New Jersey Vs T. L. O Case Study

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

1. Title and Citation Vance v. Ball State Univ. 570 U.S. ___ (2013)

In the foundational case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court broadened the scope of the Fourth Amendment by holding that it applies when there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Looking further, does that mean that the government can contradict all Fourth Amendment protections by saying that employees should have no hope of privacy, according to the department’s policies? Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a twofold inquiry: first, one must consider 'whether the . . . action was justified at its inception'; second, one must determine whether the search as actually conducted 'was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place (Chemerinksy, E., 2010). The court decided this way because they majority felt that the searching of the home with the police dog is within the Fourth Amendment rights and was a reasonable search.

Then, she was found guilty of having all of the items listed in the introduction in her purse on school’s premises. Being that she was a minor, her name was not released, therefore being called T.L.O. New Jersey went after T.L.O. after having substantial evidence against her. T.L.O. tried to claim that the Assistant Vice Principal had no reason to search her purse and that him doing that was against her Fourth Amendment rights. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Constitution- 4th Amendment , 2015). Being that she was underage, the case was placed in the Juvenile Court of Middlesex County.

____, 2009 U.S. Lexis 3120 (2009) , used the standards outlined in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967) which states “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment – subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” The court also used Weeks v. United States 232 U.S. 383, 392, 34 S. Ct. 341, 58 L. Ed. 652, T.D. 1964 (1914), which states that a search incident to an arrest is among one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.

The legal dispute taking place here is a dissension between the applicability of the Tenth and the Fourteenth Amendments in the case of hair length regulations. The Fourteenth Amendment provides citizens with equal protection from the law in the case of state ordinances. The Tenth Amendment which provides the public official the freedom to operate the school under his jurisdiction in the way he deems premier, free from federal involvement. Step 3: Decision and reasoning by the judge

The students’ rights were defended in a 7-2 decision. This is a debatable case any student could use in their defense if their rights were violated in the school house also.

And if those considered free of criminal involvement may nevertheless be searched or inspected under civil statutes, it is difficult to understand why the Fourth Amendment would prevent entry onto their property to recover evidence of a crime not committed by them but by others. As we understand the structure and language of the Fourth Amendment and our cases expounding it, valid warrants to search property may be issued when it is satisfactorily demonstrated to the magistrate that fruits, instrumentalities, or evidence of crime is located on the premises. The Fourth Amendment has itself struck the balance between privacy and public need, and there is no occasion or justification for a court to revise the Amendment and strike a new balance by denying the search warrant in the circumstances present here and by insisting that the investigation proceed by subpoena duces tecum, whether on the theory that the latter is a less intrusive alternative or

The conclusion was determined by the unlawfully seized evidence that was received without a warrant. Without a warrant, the information obtained could not be used in prosecutions of criminals in state courts. The five justices that voted in Mapp’s favor stated that the evidence seized was in violation of the fourth Amendment. A justice apart of the case, Justice Tom Clark said, “We hold that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution [is] inadmissible in state court… Were it otherwise… the assurance against unreasonable…searches and seizures would be [meaningless].” Basically, Clark says that if you obtain evidence in a search that is not permitted and it is illegal, it is pointless because it cannot be used against a person in the court room to convict them because it violates the fourth

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).

March 7, 1980, in Piscataway High School two freshman girls were caught smoking cigarettes in their school’s bathroom. A teacher had found the girls and escorted them to the principal’s office, where they had met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. One of the girls immediately confessed to smoking cigarettes in the bathroom while her companion denied smoking the cigarettes or ever smoking at all. The companion, known as T.L.O. (Tracy Lois Odem) was suspected of lying. Based on the other girl 's confession, the assistant vice principal brought T.L.O. into his office where he demanded to see her purse.

T.L.O. Vs The State of New Jersey Persuasive Essay This is a case about a High School student’s Fourth Amendment rights being violated. The Fourth Amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Do students have a right to personal privacy when caught breaking school rules?

• The judge issued a warrant which authorized the search of the tavern and of the bartender in order to obtain evidence of possession of a controlled substance • When the police officers entered the tavern and announced that they were there to conduct a search and told the customers whose were at the tavern that they were going to conduct “cursory search of weapons” • One of the officers who searched the defendant ( Ybarra) said he felt a cigarette pack with objects in it but didn’t remove it • Once the officer finished searching the other patrons at the bar, he returned to Ybarra and searched him for a second time and removed the cigarette pack from Ybarra’s pants pocket, the cigarette pack had six tinfoil packets of heroin inside of it Procedural History: • Ybarra was indicted for unlawful possession of a controlled

The District Court held Central High School accountable for its violation of the 14th Amendment, it stated that

Again, all students claimed their rights to the due process clause of the 14th amendment were violated. The major purpose of the due process clause is for a person to be heard. It basically gives a person the chance to defend accusations that are being made against them. It clearly states that students must be given some type of prior notice, and they must be given some type of arena to hear and defend those accusations.