1. NJ vs. T.L.O. Peter Kotsovolos and Matt Spiegel

2. Parties & Roles  Two fourteen year-old high school freshman were caught smoking in the school bathroom.  One admitted, the other, known as “T.L.O.” because she was underage did not.  The principal searched T.L.O.’s purse and found the cigarettes, and after seeing the rolling paper in plain view he kept on searching and found:  Marijuana  A pipe  Plastic bags,  A substantial amount of money  Index card indicating other students in drug use  Two letters that implicated her in marijuana dealing.

3. Facts & Courts Involved  T.L.O. was expelled and fined $100 after being convicted of dealing and use of illicit drugs  She believed the search violated her 4 th amendment rights that prevented unlawful search and seizure, and took this to a Juvenile Court.

4. Appeal  Juvenile court sided with school, so T.L.O. took her case to the New Jersey Supreme Court for appeal.  The NJ Supreme Court found the search unreasonable, and appealed it  They believed the search was unreasonable because the principal had no reason to search T.L.O.’s purse and no reason to think she possessed other illicit items.  The case then went to the United States Supreme Court.

5. Final Ruling  The supreme court ruled that NJ vs. T.L.O. did not violate the 4 th amendment in a 6-3 decision.  The reason behind this was that the principal had probable cause, and that the other items were in plain view during the search of the purse.  Plain view is an exception to requiring a warrant as stated by the 4 th amendment, according to the Supreme Court.

6. Why is it “landmark”?  NJ vs. T.L.O. clarified that evidence in plain view was an exception to the protection against search and seizure without a warrant dictated in the 4 th amendment.  This made at easier for police and officials to bring evidence in cases that was previously exempt due to the 4 th amendment.  The case set a president for plain v ew cases.

7. Opposing Views  While Justice Vernanen and Justice Marshall agreed with the ruling, they disagreed with the precedent this case set.  They believed that probable cause was too vague and could be easily misinterpreted, and could lead to the violation of student rights.