T. L. O. V New Jersey Summary

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

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

“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