"NEW JERSEY v. T.L.O." n.pag. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 13 Dec 201
- "Unlike police officers, school authorities have no law enforcement responsibility or indeed any obligation to be familiar with the criminal laws. Of course, as illustrated by this case, school authorities have a layman's familiarity with the types of crimes that occur frequently in our schools: the distribution and use of drugs, theft, and even violence against teachers as well as fellow students. The law recognizes a host of distinctions between the rights and duties of children and those of adults. The Court's holding is that "when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that [a] search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school," a search of the student's person or belongings is justified. . This is in accord with the Court's summary of the views of a majority of the state and federal courts that have addressed this issue." We will use this source (a writ of certiorari) to show what the court held and the reasoning for it. “Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority.” We will use statements like these found in the holding of the court to show why the administrators are able to search without a warrant.
- "Unlike police officers, school authorities have no law enforcement responsibility or indeed any obligation to be familiar with the criminal laws. Of course, as illustrated by this case, school authorities have a layman's familiarity with the types of crimes that occur frequently in our schools: the distribution and use of drugs, theft, and even violence against teachers as well as fellow students. The law recognizes a host of distinctions between the rights and duties of children and those of adults. The Court's holding is that "when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that [a] search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school," a search of the student's person or belongings is justified. . This is in accord with the Court's summary of the views of a majority of the state and federal courts that have addressed this issue." We will use this source (a writ of certiorari) to show what the court held and the reasoning for it. “Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority.” We will use statements like these found in the holding of the court to show why the administrators are able to search without a warrant.
Patrick, John J. "New Jersey v. T.L.O." Supreme Court of the United States: A Student Companion. Dec. 1 2001: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web.14 Dec 2012.
- A teacher at a New Jersey high school discovered a student smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom, which was a violation of school rules. The teacher took the student to the principal's office. The assistant principal questioned the student, who denied she had been smoking in the bathroom. The school official then demanded to see her purse. After opening it, he found cigarettes, cigarette rolling papers that are commonly associated with the use of marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, money, a list of students who owed her money, and two letters that contained evidence that she had been involved in marijuana dealings.
As a result of this search of the student's purse and the seizure of items in it, the state brought delinquency charges against the student in New Jersey Juvenile Court. The student (identified in the case only by her initials, T.L.O.) countered with a motion to suppress evidence found in her purse as a violation of her constitutional rights against unreasonable and unwarranted searches and seizures.
The Issue was: Did this violate her right of the 4th amendment? The court ruled that it did not.
Dissent Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent:
The significance of this decision indicated that the Court did not view the rights of students in a public school as equivalent to the rights of adults in a non-school setting. Police need to demonstrate "probable cause" that individuals they search have violated or are violating a law. School officials, by contrast, need to have only "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful conduct to justify a search of students in school. School authorities, in this view, may restrict the rights of students in behalf of the school's compelling educational purpose.
- A teacher at a New Jersey high school discovered a student smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom, which was a violation of school rules. The teacher took the student to the principal's office. The assistant principal questioned the student, who denied she had been smoking in the bathroom. The school official then demanded to see her purse. After opening it, he found cigarettes, cigarette rolling papers that are commonly associated with the use of marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, money, a list of students who owed her money, and two letters that contained evidence that she had been involved in marijuana dealings.
As a result of this search of the student's purse and the seizure of items in it, the state brought delinquency charges against the student in New Jersey Juvenile Court. The student (identified in the case only by her initials, T.L.O.) countered with a motion to suppress evidence found in her purse as a violation of her constitutional rights against unreasonable and unwarranted searches and seizures.
The Issue was: Did this violate her right of the 4th amendment? The court ruled that it did not.
Dissent Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent:
The significance of this decision indicated that the Court did not view the rights of students in a public school as equivalent to the rights of adults in a non-school setting. Police need to demonstrate "probable cause" that individuals they search have violated or are violating a law. School officials, by contrast, need to have only "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful conduct to justify a search of students in school. School authorities, in this view, may restrict the rights of students in behalf of the school's compelling educational purpose.
PHILIP HAGER
Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File); Jan 16, 1985;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1989)
pg. SD1
- The court tried to balance competeting interests by saying that search should not be limited if the case is to ensure school discipline. First the Court had ruled that the charges were supressed because of the lack of reasonable cause, but that was later reversed by a ruling of 6-3 in the decision that T.L.O. was guilty. The decisions were made by Chief Justices Warren E Burger, William H Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O' Connor. It was claimed that school authorities act like representatives of the state and have the right of search.
Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File); Jan 16, 1985;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1989)
pg. SD1
- The court tried to balance competeting interests by saying that search should not be limited if the case is to ensure school discipline. First the Court had ruled that the charges were supressed because of the lack of reasonable cause, but that was later reversed by a ruling of 6-3 in the decision that T.L.O. was guilty. The decisions were made by Chief Justices Warren E Burger, William H Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O' Connor. It was claimed that school authorities act like representatives of the state and have the right of search.
PHLIP HAGER
Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File); Oct 3, 1984;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1989)
pg. 13
-This article talks about the rights of students in schools and why Principles (School authorities) shouldn't be the same as the police or any officer of justice. A New Jersey Prosecutor said "Students should be given a lower standard of protection against school searches of their locker, etc. He also said that the school representatives take on the role of parents. New Jersey Deputy Police defender argued that school violations of smoking should not enable the right to search through a students belongings.
Los Angeles Times (1923-Current File); Oct 3, 1984;
ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1989)
pg. 13
-This article talks about the rights of students in schools and why Principles (School authorities) shouldn't be the same as the police or any officer of justice. A New Jersey Prosecutor said "Students should be given a lower standard of protection against school searches of their locker, etc. He also said that the school representatives take on the role of parents. New Jersey Deputy Police defender argued that school violations of smoking should not enable the right to search through a students belongings.
"NEW JERSEY v. T.L.O." n.pag. SIRS Government Reporter. Web. 13 Dec 201
- "Unlike police officers, school authorities have no law enforcement responsibility or indeed any obligation to be familiar with the criminal laws. Of course, as illustrated by this case, school authorities have a layman's familiarity with the types of crimes that occur frequently in our schools: the distribution and use of drugs, theft, and even violence against teachers as well as fellow students. The law recognizes a host of distinctions between the rights and duties of children and those of adults. The Court's holding is that "when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that [a] search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school," a search of the student's person or belongings is justified. . This is in accord with the Court's summary of the views of a majority of the state and federal courts that have addressed this issue." We will use this source (a writ of certiorari) to show what the court held and the reasoning for it. “Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority.” We will use statements like these found in the holding of the court to show why the administrators are able to search without a warrant.
- "Unlike police officers, school authorities have no law enforcement responsibility or indeed any obligation to be familiar with the criminal laws. Of course, as illustrated by this case, school authorities have a layman's familiarity with the types of crimes that occur frequently in our schools: the distribution and use of drugs, theft, and even violence against teachers as well as fellow students. The law recognizes a host of distinctions between the rights and duties of children and those of adults. The Court's holding is that "when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that [a] search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school," a search of the student's person or belongings is justified. . This is in accord with the Court's summary of the views of a majority of the state and federal courts that have addressed this issue." We will use this source (a writ of certiorari) to show what the court held and the reasoning for it. “Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority.” We will use statements like these found in the holding of the court to show why the administrators are able to search without a warrant.
These two propositions--that the Fourth Amendment applies to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the actions of public school officials are subject to the limits placed on state action by the Fourteenth Amendment--might appear sufficient to answer the suggestion that the Fourth Amendment does not proscribe unreasonable searches by school officials. On reargument, however, the State of New Jersey has argued that the history of the Fourth Amendment indicates that the Amendment was intended to regulate only searches and seizures carried out by law enforcement officers; accordingly, although public school officials are concededly state agents for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourth Amendment creates no rights enforceable against them
sirs article- The issue in this case is the 4th ammendment prohibition of unreasonable unwaranted searches and seizures applicable to officials in a public school with regard to its students. In a case like this, the court said that the student's purse was reasonable and permissible. In the dissent, it said that only beyond a reasonable suspicion
Gale Article - Drug deals can be very hard to spot. Something as simple as a handshake could be a drug deal. In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O. a young lady was caught smoking in a lavatory with her friend. She was then sent to the principals office where she denied it. In T.L.O's purse, the assistant principal found cigarette rolling papers, marijuana, plastic bags, a large sum of cash, a list of students who owe money, and two letters talking about her drug trafficing. This case was eventually taken to the Supreme Court where T.L.O argued the 4th Amendment and the Supreme Court agreed with her.
Cornell Notes- The parents of T.L.O. tried to convince the state that the search had been illegal under the fourth amendment. They pleaded that the principle did not have the right to conduct a search of her purse. The parents also argued that she had a reason to carry certain items on her person on school property. "They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds." Under the above standard, the search in this case was not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. First, the Priciple choplick found the cigarettes after T.L.O. said she didn't have them. After finding the cigarettes, the principle had sufficient reason to conduct further search.