Tlo Vs New Jersey Case Summary

Before taking a look at this case, think about the following questions. Do students have the same rights under the 4th amendment as adults?, What are students’ rights while being searched on school grounds?, and What guidelines do administrators and teachers need to follow as a result of New Jersey v. T.L.O? The case of New Jersey vs T.L.O involved two freshmen high schoolers who were caught using narcotics in the restroom by a teacher. The teacher took the students to the principal who then asked the students about the incident. The principal tried to make them confess to possessing marijuana but only one of the two girls came out as guilty and took the consequences. The other girl, T.L.O, however decided to plead herself as being innocent of any such crime.

Riley v. California in 2014 was a case in which the United States Supreme Court argued whether the police has the right to search and seize digital content without a warrant, from individuals who have been arrested. So, the main question of the case was whether the evidence admitted at trial from Riley’s cell phone violated his Fourth Amendment right. The court ruled, by a unanimous vote that a warrantless cell phone search during an arrest is unconstitutional.

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.

Per 3 Goss Vs. Lopez Supreme Court Case On October 15, 1975 Nine students were suspended from Central High School from Columbus, Ohio. They had destroyed school property and disrupting students from learning and were suspended for 10 days. One of the students amoung them was Dwight Lopez.

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.

The Supreme Court specifically held that the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable to discipline imposed in the schools.” “The prisoner and the school child stand in wholly different circumstances, separated by the harsh facts of criminal conviction and incarceration.... The school-child has little need for the protection of the Eighth Amendment.” (“DICKENS BY DICKENS v. JOHNSON COUNTY BD. OF EDUC. (n.d.)”)

Back in 1975, there was a major case called, Payton V. New York. Theodore Payton was suspected of murdering a gas station manager, they found evidence within his home that connected him with the crime. What caused the problem was the fact New York had a law that allowed unwarranted searches if the person was a suspect. Based off the oral argument presented by Oyez, the police said it didn't count as the evidence because it was in public view when entering the home. It had to be appealed before it was determined as unconstitutional.

United States v. Lopez was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The issue of the case was that It exceeded to the power of Congress which had no say over it because the case had nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic activity. The case United States v. Lopez involved Alfonzo Lopez Jr., Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Congress. Unites States v. Lopez was about a 12th grader named

The second issue is that the court held the government to failure to reveal its promise to Robert Taliento violated John Giglio due process rights established in Brady v. Maryland to receive all exculpatory evidence from the prosecution before trial. In relation, Napue v. Illinois, the undisclosed information proved that the government violated Giglio’s due process rights by presenting a false testimony from

Gathercoal (2001) reminds school leaders that the Supreme Court has upheld schools may limit an individual’s right to an education if they violate one of four underlying responsibilities. Students right to an education can be limited if they willfully cause property loss or damage. They must follow rules which have a legitimate educational purpose. Students rights can also be limited if they pose a health and safety risk to themselves or others. Finally students may not cause a serious disruption to the educational process.

Good evening! This is Bryce Seyler with WFREE News reporting live from the United States Supreme Court. Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Mapp v. Ohio making it one of the most famous Supreme Court cases to take place in this century. Supreme Court Justices had to decide whether evidence discovered during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution was admissible in a state court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Dollree Mapp in a 6-3 vote.

In this case Kyllo v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled against the vitric of the lower courts on a 5 to 4 vote. The questions that need to be answered in this case, in my opinion serve a bigger purpose then the case at hand. The case itself is about a man named Danny Kyllo who was growing marijuana plants inside his home illegally. An officer of the U.S Interior Department got a tip that this man was illegally growing plants inside his home and went to investigate this. Obviously a tip from an unknown is not enough information to get a warrant to search the man’s property.

There comes a time in the criminal justice system where a law that was written to protect us will be challenged through a court case. That case will eventually make history and will become a reference in future cases with similar dilemmas. In 1983, one particular case met the criteria (Arizona vs. Youngblood). In this case, Larry Youngblood was convicted by a jury in Arizona of child molestation, sexual assault, and kidnapping of a ten-year-old boy. Both a criminologist for the State and an expert witness for the defendant testified as to what they believed the results were from the tests that were performed on the samples shortly after they were collected, they also commented on later tests performed on the samples from the boy’s clothing

Notаbly absent from the opinion, as it was in Plessy, is any citаtion to a Supreme Court cаse that considered whether the prаctice of segregating schools was a violation of the Fourteenth Аmendment. It was an open question for the Court. The Court аdmitted that the precedent to which it cited involved discriminаtion between whites and blacks rаther thаn other rаces. However, the Court found no аppreciable difference here—"the decision is within the discretion of the state in regulating its public schools, and does not conflict with the Fourteenth Аmendment."

In the Opinion Announcement of Morse v. Frederick, Justice Roberts said, "...students do not shed their First Amendments rights at the schoolhouse gate... The rights of students at {a} school are not the same as the rights of adults in the community at large" (Morse). The point he is getting across is that even though students still have their first amendment right at school it is more filtered as they are required to follow school policy (Morse). In the case of Morse v Frederick, his first amendment was not broken as he was promoting illegal drug use at a school event which is explicitly prohibited at school no matter if at school grounds or not (Morse). From this case, it is further understood that students still have some right to be free