New Jersey Vs Tlo Case Study

784 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Juvenile court case studies

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Citation New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 U.S. 325 105 S. Ct. 733; 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083 Facts A teacher at a New Jersey high school, found the respondent, T.L.O. a 14-year-old freshman, and another student smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom. As this was a violation of school rules, the teacher brought the two students to the Principal's office. The Assistant Vice Principal then questioned the respondent and she denied she was smoking in the bathroom and claimed that she did not smoke at all. The Assistant Vice Principal then asked to see her purse. When he opened her purse, the Assistant Vice Principal found a package of cigarettes and rolling papers that are typically used for smoking …show more content…

• Does the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures apply to searches conducted by public school officials? Rulings The State of New Jersey charged the respondent in Juvenile Court with delinquency. The respondent motioned to suppress the evidence in her pursue. The Juvenile Court denied her motion because the Fourth Amendment permits searches by school official, due to reasonably specific suspicion. The respondent was found to be delinquent by the Juvenile Court. The respondent appealed the Juvenile Court decision to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court. The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court’s decision that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, but dismissed the delinquency verdict and incarcerated the respondent on other grounds. The respondent appealed the Appellate Division verdict to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The New Jersey Supreme court overturned the Appellate Division decision and ordered the evidence discovered in the respondents pursue to be suppressed because the respondents Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by an unwarranted search and seizure by the Assistant Vice

Show More
Related

  • Morale Vs Grigel Case Study

    248 Words  | 1 Pages

    In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's

    Read More

  • Vernonia School District V. Acton (1996)

    1761 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... is one that a reasonable guardian and tutor might undertake.” And he concluded that given the mission of public schools, and the circumstances of this case, the searches required by the school board's policy were “reasonable” and thereby permissible under the Constitution's 4th Amendment.

    Read More

  • Gregory Lee Johnson Case Study

    894 Words  | 2 Pages

    The respondent appealed with the Dallas Court of Appeals, Fifth Supreme Judicial District, 706 S.W.2d 120 (1986), Judge Vance affirmed the conviction, and a rehearing was denied.

    Read More

  • New Jersey Vs. T.L.O.

    311 Words  | 1 Pages

    Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining       legality of searches conducted by public school officials.

    Read More

  • Vernonia School District V. Acton

    1088 Words  | 3 Pages

    The Supreme Court had to decide on the question of, does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? According to the Fourth Amendment, "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.

    Read More

  • Safford V. Redding Case

    2358 Words  | 5 Pages

    Keller High School principal, Jeff Bradley states, “’We want to take every precaution to keep drugs out’” (Engelland par 5). Bradley sent out letters to the parents of students of Keller informing them of the searches by drug dog. The dogs will search student’s lockers, parking lots, and the classrooms (Engelland par. 6-8). In another article, Mark Walsh addresses the impact that drug dogs have had on schools. He tells how under Florida’s Fourth Amendment understanding, police officers would be free to walk by a car or a student for example and instruct the dog to begin searching (Walsh 21). Walsh tells of how other cases involving dogs will affect schools because if it is permissible for a dog to walk up and sniff anyone that passes by this point in time police will be continually searching without a warrant. This would be a blatant disregard for the amendment against unwarranted searches and seizures (21-2). If this were to continue, dogs could eventually maintain a steady presence in schools, and this would impact schools significantly due to the fact that the police would not be required to leave. Police already hold a high presence, and drug dogs would highly increase police authority

    Read More

  • United States v. Nixon

    367 Words  | 1 Pages

    3. The court stated: "We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

    Read More

  • Entick Vs Semayne's Case Summary

    575 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the case, Utah v. Strieff, The Salt lake police got an anonymous tip of a house with drug activity. They sent an officer to monitor the house and the officer became suspicious due to the fact that many people were going in and out of the house. Edward Strieff was saw leaving the house and the officer stopped him at a convenience store. The officer asked him for his I.D., and arrested Streff because he had a “small trafficking warrant.” When the officer arrested him, they searched Strieff and found drugs in his pocket. The state of Utah agreed that this stop was illegal because it was based on only the officer's suspicion. The state also argued that the discovery of the valid warrant got around the fourth amendment. “This case allows the police to stop you on the street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic warrants — even if you are doing nothing wrong”, said Justice Sonia

    Read More

  • Exclusionary Rule: How, When, and Why Was it Established?

