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. One admitted, the other, known as “T.L.O.”

because she was underage did not. The principal searched T.L.O.’s purse and found the

cigarettes, and after seeing the rolling paper in plain view he kept on searching and found: Marijuana A pipe Plastic bags, A substantial amount of money Index card indicating other students in drug use Two letters that implicated her in marijuana

dealing.

Facts & Courts Involved T.L.O. was expelled and fined $100 after

being convicted of dealing and use of illicit drugs

She believed the search violated her 4th amendment rights that prevented unlawful search and seizure, and took this to a Juvenile Court.

Appeal Juvenile court sided with school, so T.L.O. took her

case to the New Jersey Supreme Court for appeal. The NJ Supreme Court found the search

unreasonable, and appealed it They believed the search was unreasonable because

the principal had no reason to search T.L.O.’s purse and no reason to think she possessed other illicit items.

The case then went to the United States Supreme Court.

Final Ruling The supreme court ruled that NJ vs. T.L.O. did not

violate the 4th amendment in a 6-3 decision. The reason behind this was that the principal had

probable cause, and that the other items were in plain view during the search of the purse. Plain view is an exception to requiring a warrant as

stated by the 4th amendment, according to the Supreme Court.

Why is it “landmark”? NJ vs. T.L.O. clarified that evidence in plain view

was an exception to the protection against search and seizure without a warrant dictated in the 4th amendment.

This made at easier for police and officials to bring evidence in cases that was previously exempt due to the 4th amendment. The case set a president for plain v ew cases.

Opposing Views While Justice Vernanen and Justice Marshall

agreed with the ruling, they disagreed with the precedent this case set.

They believed that probable cause was too vague and could be easily misinterpreted, and could lead to the violation of student rights.