1. New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985) Lori Wolfe and Ann Peterson

2.  A teacher in 1980 discovered two high school students smoking in the girls bathroom.  Smoking in bathroom is a violation of school policy and the teacher brought the students to the principals office.  Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick questioned both students. One student admitted the violation, and T.L.O. denied she was smoking.

3.  Choplick brought T.L.O. into his private office and searched her purse and found cigarettes and package of rolling paper.  The rolling paper constituted reasonable suspicion of marijuana use and led Choplick to look more closely in the purse.

4.  The search revealed a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a substantial quantity of money in one- dollar bills, a list of students who appeared to owe T.L.O. money, and two letters implicating T.L.O. in dealing

5.  Mr. Choplick notified T.L.O.’s parents and police  T.L.O’s parents took her to the police station where T.L.O. confessed to selling marijuana at the high school  Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County and sentenced T.L.O to one year probation  State of New Jersey Court overruled the County Court  Supreme Court of New Jersey overturned the State of New Jersey Court

6.  Probable cause: Reasonable grounds for belief that an accused person may be subject to arrest or the issuance of a warrant. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/probable+cause  Reasonable suspicion: an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reasonable+suspicion

7.  The Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled by a margin of 6-3 in favor of New Jersey  Findings based on the fact that school personnel need reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause  Obtaining a search warrant would interfere addressing an issue quickly

8.  Students and parents should be informed that desks will be searched if reasonable suspicion is found  Reliable information to warrant a search

9.  Students and parents should be informed that lockers will be searched if reasonable suspicion is found  Reliable information to warrant a search  Student and at least 1 other staff member should be present and the student should open the locker  Student may request to have another student present if he or she wishes

10.  Book bag searches are a more extensive search and stronger evidence e to establish reasonable suspicion

11.  Students and parents should be informed that vehicles will be searched if reasonable suspicion is found  If the automobile is on the school property the vehicle can be searched with reasonable suspicion  At least 2 staff members and the student should be present during the search

12.  If student vehicle is parked off school grounds, probable cause must be established.  Law enforcement must obtain a search warrant and notify the parents of the impending search

13.  Courts do not look favorably on these searches  Should be strong sense of urgency that involves an immediate threat to health, safety, and order in the school  If there is probable cause linked to the search the courts are more likely to support a strip search

14.  http://civilliberty.about.com/od/equalrights/p/ Stafford-v-Redding-School-Strip-Search- Case.htm

15.  Courts have mixed reviews on whether drug dogs should be used in the schools  Northeast Metro 916 lawyer states we are required to notify parents and students of random drug dog searches

16.  Needs to be a reasonable suspicion  Information needs to be from a reliable source  Search should be done with 2 staff members present  No random searches that target a specific student  Personal searches should be limited to only extreme situations

17.  School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders by: Nathan L. Essex  http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme- court/cases/ar24.html http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme- court/cases/ar24.html  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ conlaw/tlo.html http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ conlaw/tlo.html