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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
