APU PowerPoint

New Jersey v. T.L.O.:

Nancy O’Sullivan – Facilitator / Translator of Decision to Practice(slides 1-3 and 14-16) Maria Torres - Appellate Process (slides 4-8) Brian Roney - Supreme Court Decision Analyst (slides 9-13) EDL 585 Spring II Dr. Matthew Witmer New Jersey v. T.L.O.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.:

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Argued March 28, 1984 Reargued October 2, 1984 Decided January 15, 1985

New Jersey v. T.L.O.:

New Jersey v. T.L.O. What happened? A student was accused of smoking in the restroom. The student denies smoking in the restroom. When brought to the Assistant Vice Principal’s office, he demanded to see her purse. The Assistant Vice Principal did find cigarettes, some rolling papers and a pipe that are associated with marihuana use. Other items were found that would be associated with selling drugs. Did the Assistant Vice Principal have a right to search her purse?

New Jersey v T.L.O. Appeals Process:

New Jersey v T.L.O. Appeals Process Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court in Middlesex County brought delinquency charges against T.L.O. based on confession and evidence seized T.L.O. moved to suppress evidence found and confession. She alleged Fourth Amendment rights were violated and argued that confession was tainted by unlawful search, a possible Fifth Amendment violation .

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Appeals Process:

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Appeals Process Juvenile Court denied motion based on reasonable suspicion and reasonable cause to maintain school discipline. T.L.O. sentenced to one year’s probation. T.L.O. appealed. State of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed no Fourth Amendment violation. Evidence was not suppressed. Sentence was removed.

New Jersey v T.L.O. Appeals Process:

New Jersey v T.L.O. Appeals Process Court requested determination as to whether T.L.O. had knowingly and voluntarily waived rights before confession. Possible Fifth Amendment violation T.L.O. appealed to Supreme Court of New Jersey who reversed Appellate Division ruling and ordered evidence in purse could not be used, reasoning that: “if an official search violates constitutional rights, the evidence is not admissible in criminal proceedings” State of New Jersey petitioned for certiorari (re-examination of trial court actions) relative to Exclusionary Rule (admissibility of evidence obtained without a warrant). New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a search of a student’s purse without a warrant was unreasonable.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Appeals Process:

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Appeals Process United States Supreme Court ruled that students and minors have a lower expectation of privacy . Reasonableness of search is dependent on context. Need to search must be balanced with maintaining school discipline. “School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority” Reasonable suspicion /reasonable cause used as standard

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985):

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Constitutional Issues Do students in school have the same rights as adults under the Fourth Amendment? Does “probable cause” have to be established for a search of a student in school or is “reasonable cause” enough? Both questions were answered by the decisions on this case.

The Fourth Amendment and Public School Officials:

The Fourth Amendment and Public School Officials The 4th Amendment’s exclusion against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public school officials because they work under the authority of the state.  Students have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the property they bring with them to school. When they bring these items to school, they have not waived all rights to privacy.

Concurring Opinions:

Concurring Opinions Justice Blackmun wrote a concurring opinion: Education "is perhaps the most important function" of government, and government has a heightened obligation to safeguard students whom it compels to attend school. The special need for an immediate response to behavior that threatens either the safety of schoolchildren and teachers or the educational process itself justifies the Court in excepting school searches from the warrant and probable-cause requirement, and in applying a standard determined by balancing the relevant interests. (Source: www.streetlaw.com)

Dessenting Opinion:

Dessenting Opinion Justice Brennan, with Justice Marshall joining, wrote an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.: “On my view of the case, we need not decide whether the initial search conducted by Mr. Choplick —the search for evidence of the smoking violation that was completed when Mr. Choplick found the pack of cigarettes—was valid. For Mr. Choplick at that point did not have probable cause to continue to rummage through T.L.O.'s purse . . . Therefore, the fruits of this illegal search must be excluded and the judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. (Source: www.streetlaw.org)

Is there a fine line?:

Is there a fine line? In trying to achieve a balance between interests, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials should not be required to obtain a warrant to conduct a search of a student suspected of breaking school rules because this would interfere with swift and prompt disciplinary procedures needed in the schools.

What was the final decision?:

What was the final decision? In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey and the school, and against T.L.O.  Justice White was the majority opinion.  He concluded that school officials do not need a warrant to justify a search as long as the search was reasonable under the circumstances.  In the end, Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens dissented.

Translator of Decision to Practice :

Translator of Decision to Practice How does this affect our schools? At any given point, a student may be searched if there is a justifiable reason to do so. Hopefully this case will deter students not bring drugs or items associated with drugs to school.

Translator of Decision to Practice :

Translator of Decision to Practice How does this affect principals and how they do their jobs today? Principals can search students as long as the search is reasonable under the circumstances. This continues to give “power” to the principal instead of tying their hands. This decision make school safer because students will fear that they may be searched.

References:

References Gill, E., Paz, H., Plutko, R., Wagner, S. New Jersey v. T.Y.O. Selected Court Case Decisions Educational Leadership in a Legal Culture EDL585.