1st Amendment in Schools: New Jerey v. T.L.O
Th Supreme Court issued a ruling in this case in 1985. What are the constitutional and legal issues raised by this case? Suppose you were writing the Court's opinion. In whose favor would you decide-T.L.O or the State of New Jersey?
T.L.O's lawyer brought up that the principal looked through her purse without thinking about her 4th amendment; the evidence was obtained without a warrant. I believe that since the amendment was broken, even if the principal had evidence, he didn't have the right to search her. He did have SOME kind of reason to search the girl. But, I think the judges might have ruled against T.L.O.
ReplyDelete-Trevor Kerns
Yes, you have to have a warrant to search someone but you can ALSO have probable cause, as it says in the 4th amendment and the principle did. One girl admitted to smoking and the other was suspected of it. They were both smoking also. And how could the evidence found in her purse not be used against her.? They found they marijuana in her purse so why would it not be used against her.? That's like robbing a bank saying you didn't do it but having the money from the. In this case I believe the school won, because they definitely had a reason to search her purse.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the principle did not have the right to search her things because of the 4th amendment, the principle needed a warrant, and that evidence should not be used against her in court.
ReplyDeleteT.L.O's lawyer brought up a good point. They did not think about the 4th amendment, so there for they did not have a good enough reason to search T.L.O's purse.. Yes, she was smoking but for the teachers and the principal they are not the police so they can not search her purse.. They didn't have a good enough reason.
ReplyDeleteIn T.L.O's case, it was stated that her 4th amendment was violated because her purse was searched. The principal, without a warrant, found evidence against her statement. In the article though, it does not state if she gave the principal permission to search her purse which would've been acceptable. Since it did not, in my opinion I would side with T.L.O, but if I were the State of New Jersey, I would've also sided in favor of the school.
ReplyDeleteSarah, the fourth amendment says they get a warrant if they have a probable cause, not either or. So, they need a probable cause to get a warrant then they can search something.
ReplyDeleteAlso Sarah, only her friend was smoking at the time. T.L.O was not smoking.
ReplyDelete@Sarah M. Hey Sarah, the reason the lawyer thought that the evidence should not have been used against her, was because it was the principal that searched her purse. He did not have the right to search her purse, because he was not a police and he didn't have have a warrant to search. So anything that was found by the principal should not have been used against her, says the lawyer. :]
ReplyDelete-Morgan =]
I see your point, but as an example if a police officer smells alcohol from your car they don't have to have a warrant they have a good probable cause and can search your car. I also side with Helen because it never said if T.L.O said no to the principle searching her purse.
ReplyDeleteYes, you need a warrant to search anybodies belongings even if it is on the school grounds.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fourth amendment was broken because they didn't have a big enough of a reason to go threw here purse even though, she said that she had never smoked before in here life!!!
ReplyDeleteI would side with T.O.L's side because the school didn't have a warrant and that would be like someone texting in the bathroom when your not allowed to have cell phones and then having a teacher search your locker.
ReplyDeleteI think that the school should've issued a warrant. The purse belonged to her, not the government. If it was a locker, technically teachers could search it because it belongs to the government. The teacher based his accusation on the fact of what he thought, there was no actual proof until the principle violated her 4th amendment.
ReplyDeleteI think they shouldn't of searched T.O.L.'s purse. Even though her and her friend were caught smoking, it goes against the 4th amendment. The teachers and principals are NOT T.O.L's parents therefore they shouldn't be acting as her parents. Which means they didn't have the right to search her purse. Even if it was not a smart idea to smoke on school grounds, the students are still entitled to their rights.
ReplyDeleteI think that the school really DOESN'T need a warrant to search T.L.O's locker or belongings because at school most of your freedoms are taking away. She was also under age to smoke and the rules on school grounds PROHIBIT smoking. But on the other hand she says she never smoked so that isn't enough evidence to search her stuff.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the principal should have searched T.L.O.'s purse. Even though schools rules are different, he didn't have the right or a search warrant. He's also not T.L.O.'s parents who are able to search her. Even though he had some sort of evidence, he broke the 4th amendment stating that you have to have a search warrant. In my opinion, I would side with T.L.O.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the 4th amendment was broken and they do not have the right to search you but I also think that before the principle made T.O.L's empty her purse and pockets that the teacher should tell why he thinks that T.O.L.'s and her friend were both smoking and the evidence why he brought T.O.L to the principle.
ReplyDeleteto Damian Dehache, i see your point, but, they still should not have searched her purse because it's breaking the constitution.
ReplyDeleteTo William Armstrong
ReplyDeleteI disagree because if your on school grounds and the rules don't allow you to smoke. Your freedoms don't really apply to the BILL OF RIGHTS.
I agree with grant because there was no actual proof, so they shouldn't have issued a warrent.
ReplyDeleteThis case is about forth amendment rights in school. I think that T.L.O's forth amendment rights were violated and T.L.O's purse shouldn't have been searched. For example, the school officers felt that "they should not have to operate under the same restraints as the police." What makes school officers any better than everyone else? What gives them the right to take away someone's rights? I also agree with T.L.O's lawyer when they said that the teachers were not acting as parents but as employees of the State of New Jersey.
ReplyDeleteThis is the 4th Amendment. I think that they shouldn't of searched her purse without permission and that they can not go through someones property. Yes shes was probably smoking but they don't have a good enough reason to go through her purse!
ReplyDeleteThis is in violation of the 4th amendment. I don't think that they had the right to search T.L.O.'s purse. If back in the 1700's they made the rights saying what we can and can't do. So if we have the rights outside of school we should have them if school. But, I also agree that if it is a school rule you shouldn't do it. But then again the principle should have to get a warrant to search a personal belonging.
ReplyDeleteI think that the principle was not allowed to search through T.L.O.'s purse because he did not have a warrant. I think we should have the same rights in school as we do out of school. So the evidence that was found in T.L.O.'s purse should not be used during the trial.
ReplyDeletei think that it was wrong for the principle to go and look though her purse to
ReplyDeletei am in favor of the state of NJ because children and adults aren't allowed to smoke marijuana.
ReplyDeletei also belive that on school grounds teachers/staff are aloud to search students lookers because lookers are school property!
if you have something that is banneda teacher should beable to search your looker
The principle of the school searched T.L.O's purse without reading her her rights and that the evidence in her purse can't be used against her in court.
ReplyDeleteIf someone said that you had a gun in your locker of course the principal will search your locker or they will get the police officer in the school to search it and you.
If the school wanted to search for your cell phone would they have to ask you first?
If school wanted to search your locker would they have to ask you first?
You need a search warrant to search anything anywhere,so T.L.O shouldn't be charged. The principle shouldn't have searched here purse, because he didn't have a search warrant to be able to.I am going with T.L.O,because she shouldn't have been searched in the first place.She shouldn't get charged, because that wasn't what the principal was originally accusing her for.It was breaking the 4th amendment.They also didn't have a good enough reason to search her purse.
ReplyDeleteI think that it was wrong to look through the girls purse without a warrant.I think that we should have the same rights everywhere but still be safe in school.
ReplyDeleteAshlyn I so agree with you
ReplyDeleteI think that T.L.O forth amendment right got violated. The principal did not have a warrant to search T.L.O purse. But she still confessed to selling marijuana. But i agree with T.L.O bceacue her forth amnenment law were broken
ReplyDelete