Bags and purses in schools have changed from being the schools property to personal property, because of one case. The New Jersey v. T.L.O court case gave a student a way to change privacy for students nationally. Even though in some situations the use of bags are turned into the institution belongings. It started with one flame in a foul school restroom with 2 negligent girls , both eager for a whiff of smoke. The teen had made the situation escalade by lying about even smoking the cigarette, which the school had curiosity about. Only the case didn't slide through the courts with ease there were many setbacks and misconceptions. The light of the case came from the existence of the fourth amendment dealing with personal privacy and reasonable …show more content…
The case began at Piscataway High School when a school teacher discovered two female students smoking in a school restroom, a violation of school policy. The official asked both girls if they were smoking, one admitted, while T.L.O denied smoking and was taking to the principal's office for further investigation.. They decided to search her purse , only she forced her hand over the purse making it difficult for the official to search. One he had gotten possession they found the cigarettes and also other objects like marijuana, notes of drug deals , and a lighter, seeming as if she sold marijuana to other students. The officials saw that what was found was worse than they expected and T.L.O was suspended and the school decided to get the police involved. T.L.O was charged with the possession of marijuana on school grounds. The school wanted to accuse her of the extra evidence that was found while T.L.O, stated that was against the fourth …show more content…
The case originated in Juvenile and Domestic Relations court in Middlesex county, New Jersey. They composed that “school officials may conduct a search of a student’s persons in certain circumstances.” Pointedly, the court felt as the officials may search a student if they are suspicious of a crime in the present or future , and also knowing that the search is going to obtain discipline and enforce policies in schools. They found by the incident that the fourth amendment was not violated by the school official and T.L.O was sentenced to one year in probation as a delinquent. Next the case moved to Appellate Division ( New Jersey State Court System) which they confirmed the juvenile courts decisions but also looked further in. Before her confession they wondered if she waived her fifth amendment right hostile to self-incrimination , but still they saw it just as the other courts eyes. Ultimately the final ruling came from New Jersey State Supreme Court which was the next stage. Once again they also agreed with the lower states, which they state a school official can act upon a warrantless search if they have reasons to believe of the accusation of illegal and disobedient of school orders. However the Supreme court looked into the case more deeply and willingly , which they have composed something different from the lower states. They reverses the case and noted that the evidence
In this case, the Supreme Court decision in reversing the decision of the trail court. Although the suspects were conducting an illegal crime, the officers were reckless in the procedures in collecting the evidence. In this case, if there was a report or call concerning the drug activities in the apartment, being that the Police Department was conducting a the drug sting, it would have justified the reasoning behind the officers kicking the door in and securing suspects and evidence.
In the case Morale v. Grigel, 422 F.Supp 988 (1976), the plaintiff James Morale, who is a student at New Hampshire Technical Institute, room was entered and searched by officials representing the dorm. There was no probable cause for them to enter his room, and while there they seized what they alleged to be “purple haze”. The court ruled that a check or search of a student's dormitory room is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless NHTI can show that the search furthers its functioning as an educational institution. The search must further an interest that is separate and distinct from that served by New Hampshire's criminal law. Obviously, administrative checks of the rooms for health hazards are permissible pursuant to the school's
In 1989, plaintiff Joseph Benning was cited for a violation of § 1256 for operating a motorcycle without wearing approved headgear in Caledonia County, Vermont. The statue states that “No person may operate or ride upon a motorcycle upon a highway unless he wears upon his head protective headgear reflectorized in part and of a type approved by the commissioner.1 The headgear shall be equipped with either a neck or chin strap.1” The County State’s Attorney dismissed the citation because he deemed the statue vague and unable to establish the elements necessary to prosecute the crime.1 However, the plaintiffs filed suit against the state, seeking to have § 1256 declared unconstitutional.
Name of the Case: Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 1985. 2. Facts: In 1979, the Cleveland Board of Education hired James Loudermill as a security guard. Loudermill had stated on his job application that he had never been convicted of a felony. While conducting an examination of Loudermill’s employment records approximately eleven months later, the Board of Education discovered that he had actually been convicted of grand larceny, a felony, in 1968. The Board of Education’s business manager sent Loudermill a letter informing him that he had been dismissed due to dishonesty on his original job application. Loudermill was never given a chance to challenge the charge of dishonesty or his termination. As a “classified civil servant” under Ohio state law he could only be
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes Substance abuse materials may include marijuana, which is cannabis that is commonly used by teens.
