{"id":54780,"date":"2021-01-13T11:43:50","date_gmt":"2021-01-13T16:43:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/supreme-court-insights\/new-jersey-v-tlo-case-summary.html"},"modified":"2021-01-13T11:43:50","modified_gmt":"2021-01-13T16:43:50","slug":"new-jersey-v-tlo-case-summary","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/supreme-court-insights\/new-jersey-v-tlo-case-summary.html","title":{"rendered":"New Jersey v. TLO Case Summary"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n

New Jersey v. TLO Case Summary<\/h1>\n
\n
\n By Joseph Fawbush, Esq.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Laura Temme, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last updated\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n

\n

Can school officials search students or their property whenever they choose? New Jersey v. T.L.O. <\/i>asked the U.S. Supreme Court to examine the privacy rights of public school students. <\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n

Many of the Supreme Court’s most notable cases involve the constitutional rights of students in public schools. In\u00a0New Jersey v. T.L.O.<\/i>, decided in 1985, the Supreme Court took up the issue of when school officials can search students’ personal belongings. Do students have Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by teachers and school staff? Or do students not have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in school?<\/p>\r\n

This question lingers in various forms to this day. For example, what right do schools have to search students’ phones? This body of law is still being developed. What was clear after\u00a0New Jersey v. T.L.O.<\/i>, however, is that a student’s Fourth Amendment rights are not left entirely at the door of the school. However, the Court held students have less of an expectation of privacy at school than in other places.<\/p>\r\n

Facts of the Case<\/h2>\r\n

The underlying circumstances surrounding\u00a0New Jersey v. T.L.O.<\/i>\u00a0are not particularly unusual. In the early 1980s, a high school teacher discovered two girls smoking in the bathroom. This, of course, was a violation of school rules. Although one 14-year-old student, T.L.O., denied she had been smoking, the teacher didn’t buy it and brought them both to the principal’s office. A vice principal at the school, suspecting T.L.O. had cigarettes, asked to see T.L.O.’s purse. The vice principal found marijuana papers alongside a pack of cigarettes, which led to a more thorough search of T.L.O.’s purse. He discovered a significant amount of cash, a small amount of marijuana, and a list of students who owed T.L.O money. Since these items indicated the student was selling marijuana to classmates, the school contacted the police. Ultimately, T.L.O. confessed to police and was charged in juvenile court for selling marijuana in school.<\/p>\r\n

T.L.O. argued that the school violated her Fourth Amendment rights when searching her purse. Because the evidence was obtained in violation of her rights, she argued, the list, cash, and papers could not be admitted as evidence, and her confession should be thrown out as well since it came from an unlawful search. The lower state court sided with the school, but the New Jersey Supreme Court sided with T.L.O. in finding that the search was unreasonable.<\/p>\r\n

Before getting into the Supreme Court’s decision, it helps to understand certain aspects of search and seizure law. Namely, the exclusionary rule and probable cause.<\/p>\r\n

The Exclusionary Rule<\/h2>\r\n

The exclusionary rule developed in the early 20th century. Under this Supreme Court doctrine, evidence found in violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment right is not admissible in court. The first case to use this doctrine was the 1914 decision\u00a0<\/i>Weeks v. United States<\/i><\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\r\n

It’s an important doctrine because the outcome of many criminal cases is determined by the exclusionary rule. If a criminal defendant can successfully argue that officers did not have probable cause to conduct a search, then the case against the defendant usually falls apart. If, however, the state can show probable cause, then the evidence is admissible, and the defendant may have a hard time defending their case.<\/p>\r\n

The Basics of Search and Seizure Law in the Context of\u00a0New Jersey v. T.L.O.<\/i><\/h2>\r\n

The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government, including law enforcement, from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures on U.S. citizens. Fourth Amendment law can be extremely complex, and exceptions and gray areas exist, but essentially police cannot search a person without probable cause. They also cannot search a place where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy without probable cause or first obtaining a search warrant from a court.<\/p>\r\n

Law enforcement officers have probable cause for a search when they have a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is committing a crime. Similarly, law enforcement officers can search private spaces, such as homes, if they obtain a warrant after showing to a judge they reasonably expect to find specific items connected with a crime, or if one of the exceptions such as the “plain sight” doctrine applies.<\/p>\r\n

Again, this is a complicated area of the law, but these are the basics of search and seizure law. In\u00a0New Jersey v. T.L.O.<\/i>, the court had to decide if:<\/p>\r\n