Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Fourth amendment analysis
A court case dealing with the fourth amendment
Fourth amendment legal analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Fourth amendment analysis
At a high school in Piscataway, NJ two teenage girls got caught smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The girls reported to the assistant principal, Theodore Choplick’s, office. A freshmen in high school, T.L.O. (the student's initials), denied the allegations even though her friend confessed. Principal Choplick proceeded to search the purse of T.L.O. and found cigarettes. His findings prompted a deeper search into T.L.O.’s purse in which he found cigarette rolling papers, marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic baggies, a large quantity of money, and a list of individuals that owed T.L.O. money. As the evidence mounted, both T.L.O.’s mother and the police got involved. A confession to marijuana dealing by T.L.O. resulted in criminal delinquency charges in juvenile court and placing T.L.O on probation. …show more content…
THE HOLDING (i.e. DECISION) The initial lower court ruling from Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County, N.J found no violation of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment. They sentenced T.L.O. to one year of probation. The second lower court ruling, Appellate Division (New Jersey State Court System), also ruled no violation of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights. The third lower court ruling, New Jersey State Supreme Court, confirmed the decisions of the prior rulings. There were no violations of T.L.O.’s Fourth Amendment rights. However, the possession of cigarettes by T.L.O. did not violate any of the school’s rules or policies. Principal Theodore Choplick had no reason to search T.L.O.’s purse. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision by the prior courts. The issue brought forth to the U.S. Supreme Court pertained to whether or not evidence seized by a school official, without the involvement of law officials, was permissible in juvenile delinquency hearings. The U.S. Supreme Court never reached this issue because it ruled that the search of T.L.O.’s purse was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. V. LEGAL
High school student “John Doe” responded to peer teasing by choking the student and then kicking out a school window. Middle school student “Jack Smith” made sexual lewd comments to female classmates. Both had a history of hostile and aggressive behaviors that are manifestations of their disabilities. On the fifth day of the school suspension, the district notified both boys’ parents that they were proposing expulsion and they extended suspension until the expulsion proceedings were finished. Doe filed suit against the school district and the superintendent on grounds that the disciplinary actions violated the “stay-put” provision of the then Education of the Handicapped Act (EHA) (later IDEA). Having learned of Doe’s case, Smith also protested the school’s actions and intervened in Doe’s
The fourth amendment protects people against unreasonable searches and seizures. The police had evidence that DLK was growing marijuana in his house, so they used a thermal imager and found a significant amount of heat. The police took this evidence to a judge who gave them a warrant to search inside DLK’s house for the marijuana and when they did search his house the police found the plants and arrested DLK. The controversy surrounding this case is whether or not it was constitutional for the police to use the thermal imager of DLK’s house without a search warrant. The government did not need a warrant to use a thermal imager on the outside of DLK’s house because once the heat left DLK’s house it was out in public domain, the thermal imager could not see any details within DLK’s house, and the police already had evidence to expect DLK was growing the marijuana plants in his house.
This case involved a public high school student, Matthew Fraser who gave a speech nominating another student for a student elective office. The speech was given at an assembly during school as a part of a school-sponsored educational program in self-government. While giving the speech, Fraser referred to his candidate in what the school board called "elaborate, graphic, and explicit metaphor." After his speech, the assistant principal told Fraser that the school considered the speech a violation of the school's "disruptive-conduct rule." This prohibited conduct that interfered with the educational process, including obscene, profane language or gestures. After Fraser admitted he intentionally had used sexual innuendo in the speech, he was told that he would be suspended from school for three days, and his name would be removed from the list of the speakers at the graduation exercises.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., found two girls smoking in the school lavatory, which was a violation of school code. The teacher took them to the Principles office where they met the Assistant Vice-Principle Theodore Choplick. Under questioning the first girl admitted smoking in the lavatory. The second girl, 14 year old freshman T.L.O., denied that she had smoked in the lavatory. Mr. Choplick then asked to search the girl’s purse. He found a pack of cigarettes. Upon pulling the pack of cigarettes out Mr. Choplick discovered cigarette rolling papers, which is closely associated with marijuana. He proceeded to search the purse to find a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, small empty plastic bags, a substantial amount of money all in one dollar bills, and two letters that implies that she is a dealer. Mr. Choplick notified her mother and the police and told her mother to take her to the police headquarters. A New Jersey juvenile court admitted the evidence, saying that the search of the purse was reasonable under the standard of enforcing school policy and maintaining school discipline. The court found the student, T.L.O., to be a delinquent and sentenced her to a years probation. The appellate Division affirmed the courts decision that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, T.L.O.
