At a New Jersey high school, two students were caught smoking in a bathroom and subsequently brought to the principal’s office and asked if they had been smoking.
One of the students, TLO, said she hadn’t been smoking. The principal then searched her bag and found cigarettes as well as items that suggested that she sold marijuana.
TLO went to court and argued that the school had violated her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures because having cigarettes wasn’t against school rules and so didn’t constitute the principal’s search of her items from finding her smoking.
When the juvenile court ruled against her, she went to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ruled for her, saying that the search was unreasonable and
…show more content…
While students do not and should not have to cede all of their privacy rights simply by walking onto school property, their interests are not the sole interests in mind; safety and order must also be considered and balanced with privacy rights. To do their job, school officials must maintain the order required to keep a smoothly running system. How legal a search is also depends on how objective it is and how reasonable the suspicion was. With TLO, a teacher spotted her smoking, so the principal had reasonable enough suspicion to search her bag, and his finding further evidence of drug use and distribution gave him the reasonable suspicion to search the rest of her bag.
Significance: New Jersey v. TLO loosened standards for what is considered “reasonable” in regards to school searches as well as demonstrated the flexible interpretation of the Fourth Amendment to provide for different circumstances and situations. This case has also been cited multiple times and used in a precedent for cases like Bethel School District v. Frasier. Finally, it established a standard evaluation for deciding whether specific school searches are
In the “Bethel School District v. Fraser” case, Fraser believed that the school violated his first amendment “freedom of speech” rights. Fraser gave a speech with some inappropriate content in it and the school gave him a three day suspension because two teachers warned him before he gave the speech. Fraser took it to court and the justices said they would shorten the suspension and let him have his right to speak at graduation because the school was taking away his freedom of speech.
In a similar fashion, the comments made by the principal of the board in the Ferris v. Special School District No. 1 (1973) were also found by the court to be insufficient enough to affect Ferris’ future employment opportunities. The court decided that since Brouillete was nontenured, he was not entitled to protection of procedural due process guaranteed by the Constitution. The board in this case, as well as the district in Ferris’ case, were not at fault and did not infringe upon the rights of the
As seen in previous cases like Tinker vs. Des Moines, students have the right to political say, unless it causes disruption at school of students are promoting something that goes against the law. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines the students were not promoting anything illegal but showed their thought on the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands (Tinker). Argued in court by Kenneth W. Starr in the Morse v. Frederick case, he gave the idea that the foundation for school censorship was the case of Tinker v. Des Moines (Morse). The Justices responded back saying, that case was a different scenario as the students weren 't doing anything against the law while Frederick was encouraging the use of marijuana which was illegal (Morse).
1 ) The case came before the supreme court after a young James Acton and applied to play for his school’s football program and had to be drug tested before he could play. It was at this point that him and his parents refused to sign the consent form for the test. 2 ) At the time of the case there was widespread issues with drug use and violence in Schools. This cause searches in schools across the nation for weapons and drugs.
Mapp took to court when police forcibly entered her home in Cleveland, Ohio without showing any warrant. The police suspected Mapp of harboring a bomb suspect in her home and possessing illegal betting equipment. After she refused to let them in, the police torn off the screen door and broken the glass to gain entry. Mapp argued it was an invasion of privacy along with a violation to the Bill of Rights and Constitution. While the police did not find either of the two things they were looking for; they did find other illegal material in
The plaintiffs in the case, Brandon’s parents, were suing based on the school failing to handle harassment at the school. More claims of wrongful death because of negligence and discrimination against Brandon’s disabilities were a part of the case, as well as suing parents for harassment and emotional distress. The Myers had claimed that the staff members were fostering a system where bullying was being able to thrive in the school and have no consequence, which still seemed to be the case when the life threatening notes were given to the school and no direct action was being taken for the victim. This also includes how the district officials, along with the employees, had kept the evidence and destroyed it to essentially keep the school protected. In March of 2010, the plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claim was dismissed in favor of the defendants, but kept all other respects in the case.
