http://www.oyez.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O.
http://www.landmarkcases.org/newjersey/home.html
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/NewJersey/
This is were i get my information from I use for this homework
Thursday, June 11, 2009
My own argument
I am spilt I feel that the school principal should not have done the search him self, as it could have compermized the case like it almost did. However kids in schools talk which would have given him knowlage that she might be selling combined with them smoking in the bathroom. She also confessed to doing it so I do not understand why she would have tried appling it to the higher courts. This case was is the bases of the new laws we have in our schools today as well as why there is local police personal in school.
rule of law
In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in New Jersey found two girls smoking in a restroom. At the school, smoking in the restrooms was a violation of school rules; smoking was allowed only in the designated smoking area. The teacher escorted the two girls to the principal's office, where they met with an assistant vice principal, Theodore Choplick. One of the girls was T.L.O., a freshman who was 14 years old. The girl who was with T.L.O. admitted that she had been smoking; T.L.O., however, denied the allegation, and said that she did not, in fact, smoke at all.
Choplick took T.L.O. into his office and instructed her to turn over her purse. He opened the purse and found a pack of cigarettes. He took the cigarettes out of the purse and showed them to T.L.O., accusing her of having lied about smoking in the restroom. As he removed the cigarettes, he noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers, which he believed were an indicator of involvement with marijuana. Therefore, he proceeded with a more thorough search of T.L.O.'s purse. This search yielded the following items: a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a significant amount of money in one-dollar bills, a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and letters implicating T.L.O. in dealing marijuana.
Choplick then called T.L.O.'s mother and the police. The mother came to the school and, at the request of the police, took her daughter to the police station. Choplick turned the evidence from the purse over to the police. At the police station, T.L.O. admitted that she had been selling marijuana at school. As a result of T.L.O.'s confession and the evidence from her purse, the State of New Jersey brought delinquency charges against T.L.O. in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County.
T.L.O. tried to have the evidence from her purse suppressed, contending that the search violated the Forth Amendment. She also claimed that her confession should be suppressed on the grounds that it was tainted by the unlawful search. The juvenile court rejected her Fourth Amendment arguments, although it conceded that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches by school officials. However, it held that a school official may search a student if that official has a "reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed, or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies." This is a lower standard than the "probable cause" standard, which is required when police conduct a search.
The juvenile court concluded that Choplick's search was, therefore, reasonable. Choplick was justified in searching the purse, the Court said, because of his reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. had violated school rules by smoking in the restroom. When he opened the purse, evidence of marijuana use was in plain view; this justified the further search of the purse. T.L.O. was found to be a delinquent and, in January 1982, she was sentenced to one year of probation.
T.L.O. appealed her conviction to the appellate division, which found no violation of the Fourth Amendment, but returned the case to juvenile court for determination of a possible Fifth Amendment problem with T.L.O.'s confession. T.L.O. then appealed the appellate division's Fourth Amendment ruling to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the appellate division's ruling and ordered the evidence found in T.L.O.'s purse suppressed. The New Jersey Court relied on Supreme Court of the United States precedent to hold that whenever an "official" search violates constitutional rights, the evidence may not be used in a criminal case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of New Jersey found that Choplick's search was not reasonable. Mere possession of cigarettes was not a violation of school rules; therefore, a desire for evidence of smoking in the restroom did not justify the search. In addition, the further search of the purse was not justified by the presence of cigarette rolling papers.
Choplick took T.L.O. into his office and instructed her to turn over her purse. He opened the purse and found a pack of cigarettes. He took the cigarettes out of the purse and showed them to T.L.O., accusing her of having lied about smoking in the restroom. As he removed the cigarettes, he noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers, which he believed were an indicator of involvement with marijuana. Therefore, he proceeded with a more thorough search of T.L.O.'s purse. This search yielded the following items: a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a significant amount of money in one-dollar bills, a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and letters implicating T.L.O. in dealing marijuana.
Choplick then called T.L.O.'s mother and the police. The mother came to the school and, at the request of the police, took her daughter to the police station. Choplick turned the evidence from the purse over to the police. At the police station, T.L.O. admitted that she had been selling marijuana at school. As a result of T.L.O.'s confession and the evidence from her purse, the State of New Jersey brought delinquency charges against T.L.O. in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County.
T.L.O. tried to have the evidence from her purse suppressed, contending that the search violated the Forth Amendment. She also claimed that her confession should be suppressed on the grounds that it was tainted by the unlawful search. The juvenile court rejected her Fourth Amendment arguments, although it conceded that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches by school officials. However, it held that a school official may search a student if that official has a "reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed, or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies." This is a lower standard than the "probable cause" standard, which is required when police conduct a search.
The juvenile court concluded that Choplick's search was, therefore, reasonable. Choplick was justified in searching the purse, the Court said, because of his reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. had violated school rules by smoking in the restroom. When he opened the purse, evidence of marijuana use was in plain view; this justified the further search of the purse. T.L.O. was found to be a delinquent and, in January 1982, she was sentenced to one year of probation.
