Logan Bateman

EDU 210 Nevada School Law

Mrs. Abbott

01 April, 2018

A. The Case

○ New Jersey V. TLO (January 15, 1985)

B. The Facts

○ This case involved the state of New Jersey in opposition too TLO or Tracy Lois

Odem whose name was released long after the case was brought to court.

○ Their dispute was over implications of improper search and seizure and violation

of the Fourth Amendment rights of the accuser TLO.

○ It was a long road to get TLO’s case to the supreme court as the case travelled

through three different lower courts who all ruled in New Jersey’s favor until the

highest court in New Jersey eventually reversed stating that the administrators

desire to catch TLO in a lie was not reasonable justification to go through her

purse without permission or a warrant.

○ In the case of TLO, a female student at a New Jersey high school, she was

accused of smoking cigarettes in the school bathroom with another female

student and was caught by a teacher at the school. Her and the other student

were then called to an administrator's office where TLO’s friend admitted to

smoking the cigarettes while TLO denied the allegations. The administrator

accused TLO of lying to him and forced her to let him examine her purse. Upon

examining the purse’s contents the administrator found a pack of cigarettes as

well as cigarette rolling paper and a list of student names which were assumed to

be buyers which TLO was dealing drugs to. TLO later admitted to selling
 marijuana and was found a delinquent. After her one-year probation TLO

accused the school administration of violating her fourth amendment rights and

eventually managed to get her case heard.

C. The Issue

○ The issue in this case was deciding whether or not a New Jersey high school had

violated TLO’s fourth amendment rights in the search and seizure of personal

items in her purse in order to prove her guilty of breaking the law and school

rules. The question being, “Were TLO’s fourth amendment rights infringed upon

in the search and seizure of her purse in an attempt to prove she was lying and

breaking the law or did the school have reasonable cause or proof to perform the

search of the purse without a warrant?

D. The Holding

○ In the case of New Jersey V. TLO the majority decision in the Supreme Court

case fell in favor of the school. While the court held that students’ should expect

some measure of privacy in school, those needs must be balanced with the

schools needs as well. They ruled that school are allowed to conduct reasonable

warrantless searches and that the search of TLO’s purse was reasonable under

the circumstances.

Supreme Vote Count: 6-3

Majority Opinion: Justice White

Concurrences: Justice Powell, with Justice Day O’Conner, and Justice Blackmun

Dissents: Justice Brennan, with Justice Marshall, and Justice Stevens

E. Majority Opinion Reasoning:

● Rule- “School officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who

is under their authority.” The court decided in favor of the school in this case. The

court applied this rule for several reasons. For example, it was held that in a

school setting it is the reasonableness of a search that determines the legality of

said search, warrant or not. The court also held that while students are afforded

some privacy rights, some of said constitutional rights are waved at the school

doors and that the schools needs must be balanced against the students own.

For instance, if a school suspects a crime is being committed they have every

right to perform a search as long as it is considered reasonable.

■ The court eventually established a test to determine if a search is

reasonable or not: 1.) Whether the search was justified at its

inception and 2.) As the search was conducted was it reasonably

related to the circumstances that called for the search in the first

place.

● Application- Upon the court evaluating the new ruling and evaluating the facts of

TLO in light of the new test the court found the the search was justified and

reasonable. They found such action reasonable due to the report of the school

staff member seeing TLO smoking in the girls restroom constituting as

reasonable suspicion for TLO possessing cigarettes. The court also found that

the administration finding rolling paper in the purse counted as reasonable

suspicion for the possession and dispension of marijuana. The teacher’s report

justified the initial search of cigarettes and the rolling paper justified a further

search so, due to the court’s new test and ruling, the school did not violate the

fourth amendment according to the law.

F. Opinions:

● Concurring Opinions Reasoning:

○ In concurrence Justices Powell and O’Conner agreed with the majority

ruling but wished to emphasize that students may not have all the rights

in a school setting that they would in a non-school setting.

○ Justice Blackmun also concurred with the majority, however he wished to

emphasize the need for school authorities to respond the threats to

student safety and threats to the disruption of the educational

environment would call for exemption from the Fourth Amendment's

warrant and probable cause requirements for school searches.

● Dissenting Opinions Reasoning:

○ Justices Brennan and Marshall both concurred in part and dissented in

part. Both justices agreed with the fact that school officials may generally

search students without a warrant. However, they disagreed with the idea

that reasonable suspicion as opposed to probable cause would be the

test for determining when such searches should be permitted. They

believe TLO’s rights were violated.

○ Justice Stevens also concurred in part and dissented in part. He agreed

with the exclusionary rule concerning teachers and officials in schools

when concerning searches but believed that the search was not justified

at its inception because the administrator had no reason to believe that

TLO’s purse had any incriminating evidence or illegal items at the time of

the search so the search was not justified in his opinion.

 The case of New Jersey V. TLO is extremely important to education as a whole. If one

wishes to participate effectively in any part of the educational field they must understand the

rules that affect said field. New Jersey V. TLO, however, is a particularly relevant case. Not only

did this case create a new system of identifying whether a search is reasonable but it also set

the precedent for students waving some of their rights at school. This case was crucial in that

respect and it set the precedent for search and seizure procedures for all schools and many

future cases. This case informs students, teachers, administration, and any other school staff of

their rights and brought to light just how much care all parties needed to take concerning search

and seizure procedures and what is and is not allowed in those situations. I was surprised at

just how interested I became in this case and how much I have learned. Frankly, I’m rather

thankful I was assigned this case so that I could learn just what my rights are now as well as

what they will be when I eventually do become a teacher. Knowing these parameters will be

beneficial to me in the long run as I find myself trying to operate in the educational field. In the

end, I do have to agree with the court's ruling through I found myself with doubts at first.

Perhaps it is because I am a student as well so on some level I related to TLO to some extent.

However, after further consideration the safety of the students and the educational environment

is the most important thing and the court as well as the school administration seemed

concerned with that safety. I believe in the court's decision wholeheartedly.