New Jersey Vs Tlo

1. NEW JERSEY
VS
T.L.O.
MARCH 7, 1980

2. THE CASE
In this case a teacher at a New Jersey high school caught a 14-year-old
freshman (T.L.O) smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom in
violation of a school rule. the teacher the
student to the principal's office. During a meeting with the
teacher and Assistant Vice President T.L.O denied smoking. The
Assistant Vice President demanded to see T.L.O's purse. When the
Assistant Vice President opened T.L.O's purse, he found a
package of cigarettes and a package of rolling papers that are
commonly associated with the use of marijuana. The Assistant Vice
President the Assistant Vice President continued searching the
purse and located some marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags a fairly
substantial amount of money, an index card containing a list of
students who owed T.L.O money, and two letters that implicated
T.L.O in selling marijuana.

3. THE PROSECUTION
The juvenile court held the Fourth Amendment
applied to searches by school officials but
that the search in questions was reasonable
one and adjudged respondent to be a
delinquent. The superior court of New
Jersey agreed with the juvenile court but the
New Jersey supreme court reversed the
decision and ordered the suspension of the
evidence found in the respondent's purse,
holding that the search of the purse was
unreasonable. School children said , have
legitimate expectations of privacy.

4. THE DEFENSE
•The school appealed to the Supreme
Court and the case was decided on
January 15, 1985. The lawyers for the
school argued that teachers must be
permitted to keep discipline, and this
includes searching student's lockers
and purses. T.L.O's lawyer argued
that the search violated the Fourth
Amendment's ban against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

5. THE VEREDICT
After several lower court appeals, T.L.O.'s case
ended up in the United States Supreme Court.
That Court held that the Fourth Amendment's
prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures
applies to searches conducted by school officials
and do law enforcement officers carry out not
limited to searches. School children have
legitimate expectations of privacy and the search
in this case was not unreasonable for the Fourth
Amendment purpose.