New Jersey v. T.L.O.
Issue: Student Search & Seizure
Background:
- In 1980, a teacher at a high school in New Jersey found two girls smoking in a bathroom. Students were allowed to smoke in some areas of the school, but smoking in the restrooms was against school rules. The teacher took the two girls to the principal's office. There, they met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. One of the girls was T.L.O., a 14-year-old freshman. T.L.O. said she had not been smoking and said that she did not smoke at all. The second girl admitted that she had been smoking.
- Choplick took T.L.O. into his office. He told her to give him her purse. When he opened the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes. He took the cigarettes out of the purse and showed them to T.L.O. He said she had lied about smoking in the restroom. He also found a package of cigarette rolling papers. In his opinion, this meant that T.L.O. might be using marijuana. He decided to search T.L.O.'s purse some more. When he did so, he found some marijuana, a pipe, and empty plastic bags. He also found one-dollar bills, a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and some letters. In the letters, there was information that showed that T.L.O. was selling marijuana.
- Choplick then called T.L.O.'s mother and the police. They both came to the school. Choplick gave the items from the purse to the police. The police asked the mother to take T.L.O. to the police station. At the police station, T.L.O. admitted that she had been selling marijuana at school. The State of New Jersey brought charges against T.L.O. The evidence they used was T.L.O.'s admission and the items from her purse.
- T.L.O. said that the search violated the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. She tried to have the evidence from her purse kept out of court. She also argued that her confession should be suppressed, because it happened as a result of the unreasonable search. The juvenile court turned down her Fourth Amendment arguments. The Court said that a school official may search a student if that official has a "reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed". A school official may also search a student if he has "reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies."
- The juvenile court concluded that Choplick's search was reasonable. It said that Choplick was justified in searching the purse because of his reasonable suspicion that T.L.O. had violated school rules by smoking in the restroom. When Choplick opened the purse, evidence of marijuana use was in plain view. This justified the further search of the purse. In January 1982, T.L.O. was found delinquent and sentenced to one year of probation.
- T.L.O. appealed her case in the New Jersey courts. The Supreme Court of New Jersey found that Choplick's search was unreasonable. The state appealed.
- In 1983, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case. In 1985, the Court handed down its decision.
- In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New Jersey and the school, and against T.L.O. Justice White wrote the majority opinion. The majority concluded that school officials do not need a warrant to justify a search as long as the search was reasonable under the circumstances. Justices Brennan, Marshall and Stevens dissented.
- The Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public school officials because they act under the authority of the state. In addition students have a reasonable expectation of privacy for the property they bring with them to school. They have not “waived all rights to privacy in such items merely by bringing them onto school grounds.”
- However, the justices said the privacy interest of students must be balanced against the interest of teachers and school officials in maintaining order and discipline in school. Trying to achieve a balance between these interests, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials should not be required to obtain a warrant to conduct a search of a student suspected of breaking school rules because this would “unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools.”
- The Court decided that schools officials do not need to have probable cause to believe that a student has violated school rules in order to initiate a search, even though probable cause is required for police to initiate a search of children or adults outside of school. Instead, school officials are only required to have a “reasonable suspicion” that a student has violated school rules in order to search that student. A search will be deemed reasonable if, when it is started, “there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated … either the law or the rules of the school.” In addition, the scope of the search must be “reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” The Court concluded that “the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.”
- Applying this standard to T.L.O., the Court ruled that the search was reasonable. It was reasonable for the vice principal to believe that T.L.O. had been smoking in the bathroom in violation of school rules because a teacher witnessed it. Thus the vice principal had adequate grounds to search T.L.O.’s purse for cigarettes. While doing so, he came across evidence suggesting that T.L.O. was selling marijuana in the school. This gave him grounds to search the rest of her purse for drugs.
- In his dissent, Justice Brennan first argued that the same probable cause standard that is applied outside of schools should be applied inside schools. The Fourth Amendment states that “the right of the people to be secure … against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.” According to Justice Brennan’s interpretation, the Fourth Amendment explains what it means by “unreasonable” by specifying that “no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause.” Thus, searches that take place without probable cause, including those based only on “reasonable suspicion,” are unreasonable, and violate the Fourth Amendment.
- Justice Stevens also dissented. Like Justice Brennan, he believed that the Court’s new standard of “reasonable suspicion” was inappropriate. Instead of allowing school officials to search a student based on the reasonable suspicion that the student was breaking a school rule, Justice Stevens would require that the student be suspected of “violating the law or engaging in conduct that is seriously disruptive of school order, or the educational process.” Smoking in the bathroom was not a “violent or disruptive activity,” he argued, so an immediate search was unnecessary.
Case # & Citation:
- New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985)
- Landmark Cases of the U.S. Supreme Court. (n.d.). Retrieved June 15, 2015, from http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/new_jersey_v_tlo