Facts of the Case  Two students were found smoking cigarettes in a school bathroom.  One of the students (TLO) denied smoking, so her bag was searched by an assistant vice principal.  The search revealed a pack of cigarettes, with rolling papers in plain view.  The administrator continued the search based on this.

Facts of the Case  The administrator continued the search and found other evidence showing that TLO was distributing marijuana.  TLO was expelled from the school, convicted of dealing and using illicit drugs, put on probation for one year, and fined $1,000.

Procedural History  TLO was tried in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey. She motioned to dismiss the search because it violated her 4 th amendment rights.  Her motion was denied and she was convicted in district court.  On appeal, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, upheld the verdict and the decision to suppress the motion.

The Court’s Decision  The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of New Jersey.  Majority: White, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, and O’Connor  Concurring: Blackmun  Concurring: Powell, joined by O’Connor  Concur/Dissent: Brennan, joined by Marshall  Concur/Dissent: Stevens, joined by Marshall, Brennan

Procedural History  The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, ruling that the search was unconstitutional. The evidence was therefore excluded in their reasoning.  The US Supreme Court heard the case in 1984.

Middlesex County, NJ Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of New Jersey Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division New Jersey Supreme Court United States Supreme Court

Constitutional Issue  The 4 th Amendment was the key constitutional issue in this case.  Did the administrator have the authority to conduct the search?  Should the search have ended when the pack of cigarettes was discovered?

The Court’s Reasoning  Majority Opinion:  Balance Test – The school has the right to forego constitutional rights in order to maintain the best environment possible in the school, within reason.  Continuing to search the bag after satisfying its original parameters was constitutional because the rolling papers were in plain view.

The Court’s Reasoning  Concurring Opinion:  Blackmun concurred, specifically adding that, while the school is justified to use the balancing test in conducting searches, probable cause is still necessary.  Powell, in his concurring opinion, joined by O’Connor, agreed completely with the court’s reasoning but emphasized specifically that students have a lower expectation of privacy in school and the necessity of the balance test.

The Court’s Reasoning  Concur/Dissent  Brennan, joined by Marshall, concurred because they agreed with the application of a balancing test. They disagreed with the constitutionality of the secondary search, after the pack of cigarettes was found.  Stevens, joined by Marshall and Brennan, concurs on the necessity of a balancing test but dissents, agreeing with the state Supreme Court in saying that smoking does not constitute a serious threat and therefore did not necessitate a search.

Impact on Society  Balancing Test: This case, with every member of the Supreme Court in agreement, affirmed the need for a balancing test in schools that does not guarantee students the full rights they are guaranteed outside of school.  Set a precedent for further cases in which students could be searched or drug-tested, with or without suspicion.

Our Opinion 1. Cigarette smoking, as Stevens noted, isn’t a major violation of school policy and therefore the need for an immediate search was questionable. We have yet to decide whether we believe the original search was justified. 2. Once the search began, the rolling papers in plain sight gave probable cause for the administrator to continue searching the bag.

Our Opinion 3. If the school is going to the use a balancing test and suspend student’s rights in order to do what’s best for the school environment, the government shouldn’t be able to prosecute criminally based on what they discover. It is within the authority of the school to discipline the student as they see fit, but criminal charges cannot be brought based on information gathered unconstitutionally.