New Jersey v. T.L.O.
| Citation | 105 S.Ct. 733,469 U.S. 325,83 L.Ed.2d 720 |
| Decision Date | 28 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-712,83-712 |
| Parties | NEW JERSEY v. T.L.O |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
A teacher at a New Jersey high school, upon discovering respondent, then a 14-year-old freshman, and her companion smoking cigarettes in a school lavatory in violation of a school rule, took them to the Principal's office, where they met with the Assistant Vice Principal. When respondent, in response to the Assistant Vice Principal's questioning, denied that she had been smoking and claimed that she did not smoke at all, the Assistant Vice Principal demanded to see her purse. Upon opening the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes and also noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers that are commonly associated with the use of marihuana. He then proceeded to search the purse thoroughly and found some marihuana, a pipe, plastic bags, a fairly substantial amount of money, an index card containing a list of students who owed respondent money, and two letters that implicated her in marihuana dealing. Thereafter, the State brought delinquency charges against respondent in the Juvenile Court, which, after denying respondent's motion to suppress the evidence found in her purse, held that the Fourth Amendment applied to searches by school officials but that the search in question was a reasonable one, and adjudged respondent to be a delinquent. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court affirmed the trial court's finding that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation but vacated the adjudication of delinquency and remanded on other grounds. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and ordered the suppression of the evidence found in respondent's purse, holding that the search of the purse was unreasonable.
Held:
1. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials and is not limited to searches carried out by law enforcement officers. Nor are school officials exempt from the Amendment's dictates by virtue of the special nature of their authority over schoolchildren. In carrying out searches and other functions pursuant to disciplinary policies mandated by state statutes, school officials act as representatives of the State, not merely as surrogates for the parents of students, and they cannot claim the parents' immunity from the Fourth Amendment's strictures. Pp. 333-337 2. Schoolchildren have legitimate expectations of privacy. They may find it necessary to carry with them a variety of legitimate, noncontraband items, and there is no reason to conclude that they have necessarily waived all rights to privacy in such items by bringing them onto school grounds. But striking the balance between schoolchildren's legitimate expectations of privacy and the school's equally legitimate need to maintain an environment in which learning can take place requires some easing of the restrictions to which searches by public authorities are ordinarily subject. Thus, school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority. Moreover, school officials need not be held subject to the requirement that searches be based on probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has violated or is violating the law. Rather, the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search. Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a determination of whether the search was justified at its inception and whether, as conducted, it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. Under ordinary circumstances the search of a student by a school official will be justified at its inception where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. And such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the student's age and sex and the nature of the infraction. Pp. 337-343.
3. Under the above standard, the search in this case was not unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. First, the initial search for cigarettes was reasonable. The report to the Assistant Vice Principal that respondent had been smoking warranted a reasonable suspicion that she had cigarettes in her purse, and thus the search was justified despite the fact that the cigarettes, if found, would constitute "mere evidence" of a violation of the no-smoking rule. Second, the discovery of the rolling papers then gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that respondent was carrying marihuana as well as cigarettes in her purse, and this suspicion justified the further exploration that turned up more evidence of drug-related activities. Pp. 343-347.
94 N.J. 331, 463 A.2d 934, reversed.
Allan J. Nodes, Trenton, N.J., for petitioner.
Lois De Julio, East Orange, N.J., for respondent.
We granted certiorari in this case to examine the appropriateness of the exclusionary rule as a remedy for searches carried out in violation of the Fourth Amendment by public school authorities. Our consideration of the proper application of the Fourth Amendment to the public schools, however, has led us to conclude that the search that gave rise to the case now before us did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we here address only the questions of the proper standard for assessing the legality of searches conducted by public school officials and the application of that standard to the facts of this case.
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, N.J., discovered two girls smoking in a lavatory. One of the two girls was the respondent T.L.O., who at that time was a 14-year-old high school freshman. Because smoking in the lavatory was a violation of a school rule, the teacher took the two girls to the Principal's office, where they met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. In response to questioning by Mr. Choplick, T.L.O.'s companion admitted that she had violated the rule. T.L.O., however, denied that she had been smoking in the lavatory and claimed that she did not smoke at all.
Mr. Choplick asked T.L.O. to come into his private office and demanded to see her purse. Opening the purse, he found a pack of cigarettes, which he removed from the purse and held before T.L.O. as he accused her of having lied to him. As he reached into the purse for the cigarettes, Mr. Choplick also noticed a package of cigarette rolling papers. In his experience, possession of rolling papers by high school students was closely associated with the use of marihuana. Suspecting that a closer examination of the purse might yield further evidence of drug use, Mr. Choplick proceeded to search the purse thoroughly. The search revealed a small amount of marihuana, a pipe, a number of empty plastic bags, a substantial quantity of money in one-dollar bills, an index card that appeared to be a list of students who owed T.L.O. money, and two letters that implicated T.L.O. in marihuana dealing.
