In March 1985, a school official at a High School in Middlesex County, N. J., found underage T. L. O and friend smoking in a restroom in the freshman/sophomore building of the school. Smoking is prohibited in this particular area. On the grounds that this action violated a school rule, the teacher brought the girls to the principal's office. Here they were introduced to Assistant Principal, Theodore Choplick. When questioned by Choplick T. L. O.’s co-inhabitant admitted to smoking and to breaking the school rule. T. L. O. however would not admit that she was smoking and denied she even smoked at all. Mr. Choplick, asked T. L. O. to follow him into his office where he required T. L. O to hand him her purse. When he opened the purse, he immediately noticed a pack of cigarettes. When he grabbed the cigarettes, Mr. Choplick saw some rolling papers as well. Knowing from experience that rolling papers in a high school setting, may mean drug use, and in turn additional violations of school rules, Mr. Choplick decided to continue his search. Upon further investigation, Mr Choplick’s extensive …show more content…
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
In this case two students who were female where smoking in the laboratory. When caught one of the students admitted to smoking as for the other she denied when asked to search her purse she denied so instead the vice principal still searched and found the cigarettes and rolling paper. When digging deeper he found little amounts of marijuana and a pipe zip lock bags and a card with many of
Many years ago, the United States Constitution was created as a guideline for the newly formed government to run this country as well as secure protection rights of all citizens. Since then, there have been many incidents that question the violation of citizens’ rights under the Constitution, such as the violation of the fourth amendment which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures especially in the school system and on college campuses. The fourth amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (O’Brien, 2014). As this pertains to those citizens who are students, whether it be in the primary, secondary, or post-secondary setting, the question that unveils itself is whether or not students are entitled to their constitutional rights, in this case, the fourth amendment’s rights, while in the school environment.
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.
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.
The Fourth Amendment to the constitution protects United States citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Our forefathers recognized the harm and abuses that occurred in the colonies to innocent people by the British, and they made sure to write protections into the U.S. Constitution. Fearing the police state that any nation has the potential to become and recognizing that freedom and liberty is meaningless when victimization by the police is a real and foreboding threat the Fourth Amendment was created. The Fourth Amendment has gone through many challenges and controversies in the past, and currently the issue of how the Fourth Amendment applies to students in public schools has come to be contended in the courts. While it is
“Ultimately, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the school’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was constitutional.” (Lannacci 2016). This essay will briefly examine the up till today open question that can never really be given a definite answer until applied in each case- “the applicability of the exclusionary rule in juvenile delinquency or criminal proceedings when the evidence has been seized in a school, by a school official, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” (Stoddard 2011).
In Safford Arizona school on October 8th, officials strip-searched a 13-year-old girl after they received information from another student that the girl possessed "prescription strength" 400 mg ibuprofen and 200mg naproxen. While attending math, assistant principle Kerry Wilson entered the classroom and instructed Savanna Redding's to his office. Upon entering, she immediately noticed her planner placed on his desk. However, what she didn't recognize was the knife, cigarette and lighter that was contained inside it. Admitting the planner was hers, she explained to the assistant principle that she had lent the planner prior to her classmate, Marissa and had NO knowledge of what
2. The Supreme Court established that a warrant isn’t necessary in school due to the fact that students aren’t under the protection of police officers but instead by the school. The court decided that a search is reasonable if a) “specific facts, together with rational inference from those facts, justified the intrusion, and b) the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying it. Also, there can be random drug testing for students in school involved in extracurricular activities, and
When is a search and seizure reasonable? John Vile clearly explains the origination of the Fourth Amendment and why it was created at the time of the creation of the Constitution, ¨Like the amendment that precedes it, the Fourth Amendment was largely motivated by abuses of the British when they ruled America. They had used general warrants, or so-called writs of assistance, in tracking down customs violations in the colonies. A number of states subsequently adopted provisions against such warrants, and ratifying conventions in Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina all proposed amendments dealing with the subject¨(Vile). At first, the forefathers of our country created the Fourth Amendment so that the British could not infringe on the colonists privacy. The thought of privacy within schools was not even something that was of concern at the time of the creation of the Constitution. As time has gone on, our country has made advancements that our founding fathers could never have foreseen, and has left our current government to interpret the Fourth Amendment themselves. The Fourth Amendment is detrimental when it comes to someone’s privacy, especially in a school environment. It is valuable to students and teachers alike, without it teachers and staff members would be able to search a student’s belongings without a reason or warrant. The Fourth Amendment is definitely viable in the school environment because it places regulations on what the staff in the schools can do without
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?
The courts would further recognize exceptions to warrant requirements which also granted legal authority to search and seize without a warrant. The following paper discusses the importance of the fourth amendment in regard to legal search and seizures by obtaining legal warrants and the impact the amendment has had on court cases.
T.L.O is a 14 year old female who was caught smoking by a teacher. When she was confronted by the teacher, she denied what she was doing. The teacher took her to the administration and they searched her purse. They found money,a pipe, and a paper of names who they suspected owed her money. They also suspected her of smoking marijuana.
The intent of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee security against unreasonable governmental searches. Because school officials are actually
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
1. The issue is whether public school officials have the authority to perform strip searches of students in suspicion of hiding illegal drugs.