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.
The logical consequence of the application of the Stromberg case ruling to the Terminiello case was the reversal of the conviction. The Supreme Court did not challenge the constitutionality of the Chicago ordinance, but stated that in this case, free speech can not be denied to anyone even if such speech is considered to be provocative and unpopular in nature. The specifics of the Terminiello conviction were not explicit and, therefore, impenetrable by the inquiries of the Supreme Court. Without exact articulation of the conviction the Court could not dissect the verdict into parts that were applicable to Terminiello's charge and conviction.
Katz v. United States is a Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search" displayed in the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The Court’s ruling helped set new standard over previous interpretations of what constitutes as unreasonable search and seizure as explained in the Fourth Amendment. This case would conclude what to count as immaterial intrusion with technology as a search and overrule the Olmstead v. United States, a case in 1928 that established that wiretapping did not fall under search and/or seizure, Katz also extends that Fourth Amendment in fact protects all areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
These two court cases are very important in the evolution of the Fourth Amendment in public schools.
In the landmark case New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) a 14 year-old female student, T.L.O., was brought into the principal's office and questioned after another student had reported her smoking in the bathroom. During this time, she was commanded to show the insides of her purse, which contained cigarettes, rolling paper, marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a large sum of money (single dollar bills), a list of students who owed her money, and two letters that indicated she was possibly involved in drug dealing. This evidence was then used to find her guilty in the juvenile court by the state. T.L.O. then appealed, and the New Jersey Appellate Court affirmed that the evidence was legal and thus admissible. After another appeal, the
In document C, the school suspended the student, but that was because the student caused a threat against the targeted student, S.N. If the student did not target S.N. and say the students name and harm her directly then there would probably be no suspension. J.S created a MySpace profile (“the profile”) making fun of her middle school principal, James McGonigle. The profile did not name the principal or his school, but did include a photo of him and contained some vulgar and offensive language. J.S. did not name the principal or the school, she did not directly target the principal even though a photo of the principal was on the page.
The principal of the school Deborah Morse told Frederick to put away the banner, she was concerned it would seem as if the school was promoting illegal drug use. After frederick refused to take it down, he took the banner from him.. He was suspended from school for ten days. Frederick sued, saying morse violated his first amendment rights.The Court holds otherwise only after laboring to establish two uncontroversial propositions: first, that the constitutional rights of students in school settings are not coextensive with the rights of adults, and second, that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is a valid and terribly important interest. The court ruled that Morse did not violate his rights, the court ruled this while checking the legislative and executive
The defendant, a resident of Miami-Dade County, was arrested and charged with drug trafficking. He was also cited for speeding. He was booked into the Martin County Jail and held on a $200,000 bond. According to media reports,
He egged neighbor’s house in Calabasas which caused $80,000 in damage (how???) He had to pay the neighbors $80,000, 2-year probation and was ordered to take anger management classes.
"We're surprised and disappointed that Solanco School District is not only ignoring the law, but also the example of other school districts which have rejected the same policy because they understand that spying on students without suspicion is against the Constitution," said the McDougalls. "These are young people who have done nothing wrong, not prisoners on parole. We've tried repeatedly to persuade the district to abide by the state Supreme Court's ruling, but it has refused. That's unfortunate, because the district's responsibility is to teach students to respect and understand the law, not sidestep it."
In today's world, the rate of adolescents using drugs are increasing, which lead to high schools and even middle schools are trying to drop the number down to teens using drugs. Some of the United states high schools and middle schools have adopted some sort of drug testing policy. A school in Pottawatomie City adopted a Student Drug Testing Policy, which required all middle school and high school students to submit to a drug test in order to participate in extracurricular activities. This policy caused two students to not participate in an extracurricular activity, causing this case to make its way up to the supreme court. The students and parents felt that their 4th amendment was broken, which was their main argument during the hearing.