Redding became a starting case against unconstitutional searches of students where a girl had her backpack searched in the assistant principal 's office. After the official searched her bag, the school nurse’s office was her next destination, so the nurse and the administrative assistant could search her clothes and instructed her to shake out the elastic of her bra and underwear (Carpenter 86-87). The tragic part about this case is that it is not the first or final time a similar event has occurred. In the case of Jane Doe, “...or so she was called in this case…”, a student of a high school in Little Rock, Arkansas filed a case against her school (Dowling-Sendor 46). Dowling-Sendor tells of how the school regularly conducted searches of book bags and purses, and police officials would take any contraband found. Then any items found would become evidence for a prosecution (46). When school officials searched Jane’s bag, they recovered a container full of Marijuana, and its purpose was to convict Jane Doe on a drug misdemeanor charge. After being charged with this, Jane appealed to the 8th circuit because the District Court first dismissed her case. The court ruled in her favor in a two to one decision, claiming the search caused a violation of her rights. She had every reason to win because school officials search students at this school on a regular basis, and it is
In the Supreme Court Case New Jersey v. T.L.O, it was argued that an Assistant Vice Principal broke a student’s Fourth Amendment rights when searching through her belongings. In nineteen-eighty, two students were found smoking cigarettes in the restroom. This violated the New Jersey school’s policies, so the two teenage girls were taken to the Principal’s office. The one girl admitted to smoking the cigarettes, but the other denied participating. She was brought into the Assistant Vice Principal’s office where he searched her purse. He found a box of cigarettes and rolling papers. She was reported to the authorities for dealing marijuana based off of the rolling papers found inside her purse. After confessing to selling the illegal substance,
The Supreme Court in Florida v. Jardines (2013) held that the police taking a drug dog onto the porch of someone’s home without a warrant violates the homeowners Fourth Amendment rights. This case affects every police department in the United States as well as making more stringent guidelines as to what is considered a violation of the Fourth Amendment rights.
. . took a dollar. I know that you didn’t do that. You're not in any trouble. I just need you to be brave and come in here. When I tell you -- when I tell the story of what’s happened and I look at you, you just say no, you didn’t do it . . . ." (Hunt v. State, 2013). During the questioning, the door was closed, and Hunt was told that if he was lying he could be arrested among other things. Hunt claimed that Pritchett used a harsh voice and made the threat of arresting him 11-12 times. After Pritchett looked at the other student and told that student to look at Hunt who was about to cry. The student admitted that he, not Hunt, was the one who took the money. Pritchett praised and complimented Hunt and asked if he wanted him to call his parents, but Hunt declined. When he got home, he informed his mother of what happened and was then withdrawn from school for 18 months. Because the questioning in this case was unreasonably seized and intentionally used to frightened Hunt, in order to teach another student a lesson, this was considered a violation of his Fourth Amendment
TLO argued that her Fourth Amendment right was violated, in light of the fact that schools officials searched her purse after she was caught smoking in a bathroom. Her rights were violated, and these rights should be upheld, whether for a minor or on government property. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unlawful searches, and in this case, the school, not having a search warrant, searched her purse and discovered more cigarettes and marijuana. Though the contents of her purse where in fact illegal it does not excuse the fact that
was the first to hear T.L.O.’s case. they came to the verdict that she was guilty and sentenced her to one year community service. They also confirmed that assistant vice principal’s search of T.L.O.’s purse was legal and therefore did not withhold the evidence found. The case was then appealed and was sent to Appellate Division (New Jersey State Court System). They agreed with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court that no fourth amendment right was violated. T.L.O. the appealed to the New Jersey State Supreme Court which then heard her case. The New Jersey State Supreme Court held that the fourth amendment is applicable to schools and they also agreed that school officials do not need a warrant only probable cause. Although the New Jersey State Supreme Court agreed with these things it reversed the ruling in the T.L.O. case stating that Theodore Choplick did not have probable cause to search T.L.O.’s purse as merely owning cigarettes was not against school policy. The U.S. Supreme Court then decided that it wanted to take a look at the case so they called it up. The Court decided that under the circumstances of the case, the search of T.L.O.’s purse did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Courts also stated what teachers can and cannot do. The U.S. Supreme Court decided that: lockers can be searched, pat down but not strip searches are legal with just cause, personal items can be
The school locker is usually the only private space available to a student in the environment of the school. So it focuses many of the main issues involved in privacy of the students. The 4th Amendment of the US Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,papers,and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized.”
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940): The solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violated the Cantwells' First Amendment free speech or free exercise rights. Although the Cantwells’ did not have the right permits for solicitation, the statute itself that made him have a permit to spread his religion was inherently unconstitutional and violated the first and fourteenth amendments. The freedoms outlined in those amendments allow citizens to exercise whatever they wish to when it comes to religion.
This case began when a school administrator discovered marijuana on a student’s personal belongings while searching for cigarettes that were banned for students to have on school property. The courts ruled that students do have Fourth Amendments rights to freedom from unreasonable
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education