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. The State of New Jersey appealed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Legal Issue: Does the Assistant Vice Principal have reasonable grounds to search the purse of T.L.O.? Holding: (6-3) The search was reasonable and the judgement of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is …show more content…
School officials do not need warrants. They may conduct searches based on reasonableness if it pertains to maintaining the safety and discipline of the school. T.L.O. violating a school rule of smoking in the lavatory gave Assistant Vice Principal suspicion she was in possession of cigarettes. Upon finding cigarettes, the principal discovered rolling paper which is used for marijuana. This gave him reason and justification to search the remaining compartments of the purse. Concurrence: Justice Powell and Justice O’Connor agreed with the opinion of Justice White. Powell stated that the students are not afforded the same constitutional protections in school as they would have outside of school. Justice Blackmun also agreed with the majority but wanted to elaborate and put a highlight for a special exception to the Fourth Amendment because the teachers and school officials need to have discipline in schools to create a safe and productive learning
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The New Jersey Supreme Court stated that it wasn’t a violation to have cigarettes; therefore, the Assistant Vice Principal did not have the rights to search her purse. The New Jersey Supreme Court “Because the search resulting in the discovery of the evidence of marihuana dealing by T. L. O. was reasonable, the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision to exclude that evidence from T. L. O.'s juvenile delinquency proceedings on Fourth Amendment grounds was erroneous. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of New Jersey is Reversed” (Findlaw, June 2015). The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the New Jersey Supreme Court. There were nine justices that decided the case.
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
Case Name, Citation, Year Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding 557 U.S. 364 (2009) Facts of the Case Redding was an eighth grade student, who was suspected of having over the counter drugs on school grounds. Over the counter drugs on school grounds is a violation of school policy.
J.D.B v. North Carolina, involved a 13-year-old, seventh-grade student. J.D.B was stopped and questioned by police when they observed him near the site of two home break-ins. Five days later, a digital camera matching one of the items from one of the home break-ins was found at J.D.B’s school and was observed to be in J.D.B.’s possession. Investigator Diconstanzo went to the school and a uniformed police officer went to the school and removed J.D.B. from his classroom and escorted him to a closed-door conference room. Police and school administrators questioned him for a minimum of 30 minutes; without giving him his Miranda warnings or the opportunity to call his legal guardian.
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).
The United States v. Lopez case was about Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade student from San Antonio, who came to school carrying a hidden weapon. Under Texas law he was charged with possession of a firearm. Later on he was dismissed of this violation and was later charged with “federal criminal statute”. He was found violating “ The Gun-Free School Act”, which was created in 1990. His sentence was 6 months in prison and two years of being supervised while being released.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) Facts: Two plaintiff, Griswold and Buxton, were the Executive and Medical Directors for Planned Parenthood League at Connecticut State respectively. They had been accused and later convicted and fined $100 each for violating the Connecticut Comstock Act of 1873. The Act illegalized any use of drugs, medical item, or any other appliance for the purposes of preventing conception. Griswold and Buxton had been found quilt of giving information, medical advices, and counselling to couples about family planning.
This shows that after this case study, it was established that US Citizens have the right to a K-12 education, one that is equally funded so that all students are learning on a level playing field. For this case study, the Texas Supreme Court established the right for students to receive a public school education Texas citizens have the responsibility to take action against an issue they find unconstitutional, either by voting or joining an interest group.
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."
Issue: Kent was unaware of his case's transfer of jurisdiction from the juvenile court of D.C. to the state's regular district court. Was the juvenile court's waiver of jurisdiction valid? Would the individual transferred to the adult court still have rights that were applicable in juvenile court? Did the juvenile court conduct a full investigation for Kent? Important information might have been revealed had an investigation been performed.
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
Board of Education is a very important landmark case. This case addressed the constitutionality of segregation in public schools back in the early 1950s. When the case was heard in a U.S. District Court a three-judge panel ruled in favor of the school boards. The plaintiffs then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went through all its procedures and eventually decided that “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” ().
She was taken to the police station and TLO eventually confessed . Charges were brought up against her but she argued that her Fourth Amendment rights of search and seizure had been violated. TLO took her case all the way to the Supreme Court. The court said that they may conduct warrantless searches of students in school. The Court held that the search of TLO 's
It was required that the student's parents be informed of the suspension within 24 hours with given reason. If the student were expelled, they would allowed to appeal to the Board of Education. The principal gave the students suspension without holding a hearing, it was okay because Ohio law did not make it required to do so. But they were also later expelled without a right to have due process. The federal courts believed that the students rights were being violated.
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.