NEW JERSEY v. T.L.O., 469 U.S.

325 (1985)

FACTS

I. On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., discovered

two girls smoking in a lavatory, one of which was a 14 year old respondent T.L.O

II. Mr. Choplick called the student into his office where he then went through T.L.O’s purse

and found a pack of cigarettes and rolling papers. Mr.Choplick continued to search the purse

and found; a small amount of marihuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a substantial

quantity of money in one-dollar bills, an index card that appeared to be a list of students who

owed T.L.O. money, and two letters that implicated T.L.O. in marihuana dealing.

III. T.L.O’s mother and police officials were informed of the drug usage/ distribution, T.L.O

later confessed she was indeed selling marihuana on school property.

IIII. T.L.O argued Mr. Choplick's search of her purse violated the Fourth Amendment, and

moved to suppress the evidence found in her purse as well as her confession, as it could have

been tainted by the allegedly unlawful search.

VALUE DISPUTES

I. Although privacy is necessary, and the complete lack thereof inevitably affects a student’s

ability to have an educational experience backed by a peace of mind, the knowledge that students

could be in possession of harmful substances or items is much more detrimental to an

educational experience.

A. A slight lack of privacy on school grounds in the age of fentanyl laced drugs and school

shootings, for the trade-off of an enforcement of safety and wellbeing is a trade worth

making.

a. This is all on the grounds that searches are done without bias or prejudice.
II. Express the importance of student searches, and the admittance of any evidence found in

them, in an environment as vulnerable as a school- where the presence of drugs, or worse: guns,

have much more detrimental effects on the population than in society. Schools have a high

density of individuals who are extraordinarily impressionable, thus the presence of drugs

presents a massive threat to influence them over the average citizen. Thus, they should be

removed from the equation regardless of how they are found.

A. If someone is in possession of drugs outside of school, they are surrounded by a much

smaller network of people whom they are capable of influencing. Likewise, if someone is

in possession of a gun, they are much less likely to harm someone in a general citizen

population than a location of high-density vulnerable individuals such as a school. Thus,

if someone is found in possession of such items, no matter how, action should be taken on

the basis of the environment at hand.

a. There is a reason why searches, although performed by private companies, are

performed at theme parks, concerts, and other venues. It is because the value of

safety takes precedence over the value of privacy in an environment so dense with

people, and in some circumstances, full of people who may not be able to defend

themselves. This same train of thought should be applied to schools for the same

reasons.

III. Argue that in a place such as a school, a search resulting in evidence of a crime separate for

that which law officers have reasonably suspected of discovering should also be considered as

part of the case.

A. Simply dismissing drugs found in a purse, clearly intended for sale, because cigarettes

were all that was being searched for, is an act of negligence that may result in harm to

students as the drugs are allowed to remain with no repercussion.

a. Although it has been proven that marijuana is extremely non-harmful, having no

deaths directly linked to the consumption to the compounds found within

 cannabis itself, if other more harmful drugs that indeed could harm, or worse kill,

students are found on campus, immediate legal action should be taken to prevent

the spread of such substances.

POLICY DISPUTES

I. The schools main responsibility is to protect their students' privacy and ensure their safety &

well-being. Schools can implement policies that balance privacy with safety concerns such as

conducting searches with reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. Which the school did in this case.

II. The students have rights protected by the Constitutions, but schools also have the authority to

maintain order and discipline within their grounds.

III. The search of the T.L.O’s purse did not violate the Fourth Amendment

right. INFERENCES/PRESUMPTIONS/PERCEPTIONS

I. T.L.O. violated school rules and was involved in drug dealing.

II. School officials have a diminished expectation of privacy in comparison to the general public

and that searches administered by school officials are subject to a lower standard of judgment

and reason rather than searches conducted by law enforcement.

III. School officials are acting in loco parentis during school hours.

III. The Court's decision revolved around their belief that students have a reduced expectation of

privacy in school. Schools have an interest in maintaining a safe environment, therefore, students

have a reduced expectation of privacy on school grounds.

IV. Drug use and dealing is a serious problem in schools, hence the necessity of searches to

reduce such activity.

IV. Court considered the balance between the privacy rights of students and the
legitimate interests of schools in maintaining order and safety.

CLOSING/CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case has brought up crucial questions about the Fourth

Amendment and the defense of students’ privacy rights in public schools. The outcome of this

lawsuit will have significant ramifications for students’ constitutional rights nationwide.

I. Important questions are raised about the Fourth Amendment and the defense of students'

privacy rights in public schools are highlighted by the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O. II. We

advocate that TLO be charged with possession of cannabis, after everything is considered.