T. L. O V. New Jersey Case

Peter Crumans 4th amendments were not violated when he was compelled to show his Facebook page. School officials were trying to protect the wellbeing of their students, therefore trying to get to the bottom of what this tip was about and needed to search the suspected student who after a little persistence began to cooperate. Principal Lyons received an anonymous tip that Peter Curman had posted that he would be conducting a few sales of illegal drugs on school property giving him reasonable suspicion to search the student. In the case of New Jersey vs. T.L.O school officials were able to search a student due to reasonable suspicion for violations on school property, therefore giving principal Lyons justification because he not only received

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

You may have heard about the $150,000 shirt in 2004 that was owned by Alan Newsom. The shirt was one of the reasons for Newsom v. Albemarle case that went to court. The shirt Alan Newsom wore was from an NRA shooting sports camp. He wore the shirt to school in hopes of encouraging other students to go to the camp, but he was told to turn the shirt inside out for the rest of the day. Later that same day Alan wanted to take them to court.

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.

A 6-3 vote in favor of New Jersey was all it took to strike down TLO’s request to suppress the evidence as well as her confession. In previous cases, courts have ruled that school officials were exempt from the restrictions put in place due to their need to enforce authority over their students. The Supreme Court decided that in this case, the exclusionary clause would apply to school officials. This means that because they’re school officials, they don’t have to have as many means to perform a search on the students because students should have a decreased expectation of privacy. Their decision meant that the evidence found in TLO’s purse along with her confession had to reason to be excluded because her 4th Amendment rights were not violated.

These laws let minors enter the adult court without giving the defendants a fair chance to fight back. This case has helped create a better, more constitutionally correct juvenile court system. Supreme Court cases have the ability to help shape our future, they can change our laws for the better or worse. Kent vs the United States helped create clearer laws for juveniles going through the court system. Yes, we gathered that his rights were indeed, violated.

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).

The U.S. Supreme Court held that garbage placed at the curbside is not protected by the Fourth Amendment. The warrantless search of Greenwood’s garbage bags would violate the Fourth Amendment only if Greenwood showed a subjective expectation of privacy of the garbage and society accepts it as objectively reasonable. The U.S Supreme Court argued that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash on public streets where animals, children, scavengers, and the public have access to it. Criminal activity that can be seen by any member of the public cannot be reasonably expected to be ignored by the police.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.