world with a cleaner atmosphere? Would you want to have excessive Carbon Dioxide and other harmful chemicals in the air? This applies to our world and many wish this could happen, but with one easy solution that is beneficial to many, it can happen. Smoking should be banned because it harms the environment, affects our body in a negative way, and is a burden to our economy.

In the year 1973, 11 years prior to my birth, my grandfather made one of the most important decisions in his life. In the cold wind of March, my grandfather stood outside of Coon Rapids Bayard High School and smoked his last cigarette. That fall my mom and her sister Eileen had made a deal with my Grandpa that if their team made it to the Iowa Girl’s State Basketball Tournament he would give up his addiction to nicotine. This addiction to nicotine had haunted him since his days as an American soldier in World War II. My mom’s team, Elk Horn-Kimbalton, was up by 19 points at halftime, and it was quite evident they would reach the destination they had worked so hard for. Next to the “victory bell” my Grandpa decided to make