New jersey v tlo issue. New Jersey v. T.L.O. 2018-12-22

New jersey v tlo issue Rating: 6,3/10 587 reviews

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Case Brief

new jersey v tlo issue

On appeal from the final judgment of the Juvenile Court, a divided Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's finding that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, but vacated the adjudication of delinquency and remanded for a determination whether T. I therefore concur in its judgment. This argument has two factual premises: 1 the fundamental incompatibility of expectations of privacy with the maintenance of a sound educational environment; and 2 the minimal interest of the child in bringing any items of personal property into the school. One of our most cherished ideals is the one contained in the Fourth Amendment: that the government may not intrude on the personal privacy of its citizens without a warrant or compelling circumstance. House of Representatives to impeach the president 2.

Next

Important Supreme Court Cases Flashcards

new jersey v tlo issue

This standard will, we trust, neither unduly burden the efforts of school authorities to maintain order in their schools nor authorize unrestrained intrusions upon the privacy of schoolchildren. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Which generalization is consistent with the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in Schenck v. I emphatically disagree with the Court's decision to cast aside the constitutional probable-cause standard when assessing the constitutional validity of a schoolhouse search. In 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Municipal Court, supra, at -539.

Next

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Case Brief

new jersey v tlo issue

Suspecting that a closer examination of the purse might yield further evidence of drug use, Mr. First, the court observed that possession of cigarettes was not in itself illegal or a violation of school rules. Texas, 1964 ; Draper v. In reaching its decision, the Court addressed a number of important constitutional issues that impact school searches. A majority of the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and Appellate Division and ordered the evidence suppressed.


Next

Important Supreme Court Cases Flashcards

new jersey v tlo issue

Just as a police officer could not obtain a warrant to search a home based solely on his claim that he had seen a package of cigarette papers in that home, Mr. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. O to come into his private office and demanded to see her purse. The majority offers no explanation why a two-part standard is necessary to evaluate the reasonableness of the ordinary school search. The special need for an immediate response to behavior that threatens either the safety of schoolchildren and teachers or the educational process itself justifies the Court in excepting school searches from the warrant and probable cause requirement, and in applying a standard determined by balancing the relevant interests. Agents were issued these writs without any reasonable grounds to believe that a building held smuggled goods. Choplick also noticed cigarette rolling papers, which are often used to smoke marijuana.

Next

New Jersey v T.L.O ( 1985) Flashcards

new jersey v tlo issue

Students are necessarily confined for most of the schoolday in close proximity to each other and to the school staff. Thereafter, the State brought delinquency charges against respondent in the Juvenile Court, which, after denying respondent's motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse, held that the Fourth Amendment applied to searches by school officials, but that the search in question was a reasonable one, and adjudged respondent to be a delinquent. On one side of the balance are arrayed the individual's legitimate expectations of privacy and personal security; on the other, the government's need for effective methods to deal with breaches of public order. The practical basis for this principle is, in part, its deterrent effect, see id. Choplick's belief that the rolling papers indicated the presence of marihuana, she does contend that the scope of the search Mr. We find that neither in opening the purse nor in reaching into it to remove the cigarettes did Mr. Under the above standard, the search in this case was not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Next

New Jersey v T.L.O.

new jersey v tlo issue

According to Justice White's opinion, a search in a school could be reasonable under the 4th Amendment without probable cause, so long as it was supported by reasonable suspicion or cause. Sheppard, 1984 ; Segura v. It is not the government's need for effective enforcement methods that should weigh in the balance, for ordinary Fourth Amendment standards -- including probable cause. The needs of the government are more important than civil liberties. Choplick's decision to open T.

Next

New Jersey v. T.L.O. :: 469 U.S. 325 (1985) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

new jersey v tlo issue

Justice Brandeis was both a great student and a great teacher. Taylor, 1983 per curiam , with Thompson v. 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. We granted the State of New Jersey's petition for certiorari. Accordingly, it is to the search for cigarettes that we first turn our attention. Having determined the Fourth Amendment applies to public school officials, the Court considered whether the warrant requirement applies to them.

Next

New Jersey v T.L.O ( 1985) Flashcards

new jersey v tlo issue

On the other side of the balance would be the serious privacy interests of the student, interests that the Court admirably articulates in its opinion, ante at -339, but which the Court's new ambiguous standard places in serious jeopardy. 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. A teacher or principal could neither carry out essential teaching functions nor adequately protect students' safety if required to wait for a warrant before conducting a necessary search. The Court's implication that the balancing test is the rule rather than the exception is troubling for me because it is unnecessary in this case. In such cases the necessary notice and rudimentary hearing should follow as soon as practicable. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is Reversed. Index Card Listing Students Who Owed T.

Next