    966 Words  | 2 Pages

    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 from use in a criminal prosecution against that person” (Ferdico, Fradella, and Totten, 2009). Before this rule, under common law, evidence was acknowledged in court as long as it satisfied evidentiary criteria for admissibility such as relevance and trustworthiness. Any evidence meeting these principles was admitted because it was considered to be helping to achieve justice. Under common law, evidence that was attained by illegal searches and seizures was allowed (Tinsley & Kinsella, 2003). During this period, the protections of the Fourth Amendment were unfilled words to persons condemned until 1914 in the case of Weeks v. United States.

    Read More

  • Newsome V. Mccabe: Case Study

    324 Words  | 1 Pages

    Elijah manuel was sitting in the passenger seat of a car when he gets pulled over. The officer smelt marijuana, so he dragged him out of the car and patted him down. He found a bottle of pills, tested it, and falsified the results to show the pills were ecstasy. They were later tested again and proven not to be ecstasy. Charges were then dropped and Manuel sues the city of joliet and the city police officers. His malicious prosecution claim was dismissed under Newsome v. McCabe which held that that federal claims of malicious prosecution steam from the right to due process and are not a Fourth Amendment issue. So the question presented to the court was whether or not an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search

    Read More

  • Dr. Ortega Case Study

    289 Words  | 1 Pages

    In 1981, an official at a hospital, suspected improprieties by Dr. Ortega’s in his management of a residency program. Hospital officials conducted an investigation, which involved numerous searches of his office and the seizure of a several of items as evidence. The evidence was later used at California State Personnel Board proceedings, to impeach the credibility of witnesses that testified on behalf of Dr. Ortega's. Dr. Ortega later filed suit in federal court alleging that the search conducted by hospital officials violated the Fourth Amendment. The district court made a summary judgment, and ruled the search was proper. Dr. Ortega appealed, to the circuit court; it ruled that the search did violate the Fourth Amendment. The appeal court

    Read More

  • The Exclusionary Rule In Boyd V. United States

    275 Words  | 1 Pages

    The exclusionary rule bars evidence obtained in violation of the 4th Amendment by federal or state police from being used in court against the defendant. Its primary purpose is to discourage police misconduct in the search and seizure of property. The exclusionary rule first appeared in 1886 in Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, but it wasn’t until 1914 in Weeks v. United States, 232U.S. 383 that the rule made inadmissible any evidence illegally obtained by federal officers in all federal criminal prosecutions. Finally, after 47 years of federal officers’ end-run around the exclusion rule (silver plate doctrine), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule was to be applied to state courts as well in Mapp v. Ohio, 37 U.S. 643 (1961).

    Read More

  • ssss

    1305 Words  | 3 Pages

    In 2007 Gregory Diaz was arrested in Ventura County, California, after he sold ecstasy to a police informant. After being detained and brought to the police station, where he was interrogated, Gregory Diaz’s phone was searched by deputy Fazio without a warrant. The phones text messages were found to have incriminating evidence. Upon being confronted with the evidence Mr. Diaz confessed and was charged with transportation of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)). The defendant pled guilty but later moved to suppress the evidence and his confession. The defendant’s motion was on the grounds that searching his phone without a warrant violated his constitutional rights, set by the fourth amendment, against unlawful search and seizure. The trial court found the search to be lawful because the object was in his possession upon arrest, therefore subject to search incident to arrest, rejecting his motion.

    Read More

  • Captain Jack Sparrow Case Summary

    321 Words  | 1 Pages

    As the trial court accurately ruled, the consent exception to the warrant requirement was inapplicable to this case because Johnson did not have the actual or apparent authority needed to provide lawful third-party consent to the warrantless search. The detectives knew that Johnson did not have actual authority to consent to search because

    Read More

  • Balancing Individual Rights and Society's Interests: A Constitutional Perspective

    839 Words  | 2 Pages

    Improper search and seizure violates an individual’s 4th Amendment rights to security of person, property and privacy. Riley v. California 573 U.S. (2014).

    Read More

More about New Jersey Vs Tlo Case Study

Open Document