Alexzandria Rosser 469 U.S. 325 (1985) New Jersey v. T.L.O. Alexzandria Rosser 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Constitutional Issue Parties Involved A teacher at a New Jersey High School found two girls smoking in the bathroom and sent them to the principal. One girl admitted to smoking but the other, known as T.L.O., denied it. The principal demanded to see the girl's purse and found evidence that she was also selling marijuana at school. T.L.O. confessed to selling marijuana and brought charges against her. She argued that her 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated. State of New Jersey New Jersey School TLO Teacher Friend Police Station

When and Where Events Before Supreme Court Juvenile Court ruled school had right to search to maintain discipline or enforce policies. Ruled as delinquent and to probation for one year. New Jersey State Court sided with the school but vacated the delinquent rule because she did not wave the fifth Amendment. New Jersey Supreme court reversed ruling and said school administrator’s conduct was not reasonable because possession of cigarettes did not violate school rules. The desire to catch TLO in a lie did not justify rummaging through her purse. 1985 New Jersey Court(s) before Supreme Court Juvenile and Domestic Relations COurt of Middlesex County, NJ New Jersey State Court System New Jersey State Supreme Court

Historical Context Related Cases Fourteenth Amendment No state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law Each State has own Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Laws that they interpret in own ways Supreme Court found that school admin in TLO’s case did not violate the Fourth Amendment as applied to the states through the 14th Amendment Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Held that Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures was applicable to States.

Ruling/ Decision Reasoning The search of T.L.O.’s purse did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court did not address the issue of whether unlawfully seized evidence should be suppressed in a juvenile delinquency hearing. The Court decided the Fourth Amendment applies to school officials. Supreme Court Vote 6-3 Ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited solely to the actions of law enforcement personnel. But, did rule that students expect some privacy at school. Search was justified at its inception because of the smoking violation. Discovered rolling paper providing suspicion that TLO possessed marijuana, justifying the search of the purse. Ruling that the school did not violate the Fourth Aendment.

Opposing Viewpoints My Opinion Justice Brennan Disagreed with Court’s holding that reasonable suspicion as opposed to probable cause should be the test for determining whether such searches may be permitted. He said school administration actions violated TLO’s rights and should be suppressed. I believe that the school had probable cause for searching her due to previous accusations of smoking in the bathroom. The search was not unreasonable due to this. Also, due to loco parentis the school had the right to search TLO with this cause. Students are expected to have privacy, but not if it is with illegal substances.

Dissenting Opinion 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. For me, the finding that the Fourth Amendment applies, coupled with the observation that what is at issue is a full-scale search, is the end of the inquiry. But even if I believed that a "balancing test" appropriately replaces the judgment of the Framers of the Fourth Amendment, I would nonetheless object to the cursory and short sighted "test" that the Court employs to justify its predictable weakening of Fourth Amendment protections.