Alexzandria Rosser 469 U.S. 325 (1985)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1985.  3/7/80, 2 Freshmen at Piscataway High School is found in the girl’s bathroom smoking cigarettes.  They were brought to the AP’s office  One.
Advertisements

Historical Background Dollree Mapp was under suspicion for possibly hiding a person suspected in a bombing. Mapp refused to let the police in her home.
Supreme Court Case Presentation By Nicholas Childers.
 Record in Agenda: 1) Notebook check next class– all notes & class activities should have been completed and glued into your notebook. Check the Absent.
SEARCH AND SEIZURE A REASONABLE TEST Created by the Ohio State Bar Foundation.
New Jersey V.S T.L.O. Argued March 28, 1984 Reargued Oct 2, 1984 Decided Jan 15, 1985.
Landmark Cases: Search and Seizure
Fourth Amendment: Searches at School Note: Some photos and text in the PowerPoint are adapted from a lesson plan developed by Lindsey Kakert. The lesson.
Supreme Court Cases. What you need to know to present your case: The background of the case – What happened? – What were both sides of the argument? Constitutional.
Law enforcement officers conduct searches every day in an effort to find evidence that can be seized and used in court to prosecute people who have violated.
Cases on student rights. Tinker vs. Des Moines Who remembers the legal principle involved in Tinker?
New Jersey v. T.L.O (1985) David Kumar. Table of Contents Background Progression Through Courts Constitutional Issues Supreme Court Ruling.
+ Protecting Individual Liberties Section 1 Chapter 14.
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED. I. OVERVIEW A. Due Process: The government, in whatever it does, must act fairly and follow established rules. 1.5 th Amendment:
Fourth Amendment What are your rights in school?.
Objective 29l-Analyze the rights of the accused Kelsey McLaughlin and Kelsey Bois Kelsey McLaughlin and Kelsey Bois.
Student Rights: What rights do students have once inside the schoolhouse door? Tinker v. Des Moines and New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Street Law Fourth Amendment Rights
Case Study Presentation
Analyzing a Court Decision An overview of Student Searches presented by Bart Fennemore.
469 U.S. 325 January 15, 1985 Circumstances of the Case On March 7, 1980 a teacher at Piscataway High School found T.L.O with a friend smoking cigarettes.
NJ vs. T.L.O. Peter Kotsovolos and Matt Spiegel. Parties & Roles  Two fourteen year-old high school freshman were caught smoking in the school bathroom.
School district attorneys help to develop searches and seizures policies. School districts should provide trainings at schools in order to make sure of.
PROCEDURES IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM, 8 th ed. Roberson, Wallace, and Stuckey PRENTICE HALL ©2007 Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, NJ
New Jersey v. T.L.O By Luke Wills and Caroline Weschler.
Grady L. Hunt Locklear, Jacobs, Hunt & Brooks (910) The information contained in this presentation is intended for general.
By: Adrienne Hardwig Kelsi Teague Kelina Seyferth Ashlee Schaefer Daltun Hasty.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985) Lori Wolfe and Ann Peterson.
New Jersey vs TLO By Sarah Shelleh.
4 th Amendment More limited in schools. Supreme Court  Has ruled that school officials DO NOT need warrants to search students  All that is needed is.
New Jersey v. TLO Unit 4 Lesson 10.
The 4 th amendment. The 4 th amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported.
New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985) By Shaquille Stanley Victor Baquerizo.
Strip search th Amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches.
CALL TO ORDER  Have you or someone you’ve known ever been searched by the police, legally or illegally?  What do you know about the rules that police.
T HE R IGHT TO B E L EFT A LONE Essential Question: How has an individual’s right to privacy changed over time?
The Fourth Amendment COURT CASES. What does the Fourth Amendment say? The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
Bill of Rights Test Cases. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or.
Eliseo Lugo III.  In Weeks v. United States, 1914, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police illegally is not admissible in federal court—a practice.
U.S Supreme Court Cases Francesca Reis Isabel Pittman Pierce Robinson Frias Shihady.
New Jersey v TLO Trevor B. & Akilia R.. Facts about the case : In 1980, a teacher at Piscataway in NJ discovered two girl smoking in a restroom This was.
Facts of the Case  Two students were found smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom.  One of the students (TLO) denied smoking, so her bag was searched.
Fourth Amendment: Searches at School Note: Some photos and text in the PowerPoint are adapted from a lesson plan developed by Lindsey Kakert. The lesson.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases:
The 4th Amendment Notes 5-3.
What Do You Think? The principal is walking down the hall at the end of lunch, hurrying students to class. As he passes the bathroom, he smells marijuana.
Introduction to the Federal Court System
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643.
Enforcement of Fourth Amendment Protections Is a man’s home his castle
By Maura Hertig, Ryan Hornickel, and Mia Lerner
Do They Have The Right?.
Name that tune! Raise your hand if you know how to answer BOTH of the questions below. Artist? How does this song relate to what we’re learning today?
Chapter 14 Searches and Seizures
LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES:
New Jersey v. T.L.O Rachel Sturgis.
The 4th Amendment Notes 5-3.
New J New Jersey v. T.L.O L.O..
Introduction to Federal Court System
4th Amendment Jorge Gonzalez.
U.S. Constitution: States, Amending, Federalism, and Ratification
October 16, 2018 Modern Issues in the U.S. Agenda:
Bill of Rights Test Cases
The Bill of Rights What rights and freedoms does the Bill of Rights protect and why are they important?
Film Clip: Crash Course - Legal System Basics: #18
Reasonable Suspicion Searches
Search & Seizure The act of taking possession of this property.
Safford United School District #1 v. Redding
Search & Seizure in Schools:
Ch. 3-1 Criminal Procedure and the Constitution
New Jersey v. T.L.O. 469 US 325 (1985) By Sage Miller.
Presentation transcript:

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.