Mr. Choplick notified T.L.O.'s mother and the police, and turned the evidence of drug dealing over to the police. At the request of the police, T.L.O.'s mother took her daughter to police headquarters, where T.L.O. confessed that she had been selling marihuana at the high school. On the basis of the confession and the evidence seized by Mr. Choplick, the State brought delinquency charges against T.L.O. in the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Middlesex County.1 Contending that Mr. Choplick's search of her purse violated the Fourth Amendment, T.L.O. moved to suppress the evidence found in her purse as well as her confession, which, she argued, was tainted by the allegedly unlawful search. The Juvenile Court denied the motion to suppress. State ex rel. T.L.O., 178 N.J.Super. 329, 428 A.2d 1327 (1980). Although the court concluded that the Fourth Amendment did apply to searches carried out by school officials, it held that
"a school official may properly conduct a search of a student's person if the official has a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is in the process of being committed, or reasonable cause to believe that the search is necessary to maintain school discipline or enforce school policies." Id., 178 N.J.Super., at 341, 428 A.2d, at 1333 (emphasis in original).
Applying this standard, the court concluded that the search conducted by Mr. Choplick was a reasonable one. The initial decision to open the purse was justified by Mr. Choplick's well-founded suspicion that T.L.O. had violated the rule forbidding smoking in the lavatory. Once the purse was open, evidence of marihuana violations was in plain view, and Mr. Choplick was entitled to conduct a thorough search to determine the nature and extent of T.L.O.'s drug-related activities. Id., 178 N.J.Super., at 343, 428 A.2d, at 1334. Having denied the motion to suppress, the court on March 23, 1981, found T.L.O. to be a delinquent and on January 8, 1982, sentenced her to a year's probation.
On appeal from the final judgment of the Juvenile Court, a divided Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's finding that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation, but vacated the adjudication of delinquency and remanded for a determination whether T.L.O. had knowingly and voluntarily waived her Fifth Amendment rights before confessing. State ex rel. T.L.O., 185 N.J.Super. 279, 448 A.2d 493 (1982). T.L.O. appealed the Fourth Amendment ruling, and the Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and ordered the suppression of the evidence found in T.L.O.'s purse. State ex rel. T.L.O., 94 N.J. 331...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hardwick ex rel. Hardwick v. Heyward, Civil Action No. 4:06-1042-TLW.
...and order in the schools requires a certain degree of flexibility in school disciplinary procedures." New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 330, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985). Therefore, given school officials' "need to be able to impose disciplinary sanctions for a wide range of unant......
-
State v. Russo
...is justified by purposes of probation, i.e., rehabilitation of probationer and protection of public); New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 341, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1985) (need to maintain order in schools justifies warrantless search of student on less than probable cause sta......
-
Frederick B., In re
...which he did not observe) did not significantly differ from Bartlett's. Relying on the recent decision of New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720, Frederick's counsel argued in support of the suppression motion that Bartlett did not have "rational suspicion" ......
-
People v. Roehler
...to the Fourth Amendment. We agree. (Mapp v. Ohio (1961) 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081; and see New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) 469 U.S. 325, 105 S.Ct. 733, 83 L.Ed.2d 720.) In the case at bench, the "state action" involved must be viewed in conjunction with the statutory scheme de......
-
CAS Legal Mailbag – 1/26/23
...a threshold matter, it may be helpful to restate the rule as to when school administrators may search students. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), the United States held that school administrators do not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and s......
-
CAS Legal Mailbag – 12/1/22
...should, because they are largely restated from the United States Supreme Court decision concerning student searches. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985). Applying this standard, Legal Mailbag presumes that we can all agree that you do not have reasonable cause for a search. Accordingl......
-
CAS Legal Mailbag ' 1/26/23
...a threshold matter, it may be helpful to restate the rule as to when school administrators may search students. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985), the United States held that school administrators do not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and s......
-
CAS Legal Mailbag ' 12/1/22
...should, because they are largely restated from the United States Supreme Court decision concerning student searches. New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325 Applying this standard, Legal Mailbag presumes that we can all agree that you do not have reasonable cause for a search. Accordingly, your ......
-
The Fourth Amendment, canine olfaction, and vehicle stops: time is of the es'scents'.
...of secondary-purpose ca nine sniffing, one must consider that, after the foregoing quote, the Edmond Court cited New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985), for the well-known Terry principle that a "search must be `reasonably related in scope to the circumstance which justified the i......
-
Judicial integrity: a call for its re-emergence in the adjudication of criminal cases.
...Ronald Dworkin, Law's Empire 378 (1986). (225) See Charles Fried, Impudence, 5 Sup. Ct. Rev. 55 (1992). (226) See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 341 (1985) (stating that "where a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggest that the public interest is best served by ......
-
The Supreme Court giveth and the Supreme Court taketh away: the century of Fourth Amendment "search and seizure" doctrine.
...534 U.S. 266 (2002); United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985); United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977). (552) 469 U.S. 325 (1985). The "special needs" terminology for this doctrinal approach initially appeared in Justice Blackmun's concurring opinion in T.L.O. See id.......
-
The warrantless interception of e-mail: Fourth Amendment search or free rein for the police?
...e-mail). See Orin S. Kerr, Searches and Seizures in a Digital World, 119 HARV. L. REV. 531, 537-38 (2005). (44.) New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 351 (1985) (Blackmun, J., (45.) See New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 712-14 (1987) (applying the special needs doctrine to uphold a state sta......