The Court established the following test to determine the reasonableness of a search: whether the search was 1) justified at its inception and 2) as the search was conducted, was it reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. In a concurrence, Justice Blackmun agreed with the majority.
The Court established the following test to determine the reasonableness of a search: whether the search was 1) justified at its inception and 2) as the search was conducted, was it reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. In a concurrence, Justice Blackmun agreed with the majority.Tags: Critical Thinking HelpThesis For Love In Romeo And JulietEssay Paragraph Transition WordsPsychology Topics Research PapersFinancial Planning Business ModelsEpigrams From An Essay On Criticism MeaningPersuasive Essay Background InfoHomework For Third GradersImportance Of Problem Solving In Math
The administrator contacted the police who, in turn, contacted T. As such, school authorities do not need to obtain a warrant or have probable cause that a crime occurred before searching a student. First, the Court concluded that the search was justified at its inception. Although the Court held that the Fourth Amendment applied to the school administrator’s actions, the court ultimately determined that his actions in this case did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
However, the students’ expectation of privacy must be balanced against the needs of school authorities to maintain an educational environment. Second, the Court noted that the discovery of rolling paper provided reasonable suspicion that T. Since the school administrator’s actions were justified at the inception and were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference, the search was reasonable.
Among other things, when the administrator opened her purse, he found a pack of cigarettes, and cigarette rolling paper. Justice Stevens, in his concurrence in part and dissent in part, noted that the Court should address the original issue, i.e., whether the exclusionary rule applies to searches made by public school officials and teachers in school. The states are free to interpret their Constitutions and laws in a manner that gives more protections to individuals than the U. In Footnote 10 of the majority opinion, Justice White makes this point, saying: “Of course, New Jersey may insist on a more demanding standard under its own Constitution or statutes. Podcast Learn what a scholar says about the landmark Supreme Court case New Jersey v.
of lying to him, and demanded to see her purse in an attempt to find the cigarettes. Applying the probable cause standard, Justice Brennan held that the school administrator’s actions violated T. O.’s rights and, thus, the evidence from the illegal search should be suppressed. Importance of State Constitutions Each state has its own Constitution, including some form of a state Bill of Rights, as well as laws. However, they cannot interpret them in a manner that gives less protection. It is possible that the New Jersey courts, applying the New Jersey Constitution and laws, could find that the school administrator’s actions violated New Jersey’s equivalent of the Fourth Amendment.
After trying a number of informational and disciplinary efforts to curb the student drug problem, the school district ultimately created the Student Athlete Drug Policy.
The school district invited input from the district’s parents in formulating the policy. Her lawyer argued that the search of her purse was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Lower Court 1: Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County, N. Lower Court 1 Ruling: The Fourth Amendment applies to searches carried out by school officials, but a school official may conduct a search of a student’s person under certain circumstances. was found delinquent and sentenced to probation for one year. had knowingly and voluntarily waived her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before confessing. in a lie did not justify rummaging through her purse. The Court did not address the issue of whether unlawfully seized evidence should be suppressed in a juvenile delinquency hearing. O.’s motion to suppress (keep out) her confession and the evidence from the search. After a lengthy appeal process in the New Jersey state court system, the U. Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case.A public school policy of randomly drug testing student athletes in the face of a school-wide drug problem does not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.State-compelled collection and testing of a person’s urine sample is a “search” for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. was found delinquent, and was put on probation for one year.The Vernonia School District in Oregon noted a precipitous rise in drug and alcohol abuse at school. and another student smoking cigarettes in the girls’ restroom in the school building in violation of school rules. Incorporation of the Fourth Amendment In several cases, the U. Supreme Court has incorporated various provisions of the Fourth Amendment, and related judicial rulings, to the states. Disclaimer (Please Note): This activity is meant to help high school students understand, as part of their civics education, the key facts and holdings of a well-known U. The Fourteenth Amendment The provisions of the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution, i.e., the Bill of Rights (1791), originally were applicable only to the federal government, and not to state governments. It says, in relevant part, “[N]or shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In a series of cases starting in 1925, the U. Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment as “incorporating” (applying) most but not all of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. Also applicable to the states was the exclusionary rule (a remedy by which evidence seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in court). Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means. A landmark case is a court case that is studied because it has historical and legal significance.The most significant cases are those that have had a lasting effect on the application of a certain law, often concerning your individual rights and liberties.