T.L.O. appealed her conviction to the appellate division, which found no violation of the Fourth Amendment, but returned the case to juvenile court for determination of a possible Fifth Amendment problem with T.L.O.'s confession. T.L.O. then appealed the appellate division's Fourth Amendment ruling to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the appellate division's ruling and ordered the evidence found in T.L.O.'s purse suppressed. The New Jersey Court relied on Supreme Court of the United States precedent to hold that whenever an "official" search violates constitutional rights, the evidence may not be used in a criminal case. Furthermore, the Supreme Court of New Jersey found that Choplick's search was not reasonable. Mere possession of cigarettes was not a violation of school rules; therefore, a desire for evidence of smoking in the restroom did not justify the search. In addition, the further search of the purse was not justified by the presence of cigarette rolling papers.
the 3 judges who ruled ageist it
the 3 judges who ruled ageist the majority conduced that the search of the purse was unreasonable.
They believed that T.L.O's claim that she did not spoke cigarettes could not justify the search.
They believed that T.L.O's claim that she did not spoke cigarettes could not justify the search.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Reasoning of the court
During the argument of the case, it was discusses weather or not the search was a violation of the fourth Amendment. Some of the judges argued that the search was reasonable and that vice-principal conducted a proper search while other judges argued that there was no proper evidence to support the process of searching the purse. They believed that the vice-principal went against the fourth Amendment and invaded T.L.O personal propritiy.
Decision of the Court
The final decision of the case was decided on January 15, 1985 at Washington D.C where nine Supreme Court judges discussed/voted on the case. Six of the judges (Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor and White) voted for New Jersey, while three judges (Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens) voted against.
Issues of the case
T.L.O was found smoking in the restroom with another girl, when searching her bag the vice-principal found a pack of cigarettes along with rolling paper, a pipe, a bag of marijuana, a large wad of dollar bills and a couple of letters which indicated that T.L.O was involved with marijuana dealing at the school.
Supreme Court
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
The New Jersey vs. T.L.O (1985) Supreme Court of the United States in 1980, Involves a high school student who was caught smoking in the girls bathroom (by school rules a nonsmoking area)by one of the school teacher at piscataway high school in Middlesex county, New Jersey. The girl was taken to the principal office were it was found in her purse by the Vice-Principal a pack of cigarettes, along with rolling paper, a pipe, marijuana, a large wad of dollar bills and two letters which had indicated that T.L.O was involved in dealing marijuana at the school. T.L.O was taken to the police station where she was sentence to a year probation by the juvenile court. The decision was overturned by the State Supreme Court that T.L.O fourth Amendment right had been violated. It was later decided that T.L.O fourth Amendment right had not been violated and illegal drugs found in her purse were admissible as evidence in juvenile proceeding.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Greed is good week 6
Las Vegas is one of the greediest places to work only followed by Wall Street where money talks and the more you have the louder you can be. One of the biggest talkers on the strip is Wynn and the MGM Properties. But because these millionaire corporations having so much greed for the dollar we now have new jobs that will be on the strip with the opening of City Center. With new jobs opening up it gives our economics a chance to jump start its self which we need so bad in our economy. We are lucky in a way because most of our corporations on the strip give back to the community.
But there are other corporations that do not give back they take money that was given to the by the government and they give it to their CEO as bonuses which should have went to help others out.
Then there are the credit cards that are not getting more money from us because if we are late on one card they have the right to raise the interest rates on all of your credit cards. This means that it will put more of a hardship on the average family that has had to use their credit cards to pay for day to day stuff. All because the banks and finance companies want more money, after they abused the bail out money that the government gave them.
So you might say that greed being good is like a sword that will cut you on both sides. Yes if a corporation has a lot of greed chancing the dollar and they make new jobs and give back to the community then yes greed is good. However if they take and take and never give back I do not understand how greed can be good.
But there are other corporations that do not give back they take money that was given to the by the government and they give it to their CEO as bonuses which should have went to help others out.
Then there are the credit cards that are not getting more money from us because if we are late on one card they have the right to raise the interest rates on all of your credit cards. This means that it will put more of a hardship on the average family that has had to use their credit cards to pay for day to day stuff. All because the banks and finance companies want more money, after they abused the bail out money that the government gave them.
So you might say that greed being good is like a sword that will cut you on both sides. Yes if a corporation has a lot of greed chancing the dollar and they make new jobs and give back to the community then yes greed is good. However if they take and take and never give back I do not understand how greed can be good.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Bong for Jesus
iddle on this because the topic did involve an illegal use of a controlled substance. But there is a bigger issue here and that is violation of the right to free speech. He was standing on the side walk so there for he was not on school property so he should not have been any thing to do with school. He was not on the property that the school owned. Where I am sure that the school had a police of no illegal drug on in school or in the school environment. But when did the sidewalk become a part of the school, I believed that the side was belonged to the city not to a school.
Even in school I do not think that the principle has the right to say what can and can not be said unless it is a verbal attack to a another person. So for them to step in even if he did it to get even with the principal Morse for his actions taking action for disciplined that he did on Frederick . Morse still was wrong in action for trying to control the speech of a student of the property. It would be like saying that we as student do not have to right to say what we think her.
