New Jersey vs. T.L.O. (1985)

ByShaquille StanleyVictor Baquerizo

Constitutional Issue

• New Jersey v. T.L.O. case violated the 4th amendment, which protects people from having their get their stuff searched without probable cause

New Jersey

• Mr. Choplick, the principle of Piscataway High School, who was representing New Jersey

• Mr. Choplick has searched a student’s property without the use of a search warrant.

• Although he found marijuana and rolling paper, he didn’t have the right to search T.L.O’s stuff

T.L.O.

• A student of Piscataway High School• T.L.O. and friend were caught in the

bathroom smoking• T.L.O. denied it, principle searched her

stuff without permission• Violated the 4th amendment

Background • The principle, Mr. Choplick searched

T.L.O’s purse because her and her friend were caught in the bathroom smoking and she denied it.

• Mr. Choplick has found cigarettes and rolling paper, a pipe, marijuana, and a roll of money. All this in the supreme court was rendered useless since it was found by violating the fourth amendment.

Key Points

• The 4th amendment has to be respected even in public schools.

• If evidence is found violating an amendment it is considered useless

• Just because you are under aged you still have all your rights.

Court Opinions

• There was a probable cause to search T.L.O.’s purse since smoke was found in the bathroom when she was there. This is allowable since they have evidence,

Significance

• Now that this case had taken in effect, public schools need to have a search warrant in order to search through a student’s stuff such as a locker or book bag.

My Opinion

• It is fair that the evidence of rolling paper and stuff was not held against T.L.O. because they were only searching for cigarettes. There was a probable cause to search her stuff only for cigarettes. The supreme’s decision was right

Work CitedWebsite 1:

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar24.htmlWebsite 2: www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tlo.htmlWebsite 3: www.supreme.justia.com/us/469/325/case.html