About Press Copyright Contact us Creators Advertise Developers Terms Privacy Policy Safety How YouTube works Test new features. New Jersey v TLO.

Amazon Com New Jersey V T L O Drug Searches In Schools Landmark Supreme Court Cases 9780894909696 Persico Deborah A Books

TLO V New Jersey - YouTube.

New jersy v tlo. Moved to suppress evidence discovered in the search but the Court denied her motion. Contributor Names White Byron Raymond Judge Supreme Court of the United States Author Created Published. On appeal the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress evidence.

The Supreme courts ruling was opposite both the Juvenile and Appellate Courts decision. Supreme Court set forth the principles governing searches by public school authorities. In sum the reasonableness standard in TLO without the need for probable cause is a lower standard that makes students more.

In the 1760s the British government turned its back on the ancient concept of reasonable search and seizure when it authorized writs of assistance which allowed a British agent to authorize any that home shop or place of business be searched. Tlo This video is about New Jersey v. TLO V New Jersey.

In New Jersey v. Since this was against school rules the teacher took the girls to the Principals office. The justices decided in TLOs favor that whenever an official is in violation of a constitutional write that evidence gathered can not be used in a criminal case.

Factual History A Piscataway High School teacher found two girls smoking in the bath room. Although New Jersey v. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey Middlesex County found her guilty and sentenced her to probation for one year.

New Jerseys petition for certiorari sought review of only the third question. Footnote 1 The reasons why it did not seek review of either of the other two questions are tolerably clear. A correct understanding of the New Jersey courts standard explains why that court concluded in TLOs case that the assistant principal did not have reasonable grounds to believe that the student was concealing in her purse evidence of criminal activity or evidence of activity that would seriously interfere with school discipline or order27 The importance of the nature of the rule infraction to the New Jersey.

If playback doesnt begin shortly try restarting your device. Because the search resulting in the discovery of the evidence of marijuana dealing by the second student was reasonable the New Jersey Supreme Courts decision to exclude that evidence from the students juvenile delinquency proceedings on Fourth Amendment grounds was erroneous. New Jersey v.

The majority opinion delivered by Justice White stated that the schools search was reasonable and decided that in a school setting no warrant or probable cause is necessary because privacy expectations are lower when at school. The Background of New Jersey v. On appeal the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate.

There is substantial agreement among appellate courts that the New Jersey Supreme Court applied the correct standard and it is apparently one that the New Jersey law enforcement authorities favor. Was charged with possession of marijuana. But TLO still remained dissatisfied and appealed the case one last time to the United States Supreme Court.

The landmark case involved a high school girl who because she was a juvenile at the time was referred to in court and in court records by her initials TLO. In conclusion the court ruled in favor of TLO with a 6-3 vote in 1985. Is important because it delineates a departure from standard Fourth Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence.

Subsequently an Assistant Vice Principal questioned the girls based on the teachers allegation and one confessed to smoking. The acronym TLO was given to her as a result of her status as a minor. The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey Middlesex County found her guilty and sentenced her to probation for one year.

New Jerseys petition for certiorari sought review of only the third question1 The reasons why it did not seek review of either of the other two questions are tolerably clear. TLO 1985 In 1984 in the Piscataway Township High School in New Jersey a female student who was classified as a minor at the time of her arrest was convicted of possessing illegal paraphernalia utilized for the consumption of Marijuana. There is substantial agreement among appellate courts that the New Jersey Supreme Court applied the correct standard and it is apparently one that the New Jersey law enforcement authorities favor.

Was decided in 1985 it still has an impact on every student who brings a purse or backpack to school.