T.L.O. was a supreme court case in January 15, 1985. It dealt with the case of a student whose name was kept a secret sense she was a minor that was caught with marijuana and was accused of selling it to other students. T.L.O. was fourteen at the time this happened. T.L.O wanted the marijuana to removed from evidence in her court case because she felt it had obtained illegally. Her case was picked up by the supreme court after her she was originally denied having the marijuana removed from evidence. Her court case laid down the law on school searches and punishments.
T.L.O. V New Jersey was a landmark supreme court case. It all started March 7, 1980, with T.L.O. smoking with one of her friends in a bathroom at Piscataway High School in Middlesex
…show more content…
was the first to hear T.L.O.’s case. they came to the verdict that she was guilty and sentenced her to one year community service. They also confirmed that assistant vice principal’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was legal and therefore did not withhold the evidence found. The case was then appealed and was sent to Appellate Division (New Jersey State Court System). They agreed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that no fourth amendment right was violated. T.L.O. the appealed to the New Jersey State Supreme Court which then heard her case. The New Jersey State Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment is applicable to schools and they also agreed that school officials do not need a warrant only probable cause. Although the New Jersey State Supreme Court agreed with these things it reversed the ruling in the T.L.O. case stating that Theodore Choplick did not have probable cause to search T.L.O.’s purse as merely owning cigarettes was not against school policy. The U.S. Supreme Court then decided that it wanted to take a look at the case so they called it up. The Court decided that under the circumstances of the case, the search of T.L.O.’s purse did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Courts also stated what teachers can and cannot do. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that: lockers can be searched, pat down but not strip searches are legal with just cause, personal items can be …show more content…
“I join the judgment of the Court and agree with much that is said in its opinion. I write separately, however, because I believe the Court omits a crucial step in its analysis of whether a school search must be based upon probable cause. The Court correctly states that we have recognized limited exceptions to the probable cause requirement "[w]here a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served" by a lesser standard. I believe that we have used such a balancing test, rather than strictly applying the Fourth Amendment's Warrant and Probable-Cause Clause, only when we were confronted with "a special law enforcement need for greater flexibility. Florida v. Royer, (1983) (BLACKMUN, J., dissenting).” The first of the two concurrences in part comes from Marshall. “I fully agree with Part II of the Court's opinion. Teachers, like all other government officials, must conform their conduct to the Fourth Amendment's protections of personal privacy and personal security. As JUSTICE STEVENS points out, this principle is of particular importance when applied to schoolteachers, for children learn as much by example as by exposition. It would be incongruous and futile to charge teachers with the task of embuing their students with an understanding of our system of constitutional democracy, while at the same time immunizing those same teachers from the need to respect
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
The case of Tennessee vs Reeves talks about two youngsters named Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman who were students at the West Carrol Middle School who were planning to kill their teacher, Janice Geiger (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). They had planned to poison the teacher with rat poison by putting it in the teacher’s drink (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). There were other students who had found out, and the plot had been reported to the teacher and principal of the school (Hall 2014; Schmalleger, 2014). The students were convicted of attempt to commit secondary degree murder based on the fact that the poison was brought to the school and if it wasn’t because the plot to killed Miss. Geiger was interrupted the crime would have taken place.
Also another fact one of the justices, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the outcome of the case. She said it was called a, “Cursory Inspection” she went on saying the officers could do the search based on reasonable suspicion that the object was evidence of a criminal activity.
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
http://www.firstamendmentschools.org/freedoms/case.aspx?id=41>. . N. p.. Web. The Web. The Web. 14 Jan 2014.
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
The students’ parents believed the issue was still unresolved so they hired attorneys to try the case in court. The lawsuit asked for two things; the first was an injunction to stop the school from enforcing the rule prohibiting the black armbands. They had also requested nominal damages which was a small amount of money sought for the violation of the plaintiff’s rights. In this case, nominal damages equaled one dollar (Farish, 33). The first trial took place in July 1966 and was tried by only a judge. There was no jury involved (Farish, 38). Five weeks later the judge returned with his decision; the plaintiff’s request for injunction and nominal damages was denied. The Tinkers were still not satisfied with the outcome and decided to appeal to the next higher court which was the Eighth Circuit. Meanwhile back in Des Moines, Iowa the community reacted angrily to the act of the students while the trial was taking places. Mary Beth Tinker recalls red paint being thrown at the Tinker residence and threatening phone calls (Farish, 41). When the trail in the Eighth Circuit had finally concluded, it had ruled that the Tinkers had lost yet again. The case was then taken to Supreme Court after careful consideration by both sides’
The district court found the disruptive-conduct rule unconstitutionally vague and broad, and that withdrawal of the student's name from the graduation speaker's list violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the rule did not mention such removal as a likely sanction. The court made the case that nothing in the Constitution forbids the states from insisting that certain forms of expression are unfitting and subject to sanctions. (Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969) The court affirmed that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."(Tinker) If the student had given the same speech off the school premises, he would not have been penalized because government officials found his language inappropriate.
In 1992 Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was a senior at Edison High School in San Antonio, Texas. Acting on an anonymous tip, school authorities confronted Lopez and discovered that he was carrying a .38 caliber handgun and five bullets. A federal grand jury subsequently indicted Lopez, who then moved to have the indictment dismissed on grounds that the federal government had no authority to legislate control over the public schools. At a bench trial, the federal district court judge found Lopez guilty and sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment and two years’ supervised release. Lopez then appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which reversed the conviction and held the Gun-Free School Zone Act unconstitutional as an invalid exercise dy congress of the commerce power.
"Summary of the Decision." Landmark Cases Of The U.S Supreme Court. Street Law, Inc, n.d. Web. 1 Nov. 2013. .
... 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.
Decision : Reasonable standard held to be proper standard for determining legality of searches conducted by public school officials.
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.
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
5. Harrison, Maureen. Gilbert, Steve. Landmark Decisions of the United States Supreme Court II. La Jolla, California. Copyright 1992. By Excellent Books.