Case: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Facts: A high school freshman (T.L.O) had her purse searched by the Assistant Vice Principal at her school because a teacher found her and another student smoking in the lavatory. The Assistant Vice Principal uncovered cigarettes and marijuana. Procedural history: T.L.O. motioned to suppress the evidence because her Fourth Amendment rights were violated and was denied by the Juvenile Court stating the search was reasonable. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court agreed there was no violation of the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the decision stating the search was unreasonable.
It may seem a little invasive, but schools are permitted to use drug dogs to sniff out contraband during unannounced, random searches and it becomes a controversial problem for all. The use of drug-sniffing dogs in schools is permitted because students do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the school and school search did not go against the Fourth Amendment, which is the right of people to be secure in their personal spaces houses and papers. While drug dogs are becoming more and more commonplace in our public schools and to maintaining a drug-dog program can cost district estimates $12,000 and $36,000 every year. Drug dog must go through a long period of time of training and drug dogs are not dangerous to people, but instead it protects people. Without reservation, we must know the history background, advantages, and disadvantages of having a drug dog searches.
Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos Supreme Court of Texas, 1985 695.S.W.2d 556 [27 Educ. L. Rep. 640] This case examined the constitutionality of the Texas Education Code 21.920 (b) “No Pass, No Play” rule: A student, other than a mentally retarded student, enrolled in a school district in this state shall be suspended from participation in any extracurricular activity sponsored or sanctioned by the school district during the grade reporting period after a grade reporting period in which the student received a grade lower than the equivalent of 70 on a scale of 100 in any academic class. The campus principal may remove this suspension if the class is an identified honors or advanced class. A student may not be suspended under this subsection
Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education In this scenario, I feel that the school’s success was highly dependent on their ability to provide “competent and substantial evidence” of Ms. Kimble’s “immoral conduct”(Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education, p. 2).On three separate instances, Kimbell was found guilty of “untruthfulness and taking property not her own without consent or permission”(Mary Ellen Kimble v. The Worth County R-III Board of Education, p.7).
because Lopez wasn't able to defend himself and wasn't able to having a hearing and his family wasn't notified either. If the court did not try to stop this it would have affected him and everyone else as well. If you think about it everyone had the right to be heard and the court bringing up that it affected the 14th amendment was a good way to protect the right to a hearing, because using liberty and property (property being education) challenged the court and made a different viewpoint on how the case was projected. Now we’re able to have court ruling for suspensions. which is a good thing and also sinces i'm a student i think it's fair that court hearing is given because without it how would a student be able to defend themselves without anyone to make the decisions if they are right or wrong.
GOSS v. LOPEZ, Supreme Court of the United States, 1975. 419 U.S. 565, 95 S.Ct. 729, 42, L.Ed.2d 725 deals with students that were suspended. The Columbus Ohio Public School System (CPSS) was sued by students. Nine students claimed that they were suspended without being given a hearing before their suspension, or even after their suspensions were over.
Casetext (n.d.). Sacramento City Unified School District Board of Education v. Rachel H (786 F.Supp. 874). Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/sacramento-city-school-dist-v-rachel-h. Due to this Rachel was placed into a second grade general education classroom with supplemental supports and services. So the judge ruled in favor of Rachel and the decision of the hearing officer was
Keeping Marijuana Illegal. Marijuana is a drug that is used by approximately 38% in America. Recently, there has been a movement to legalize marijuana for both medical and recreational use. Some states and communities have already passed laws to legalize marijuana and many more have plans to bring legalization to a vote in the near future.
Why Marijuana Should be Legal Marijuana is a very prominent issue in society today. Many false and slanderous things have been said about marijuana in recent times. But the truth about marijuana continues to reveal itself. Sadly these truths are being criticised because of the stereotypical view that many people call the typical “pot smoker”.