Supreme Court Case: New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985) - Research Paper Example

What Constitutional Rights Should Schoolchildren Have? Case Review on New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985) Introduction to the Case: New Jersey v. TLO 469 U.S. 325 (1985) is a case that was brought to the US Supreme court and is considered to be important as it sought to establish the constitutionality of conducting a search for the possession of contraband among students in a public high school, the standard for assessing the actual legality of any searches conducted by various public school officials and the application of these standards to the facts of this particular case. In the said case, the defendant who was caught smoking in the bathroom and was subsequently searched for the possession of any additional contraband material by school officials in light of this incident. The defendant argued that the search essentially violated her Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches was being violated (U.S. Supreme Court. 1985). Facts: When the two female students were caught smoking in the bathroom, they were taken to the school principal’s office by the teacher where they met with the assistant school vice principal, Theodore Choplick. Upon further questioning by the vice principal, the first girl admitted to having illegally smoked in the girl’s bathroom while the second girl (T.L.O) denied these charges (U.S. Supreme Court. 2008). This caused Mr. Choplick to ask her into his private office where he asked her to hand over her purse for searching. The vice principal discovered a cigarettes pack while opening the purse, however in the process of removing the pack from the purse, he noticed a package of rolling papers that based on his experience, was closely tied to the use of marijuana by high school students (Dorf, 2009). This caued him to begin a more thorough search of the bag during which he discovered a pipe, marijuana, a relatively large quantity of $1 bills, numerous plastic bags, two letters that greatly implicated TLO in the dealing of marijuana and an index card that seemingly appeared to list students that happened to owe TLO money. This discovery caused vice principal Choplick to call the police and the girls mother who then proceeded to drive TLO to the police station where she was duly convicted of illicit drug use and dealing. Holdings: When the State of New Jersey filed delinquency charges against TLO in the Juvenile Court, the court denied a motion by TLO that sought to try and suppress the evidence that was found in her purse. The court held that while the Fourth Amendment essentially applied to any searches conducted by school officials, the particular search in question was in actual sense a reasonable one and as such the Court adjudged the respondent to be a delinquent. TLO was then fined $100 and expelled from the school. When the case was brought before the appellate division of the New Jersey Superior Court, the court affirmed and held the findings of the trial court on there having been no Fourth Amendment violation, it however vacated the adjudication of delinquency that had been made and remanded on other grounds. However, The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the ruling and then ordered that the evidence found in the respondent’s purse be suppressed, holding that the search that was conducted of the purse was unreasonable (U.S. Supreme Court. 1985). When the case was eventually brought before The U.S. Supreme Court, the decision made by the New Jersey Supreme Court to exclude the evidence found in the purse from TLO’s delinquency proceedings was found to be erroneous and was consequently reversed. TLO received a 3-day school suspension for having undertaken to smoke cigarettes in an area designated as being a non-smoking area and a further 7-day suspension for having been in possession of marijuana (Cornell. nd). Rationale: The Supreme Court’s rationale for reversing this decision based on the argument that the Fourth Amendment does not protect any subjective privacy expectations that are found to be either unreasonable or of an otherwise illegitimate nature Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984); Rawlings v. Kentucky 448 U.S. 98 (1980). For one to be able to receive the protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment, the expectation of privacy to be expected must of essence be one that the general society recognizes as being legitimate Hudson v. Palmer, supra, at 526. The Supreme Court also recognized that maintaining both order and security within schools basically necessitates that there be a certain given degree of flexibility in the school’s established disciplinary procedures. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. The Supreme Court also pointed out that Mr. Choplick’s decision to search TLO’s purse was not merely based on a “hunch” or inchoate and unparticularized suspicions” Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. at 27 but was instead a common-sense conclusion on the human behavior and upon which numerous practical people and government officials are entitled to constantly rely upon United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418 (1981). In a 6-3 decision that was issued by the Supreme Court’s Justice White, Mr. Choplick’s decision to conduct a further search for marijuana once the cigarettes had been detected was thus adjudicated to have been reasonable under the circumstances (Dorf, 2009; U.S. Supreme Court. 2008) and hence the decision made by the Supreme Court of New Jersey to exclude the evidence from T.L.O’s Juvenile delinquency proceedings was therefore erroneous and was thus reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court (Cornell. Nd). Justice Powell, who was joined by Justice O’Connor, concurred with the ruling but were however of the view that different levels of search and seizures from those afforded to juvenile’s and adults in non-school settings should be afforded to students in secondary and public educational settings. Justice Bernnan who was joined by Justice Marshall concurred and dissented in part by agreeing that there was a need for there to be a balancing approach to the effecting of school searches, however he disagreed with the newly established standards that had been set by the court as he strongly felt that they departed from the more traditional probable cause approach (U.S. Supreme Court. 1985). Case Significance: New Jersey v. TLO 469 U.S. 325 (1985) caused most federal and state courts to struggle with accommodating the various interests that are found to be protected under the Fourth Amendment as well as the interest of the States as they seek to try and provide a safe environment that is found to be conducive to the provision of education in public schools. This has caused a number of courts to resolve this conflict by holding that school officials conducting in-school searches are not subject to the constraints afforded by the Fourth Amendment due to their being private parties acting in loco parentis (Mercer v. State, 450 S.W..2d 715 (Tex.Civ.App.1970), D.R.C. v. State, 646 P.2d 252 (Alaska App. 1982). Some other courts have also ruled that searches conducted by school officials without probable cause are unreasonable as was the case in State v. Mora, 307 So.2d 37 (La.). It is important to study the specifics of this case as they help in the determination of the legality and reasonableness of any searches conducted by school officials (Cornell. Nd). References Cornell. nd. New Jersey v. T.L.O. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/469/325 Dorf. C. M. (2009). What Constitutional Rights Should Schoolchildren Have? Two Recent Cases Underscore the Ways in Which Children Are Not Simply Miniature Adults. Findlaw.com. Retrieved from http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20090323.html U.S. Supreme Court. (1985). New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Retrived from http://www.csustan.edu/cj/jjustice/CaseFiles/NEW%20JERSEY-v-TLO.pdf U.S. Supreme Court. (2008). New Jersey v. TLO, 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Retrived from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-479.pdf Read More