I do understand that this is a teenager but still teens have the same right under the first amendment to say what is on their minds as long as it is not verbal assault on anyone else.
I think that the 10 day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use. Was wrong all the way around as it did not happen on school property but there is still the problem that this teens rights were violated.
Even in school I do not think that the principle has the right to say what can and can not be said unless it is a verbal attack to a another person. So for them to step in even if he did it to get even with the principal Morse for his actions taking action for disciplined that he did on Frederick . Morse still was wrong in action for trying to control the speech of a student of the property. It would be like saying that we as student do not have to right to say what we think her.
I do understand that this is a teenager but still teens have the same right under the first amendment to say what is on their minds as long as it is not verbal assault on anyone else.
I think that the 10 day suspension for violating a school policy on promoting illegal drug use. Was wrong all the way around as it did not happen on school property but there is still the problem that this teens rights were violated.
Week 1 EOC What I think of Lawyers
I have nothing against lawyers. In fact, I thank God for experienced lawyers who are there for us when we need them. Someone recently said to me that “all lawyers are liars.” I disagree. Admittedly, some lawyers do lie; but the majority of lawyers, I think, are honest. The legal profession is a harsh environment, and lawyers know the system better than anyone, so we are wise to seek their help in time of legal trouble.
The legal profession is a tough business and I don't envy the lawyers who are paid to handle people's problems. It gets ugly. If the world was a loving place and everyone did the right thing, then there wouldn't be a need for lawyers. They earn their money. Thank God for the experienced lawyers who are there when we need them, who understand the law, and do their job well?
I cannot even think how it would be to know that you had to help get a rapist off for raping children. Or knowing your client is not guilty of murder but the jury finds him guilty any way and sentences him to death. Or when you are representing a client that you know is a dirt bag of a father but he has more money than is about to be ex wife so he get the kids cause she has a no lawyer and he does.
Nerveless I do think that they should lower the prices and do more pro bono work. I know when I was trying to find a lawyer to take a case for me most everyone I called waited between $150.00 to $200.00 to sit down and talk with them for any hour. I ended up going with a friend of my mom’s that does not do civil law he does medial review cases. It turned out ok but is sure it would have been better if I would have had a civil attorney.
The legal profession is a tough business and I don't envy the lawyers who are paid to handle people's problems. It gets ugly. If the world was a loving place and everyone did the right thing, then there wouldn't be a need for lawyers. They earn their money. Thank God for the experienced lawyers who are there when we need them, who understand the law, and do their job well?
I cannot even think how it would be to know that you had to help get a rapist off for raping children. Or knowing your client is not guilty of murder but the jury finds him guilty any way and sentences him to death. Or when you are representing a client that you know is a dirt bag of a father but he has more money than is about to be ex wife so he get the kids cause she has a no lawyer and he does.
Nerveless I do think that they should lower the prices and do more pro bono work. I know when I was trying to find a lawyer to take a case for me most everyone I called waited between $150.00 to $200.00 to sit down and talk with them for any hour. I ended up going with a friend of my mom’s that does not do civil law he does medial review cases. It turned out ok but is sure it would have been better if I would have had a civil attorney.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
EOC WEEK 4
skip to main skip to sidebar
EA Designer
Thursday, April 30, 2009
EOC Week 4
False advertisingsexual harrassmentbar gamblinglieing under oathdistruction of propertyspeedingtrespassinggun usebattery with a vehiclebattery with a deadly weaponcorruption of judgepaid witnessesleaving scene of accidentstolen vehicles/goodsattempted murderassultkidnappingrefrainment of tradedriving on private landfailure to stop at constructionfailure to pass lawfully while drivingfailure to wear seatbeltdriving without licensecrashing into police officerendangering the publicfraudm
Holy Eagar, Amanda Reed, Eugenia Agnos, Teri McNabb
EA Designer
Thursday, April 30, 2009
EOC Week 4
False advertisingsexual harrassmentbar gamblinglieing under oathdistruction of propertyspeedingtrespassinggun usebattery with a vehiclebattery with a deadly weaponcorruption of judgepaid witnessesleaving scene of accidentstolen vehicles/goodsattempted murderassultkidnappingrefrainment of tradedriving on private landfailure to stop at constructionfailure to pass lawfully while drivingfailure to wear seatbeltdriving without licensecrashing into police officerendangering the publicfraudm
Holy Eagar, Amanda Reed, Eugenia Agnos, Teri McNabb
Thursday, April 16, 2009
What Do I think about law's
What I think about the law's.. Well law's were make for us to flow and for us to be soft.If we don’t have law’s how would we work and do thing. It would be crazy if we don’t have law's to flow. Would with no law’s could work it can but it wont go well. We need laws we may not like then or some of us don’t want to falling it. But we need laws so we can work with one in other well.
There some people would say that the law’s we have there are no need for them But then u have some people saying we need every one of the law’s we have. Yes there are some law’s we don’t flows sometimes or that is not informs on us.No last it’s there for us to flow.
There some people would say that the law’s we have there are no need for them But then u have some people saying we need every one of the law’s we have. Yes there are some law’s we don’t flows sometimes or that is not informs on us.No last it’s there for us to flow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
