T. L. O V. New Jersey 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.

Dustin Seal, a junior at Powell High School, Knoxville, TN drove his mom’s car to Friday-night football game with his friends who had put a knife in the glove compartment without his information. Over a suspicion of drinking alcohol, school vice principal searched Dustin’s car and found a hunting knife. Being unaware of the knife Dustin got suspended with pending expulsion from Powell high by the principal. Following with several appeal processes School board sided with the school principal on expelling Dustin. His father sued the school board for violation of Dustin’s right under fourth and fourteenth amendments to Federal court ruled in favor of Seal and the case was settled with $30,000 award to Dustin.

The student’s voluntarily provided the officer with additional drugs and provided written consent, to a search of the room although they had the right to refuse the search and demand a search warrant. Reasoning/Analysis of the Court The Court held that the "plain view" exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permitted the officers to seize clearly incriminating evidence discovered "in a place where the officer has a right to be." The Court held that the officer had a right to be at the first students’ elbow at all times. The officer obtained lawful access to the student’s dorm room and was free to seize incriminating evidence.

Supreme Court cases can shape our national laws; it can shape an American citizen’s future. Without them, the Bill of Rights could be left up for our own interpretation. This could cause unfair laws and create havoc. In 1966, a court case named Kent vs United Sates took place. This case could create the ability to shape a juvenile's life forever.

TLO accused the administrators of the school to be violating her 4th amendment. T.L.O. was founded guilty by the Juvenile Court. She was found as a delinquent and was given probation for a year. Than T.L.O. was found guilty in her second court ruling in the Appellate Division (New Jersey State Court System). Her third court ruling was the New Jersey supreme court.

The police violated Wolf’s rights and since there was no warrant for arrest or warrant to search his office the police was trespassing. The police officer who violated his rights was to be punished by his superiors. The judges decided that using such evidence goes completely against the Fourth Amendment which is a basic need to our freedom. States should follow this law but are not directly forced to. States using evidence that should be excluded in their “statute becomes a form, and its protection an illusion,”(Wolf v Colorado, 1949).

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.

The sixth amendment essentially states that the accused enjoys the right to a speedy and public committee as well as formal informant of the crime committed (class notes). In order for the school to follow the constitution, they needed to inform the suspended student prior to the suspension and state the grounds of the suspension. However, the public school officials making this an unjust suspension did not provide that right.

In September of 1961, a woman from District of Columbia had an intruder break into her apartment. While the invader of the home was there, they had taken her wallet, and also raped the woman. During the investigation of the crime, the police had found some latent fingerprints in the apartment. The police then established and processed the prints. The prints were then connected back to 16 year old Morris A. Kent. The prints the connected back to when Kent was first entering the system back in 1959 for his earlier crimes. Kent at this time had already been on probation due to crimes committed two years prior to this case. Morris Kent at the age of 14, had first come into contact with breaking the law when he was placed on probation for breaking

School officers do not require a warrant or probable cause to search students because the school officers are considered the guardian. Notwithstanding police officers need probable cause to search students. Schools may test any student in an extra curricular after school activity for drug usage. However, the school may not single out a student for testing. Found in the court case of The Board of Education V Earls 2002.

Significance: The Supreme Court here expresses that governmental conduct like drug dog sniffing that can reveal whether a substance is contraband, yet no other private fact, does not compromise any privacy interest, and therefore is not a search subject to the Fourth Amendment. Terry v. Ohio permits only brief investigative stops and extremely limited searches based on reasonable suspicion including seizures of property independent of the seizure of the

As school administrators encountered many issues in balancing between providing safe school environment and meeting the requirements of the new law, Many case laws had been established by the judicial decisions in particular cases such as Goss v. Lopez (1975), Stuart v. Nappi (1978), Doe v. Koger (1979), Jackson v. Franklin County School Board (1985), Honig v. Doe (1988) which clarified many discipline questions pertaining to special education. In 1997 Congress passed thorough amendment to the IDEA and embeded detailed statutes to address disciplinary issues of students with

As we mentioned earlier, the freshman’s mother mentioned to coach McElroy the fact that the upperclassman was calling her son those insulting names. This incident could have been foreseeable by the coaches, and possibly the administration, if the coach reported anything to the principal and athletic director. The Mepham High School football season was eventually cancelled and the three upperclassman were charged with “involuntary deviate sexual intercourse,” “aggravated assault,” “kidnapping,” “unlawful restraint,” “false imprisonment,” “terroristic threats,” “criminal coercion,” “simple assault,” “reckless endangering of another person,” “ethnic intimidation,” and “criminal conspiracy.” Judge Robert J. Conway chose to try the accused as juveniles.

Therefore, the issue pertaining to students with learning disabilities was thrown out in relation to this particular case. • The state Supreme Court, in addressing the ill fitting correlation drawn in Stamos’ citation of Bell v. Lone Oak Independent School District as an explanation of how students have a fundamental right to participate in extracurricular activities, stated that correlations between the fundamental right of marriage and this case could not be aligned. • The state Supreme Court also stated that due to the facts the rule did not infringe upon any fundamental rights nor did it create/burden a suspect class, that it did not violate the equal protection guarantees of the Texas Constitution. • Citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 577-78, 92 S. Ct. 2709