New Jersey v. T. L. O.

1. REDIRECT Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which established the standards by which a public school official can search a student in a school environment, and to what extent.

The case centered around a student at Piscataway High School in Piscataway, New Jersey, known then only by her initials T.L.O., who was searched for contraband after she was caught smoking in a school bathroom. She was sent to the principal's office, where the vice principal searched her purse and found marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and documentation of drug sales. She was expelled from the school and charged by police for the paraphernalia found in the search, but she fought the charge on the basis that the search of her purse violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure.

The New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the constitutionality of the search, but the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed, holding that the search of her purse was unreasonable. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court held that the Fourth Amendment applies to searches conducted by school officials in a school setting. However, school officials do not need to have probable cause nor obtain a warrant before searching a student. Instead, in order for a search to be justified, school officials must have reasonable suspicion that the student has violated either the law or school rules. Justice Byron White wrote for the six-justice majority that the school's search of T.L.O.'s purse was constitutional, setting a new precedent for school searches and student privacy.

Background

On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Piscataway, New Jersey discovered two 14-year-old freshmen smoking in a school bathroom, in violation of school rules. The pair were sent to principal's office, where they were questioned by Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. One of the students admitted to smoking, but the other student, whose initials were T.L.O., denied having ever smoked in her life. Choplick brought T.L.O. into his private office and demanded to see T.L.O.'s purse, and upon searching it, found a pack of cigarettes and rolling paper in plain view. Choplick then conducted a more thorough search of T.L.O.'s purse, revealing a small amount of marijuana, a tobacco pipe, an index card with the names of students who owed T.L.O. money, and letters linking T.L.O. to marijuana dealing. The principal then called the police and the girl's mother, who voluntarily drove her to the police station. She was convicted of dealing and use of illicit drugs. She was expelled from the school and fined $1,000. She was charged as a juvenile for the drugs and paraphernalia found in the search.

Court decision

The Supreme Court of the United States, in a 6–3 decision issued by Justice White, balancing between the legitimate expectation of privacy of the individual, even a child, and the school's interest in maintaining order and discipline, held for the appellant (the state). According to school officials, they do require a "reasonable suspicion" to perform a search.

Her possession of any cigarettes was relevant to whether or not she was being truthful, and since she had been caught in the bathroom and taken directly to the office, it was reasonable to assume she had the cigarettes in her purse. Thus, the vice-principal had reasonable cause to suspect a school rule had been broken, and more than just a "hunch" to search the purse. When the vice-principal was searching for the cigarettes, the drug-related evidence was in plain view. Plain view is an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. Thus, the reasonable search for cigarettes led to some of the drug related material being discovered, which justified a search (including the zippered compartments inside the bag) resulting in the discovery of the cigarettes and other evidence including a small bag of marijuana and cigarette rolling papers.

Other opinions

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Powell (joined by Justice O'Connor) stated that while he agreed with the Court's opinion, he felt that students in primary and secondary educational settings should not be afforded the same level of protection for search and seizures as adults and juveniles in non-school settings.

Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, agreed with the majority's conclusions about the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to school teachers but dissented from the new standard set down by the Court, which he felt was a departure from the traditional "probable cause" approach.

Today's decision sanctions school officials to conduct full scale searches on a 'reasonableness' standard whose only definite content is that it is not the same test as the 'probable cause' standard found in the text of the Fourth Amendment. In adopting this unclear, unprecedented, and unnecessary departure from generally Fourth Amendment standards, the Court carves out a broad exception to standards that this Court has developed over years of considering Fourth Amendment problems. Its decision is supported neither by precedent nor even by a fair application of the 'Balancing test of power' it proclaims in this very opinion.

Brennan went on to argue that for the government to justify a warrantless search, some "special governmental interest" outside of standard law enforcement interests was required. This idea was later adopted by the Court as the special needs doctrine.

See also

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 469
• Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 649 (1995)
• Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002)
• Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009)
• Special needs exception
• Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
• Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

External links

• Text of New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) is available from: CourtListener  Findlaw  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio)  California State University, Stanislaus 
• Summary on LandmarkCases.org