Why the Principal Can Search Your Purse | New Jersey v. T. L. O.

Показать описание

In episode 52 of Supreme Court Briefs, two students get caught smoking in the high school restroom, and one denies it, so the principal searches her purse. #supremecourtbriefs #newjerseyvtlo #apgov

Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music: "Voyage" by Density and Time.

Check out cool primary sources here:

Other sources used:

Photo credits (Creative Commons):
Jeff Barton

Piscataway, New Jersey
March 7, 1980

A teacher catches two students smoking in a bathroom of Piscataway High School. Since smoking in the bathroom perhaps obviously went against school rules, the teacher took the two girls to the Principal’s office. Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick interrogated the two girls. One of them admitted to smoking. The other girl, a 14-year old freshman later known simply by her initials to protect her privacy, T.L.O., denied that she had been smoking.

Choplick thought T.L.O. was lying, of course. He forced her to come into his office so he could search her purse. Inside the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes. Next to the cigarettes, in plain view, were rolling papers, which he thought might be used for marijuana, so he kept searching the purse. He also found a pipe, empty plastic bags, a bunch of $1 bills rolled up together, an index card that apparently listed students who owed T.L.O. money, and even two letters seeming to show that T.L.O. was dealing marijuana.

Choplick reported what he found to the police, giving what he found in the purse to them as evidence. T.L.O. later voluntarily confessed to police that she had been selling marijuana at the high school. Based on the confession and seized evidence, the state of New Jersey charged T.L.O. with possession of marijuana in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County. However, her lawyer argued the evidence from the purse shouldn’t be allowed in court, as it was obtained illegally since this went against the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That’s a law known as the “exclusionary rule,” by the way. The Court allowed the evidence to be used anyway, and found her guilty, sentencing her to probation for one year. She was also fined $1,000 and expelled from school.

But T.L.O. appealed to the Superior Court of New Jersey. But it agreed with the lower court, saying the exclusionary rule did not apply to school officials and they could certainly search a student’s personal property.

So T.L.O. appealed again, this time to the New Jersey Supreme Court, who reversed the lower decision and sided with T.L.O. It argued the Fourth Amendment does apply to searches and seizures made by school officials in public schools.

So this time New Jersey appealed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on March 28, 1984, and then again on October 2, 1984. The big question was “does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?”

Рекомендации по теме

Комментарии

My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!

iammrbeat

This is rich. This was my highschool! I had know idea it was involved in such a national debate. The crazy part is I attend many, many years after this event happened and Choplick was still principal at the school.

blackchang

The court should have established criteria for what qualifies as a "reasonable suspicion", as well as requiring that the students and their guardians be informed of what the reasonable suspicion is, similar to the Miranda case.

bread

Not to be confused with New Jersey v. TLC (1994):

Holding: The Court finds the State of New Jersey cannot go chasing waterfalls.

This violates "the Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment. 6-3 in favour of TLC (Majority by Souter, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Stevens; concurrence by Day O'Connor, joined by Kennedy; Dissent by Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas).

WorldNews

Fun fact: the NJ Superior Court's logo is a holdover from British rule. The portcullis is still on the seal of Parliament (and they've considered getting rid of it because it's not very welcoming).

SamAronow

Of course a school principal would be named Theodore

heronimousbrapson

I like how TLO's hair comes off her head when she rises to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court

terdragontra

I came across a case I've previously never heard of before: "Northern Securities Co Vs United States, " the 1903/04 ruling on the monopolisation of the railroads of the West Coast by an offshoot of JP Morgan

SiVlog

As far as I'm concerned public school is a part of the government, thus the 4th amendment should apply to them, just as the 1st amendment prevents mandatory prayer in public school.

deidara_

That's when you keep your special stuff in a bag in a small box in your purse haha 🤪😉

daniellevandermolen

I would agree with it on the surface but I feel like that case has inadvertently lead to the system in some US schools today where the school discounts students privacy for 'saftey"

freddiesudell

I think this is the most conflicted Ive felt hearing about a SCOTUS decision. Great vid Mr Beat

LOLquendoTV

Do you agree with the Court in this decision?

Which Supreme Court case should I look at next?

iammrbeat

As someone who goes to Piscataway high school, the result that this case doe not empower us has been hammered into our head

ianmoore

Crazy to think that I grew up just a few towns over from where this all took place! My highschool has played (and lost, repeatedly) to Piscataway High in football

katetranscribes