New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Jacob S. Theilig, Rowan College of South Jersey, CRJ-205: Administration of Justice Professor Wachter, April 18, 2024.
Abstract: New Jersey v. T.L.O. was a landmark case in 1980, involving a teacher who discovered two students smoking in their high school bathroom. A School Official, Theodore Choplick, questioned them, and searched T.L.O. purse containing items indicating she was dealing marijuana. T. L. O. was charged with possession of marijuana, but her lawyer argued that the evidence was illegal and violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the decision made by the lower court, stating that the fourth amendment does apply to school officials. The Supreme Court ruled that a school …show more content…
T.L.O. History This case began on March 7, 1980, in Piscataway, NJ, when a teacher discovered two students smoking in their highschool bathroom. The teacher then took the students to the principal's office, where a school administrator, Theodore Choplick, questioned them. One girl confessed to smoking in the bathroom, however the other, known as T.L.O., did not. Choplick believed that she was lying and demanded to search her purse. While conducting this search he found the cigarettes, but also discovered other items that were now in plain view. In her bag was rolling paper, a pipe, plastic bags, rolled up dollar bills, an index card with students names who owed money to T.L.O., and two letters. These letters seemed to show that T. L. O. was dealing with marijuana. Choplick handed this evidence over to police, where T.L.O. later confessed that she was selling marijuana. T. L. O. was charged with possession of marijuana, however her lawyer argued that the evidence obtained from her purse by Choplick, should not be allowed in court because it was obtained illegally. His reasoning was that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights that protected her from unreasonable search and seizures. And under the exclusionary rule, this evidence should not be permissible in court. Though the court disagreed with her lawyer and allowed it anyway. She was later found guilty. T. L. O. appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, but they agreed with the lower court, saying …show more content…
The main issue being faced was, “Whether evidence unlawfully seized by a school official – without involvement of law enforcement officials – should be allowed in as evidence at juvenile delinquency proceedings” (UScourts). In other words, does the exclusionary rule apply to school officials conducting searches in public schools? The Supreme Court ruled that it does, but they sided with New Jersey 6-3. “The Court reasoned, though, that the students’ right to expect privacy must be balanced with the ‘substantial interest of teachers and administrators in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds” (The Bill of Rights Institute). So, school officials may conduct warrantless searches of students, however they do need reasonable suspicion. “White answered by distinguishing the situation. ‘It is evident,’ he wrote, ‘that the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.’ As such, a warrant is not required to search a student, nor is ‘probable cause’ required” (Iannacci 2016). Though, a school official does need reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a search; this is less than probable cause, but more than just a hunch. The search must still be based on facts. What does this mean for students today? This case shaped the way schools can search for students and to what extent.
Jacob S. Theilig, Rowan College of South Jersey, CRJ-205: Administration of Justice Professor Wachter, April 18, 2024.
Abstract: New Jersey v. T.L.O. was a landmark case in 1980, involving a teacher who discovered two students smoking in their high school bathroom. A School Official, Theodore Choplick, questioned them, and searched T.L.O. purse containing items indicating she was dealing marijuana. T. L. O. was charged with possession of marijuana, but her lawyer argued that the evidence was illegal and violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the decision made by the lower court, stating that the fourth amendment does apply to school officials. The Supreme Court ruled that a school …show more content…
T.L.O. History This case began on March 7, 1980, in Piscataway, NJ, when a teacher discovered two students smoking in their highschool bathroom. The teacher then took the students to the principal's office, where a school administrator, Theodore Choplick, questioned them. One girl confessed to smoking in the bathroom, however the other, known as T.L.O., did not. Choplick believed that she was lying and demanded to search her purse. While conducting this search he found the cigarettes, but also discovered other items that were now in plain view. In her bag was rolling paper, a pipe, plastic bags, rolled up dollar bills, an index card with students names who owed money to T.L.O., and two letters. These letters seemed to show that T. L. O. was dealing with marijuana. Choplick handed this evidence over to police, where T.L.O. later confessed that she was selling marijuana. T. L. O. was charged with possession of marijuana, however her lawyer argued that the evidence obtained from her purse by Choplick, should not be allowed in court because it was obtained illegally. His reasoning was that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights that protected her from unreasonable search and seizures. And under the exclusionary rule, this evidence should not be permissible in court. Though the court disagreed with her lawyer and allowed it anyway. She was later found guilty. T. L. O. appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey, but they agreed with the lower court, saying …show more content…
The main issue being faced was, “Whether evidence unlawfully seized by a school official – without involvement of law enforcement officials – should be allowed in as evidence at juvenile delinquency proceedings” (UScourts). In other words, does the exclusionary rule apply to school officials conducting searches in public schools? The Supreme Court ruled that it does, but they sided with New Jersey 6-3. “The Court reasoned, though, that the students’ right to expect privacy must be balanced with the ‘substantial interest of teachers and administrators in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds” (The Bill of Rights Institute). So, school officials may conduct warrantless searches of students, however they do need reasonable suspicion. “White answered by distinguishing the situation. ‘It is evident,’ he wrote, ‘that the school setting requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject.’ As such, a warrant is not required to search a student, nor is ‘probable cause’ required” (Iannacci 2016). Though, a school official does need reasonable suspicion in order to conduct a search; this is less than probable cause, but more than just a hunch. The search must still be based on facts. What does this mean for students today? This case shaped the way schools can search for students and to what extent.