Millersville University Matthew J.

Monahan
EDLD 620 February 24, 2015

SUPREME COURT CASE RESEARCH PROJECT

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

Case Summary

A teacher at Piscataway High School, in New Jersey, observed a 14-year-old student

(T.L.O.) smoking a cigarette in a school restroom, which violated school rules. The teacher

brought her to the principals office, where an assistant principal questioned her. T.L.O. denied

that she had been smoking and claimed that she did not smoke. These statements led the

assistant principal to search the students purse, in which he discovered a pack of cigarettes.

When he removed the cigarettes, he saw a pack of rolling papers, commonly linked to marijuana

use. This discovery led the assistant principal to search T.L.O.s purse more thoroughly. A more

thorough search yielded a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a substantial

quantity of money, a list of student names who owed her money, and two letters that connected

T.L.O. to marijuana dealing. The student confessed to dealing marijuana. In response, the

school suspended T.L.O. and turned the evidence from her purse, and her confession, over to the

police. Through an administrative hearing, the school district expelled T.L.O., citing the

evidence acquired in the assistant principals search. Her parents filed a lawsuit against the

school district to invalidate the search and exclude the evidence acquired. They claimed that the

school had violated T.L.O.s rights, which protect her from unreasonable searches under

Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, the exclusionary rule created by the

decision in Mapp v. Ohio should make the evidence gained by the assistant principals search

inadmissible in court.

A New Jersey Juvenile Court admitted the evidence from the administrative hearing. The

Juvenile Court, which found the student delinquent, held that a school official can legally search

a student if the official reasonably believes that the search is necessary to maintain school

discipline or enforce school policy. The Juvenile Court sentenced T.L.O. to one year of

probation. An Appellate Court supported the Juvenile Courts finding that the school had not

violated T.L.O.s rights under the Fourth Amendment, but against delinquency. The Supreme

Court of New Jersey reversed the Appellate Courts ruling and ordered the evidence obtained by

searching T.L.O.s purse to be suppressed because it found the search unreasonable.

On certiorari, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reverse the ruling of the

Supreme Court of New Jersey, finding that the search of the students purse was not

unreasonable. Justice White delivered the majority opinion. Amendment IV of the U.S.

Constitution, guaranteeing protection from unreasonable searches, does apply to searches by

public school officials. When searching a student who is under the schools authority, it is not

necessary for school officials to obtain a warrant to carry out a legal search. A school official is

not bound by probable cause. Instead, school officials need only reasonable suspicion that a

student has violated or is violating the law in order to search that student. The legality of the

search, then, hinges on reasonableness. Therefore, the search in this case was not unreasonable

under the Fourth Amendment. Chief Justice Burger and Justices Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist,

and OConnor joined the opinion.

Justice Stevens wrote the dissenting opinion, while Justices Brennan and Marshall

dissented in part. Stevens dissent expressed the view that the Supreme Court was incorrect in

its application of the standard of reasonableness in the Fourth Amendment. In his view, a

standard should be applied to student searches that focuses more sharply on concerns about

violence, illegal activity, or behavior that seriously disrupts order in the school or the educational

process. Justice Brennan joined the opinion. He argued that since school officials act as

government officials, they are bound by Fourth Amendment protections of privacy and personal

security. Applying the reasonable suspicion standard to school searches, rather than the probable

cause standard, violates the rights of students under Amendment IV of the U.S. Constitution.

Reflection

The Supreme Courts ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O. set a precedent for the legality of

student searches by school officials. The mission of a school is to provide students with a quality

education. Therefore, schools are charged with maintaining discipline and order, preserving the

educational environment, and ensuring student safety. School officials are in a unique position

regarding reasonableness because they operate as state officials, but also in loco parentis. Based

on this reasoning a student entitled to some privacy, however he or she may be searched by a

school official if that official reasonably believes that his or her behavior may be disruptive of

the school order, disruptive of the educational environment, or poses a threat to student safety.

Popular Press Response to the Ruling in New Jersey v T.L.O.

Lawrence Feinberg, a long-time education reporter for the Washington Post, wrote an

article on January 21, 1985 reporting that school officials were glad to have the support of the

Supreme Court based on the decision in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Feinbergs article suggests that the

ruling would have little impact on how school districts operate because most districts had been

applying the Courts standard already. Instead, school officials perceived the decision as a vote

of confidence. It was clear that schools are responsible for maintaining order, safety, and an

effective learning environment, and the Supreme Court would support their efforts to carry out

those responsibilities. Feinbergs reporting indicated that school officials may feel more

comfortable doing their jobs because they understand that the United States Supreme Court is on

their side.

Austin Sarat, a Professor of Political Science at Amherst College, wrote an article in the

New York Times on January 30, 1985, which was very critical of the Supreme Courts ruling in

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Sarat was frustrated by what his considered a pattern by the Burger Court

of misunderstanding the Bill of Rights, and misapplying it to real-world situations. He charged

that, while the Burger Court had previously made efforts to ensure that school students are

guaranteed maximum protection of their rights, this ruling is inconsistent with those previous

efforts. Sarat argued that while schools should not be permissive of illegal activity, they should

also not become areas in which constitutional rights do not apply. Especially dangerous, in his

view, was the rationale that the constitutional rights of citizens can be changed, or weakened, to

keep order.

Sarats article, and an editorial by Nat Hentoff, a free speech advocate and civil

libertarian with strong ties to the American Civil Liberties Union, illustrates some popular

sentiment against the Supreme Courts ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O. The Washington Post

printed Hentoffs editorial on February 21, 1985. Hentoff feared that because school officials

can easily establish reasonable suspicion, the Fourth Amendment might have little meaning in

school settings. His letter is quite complimentary of Justice Brennan who, in his opinion had

clashed with the majority to protect the original spirit of the Fourth Amendment. Hentoff

lamented the idea that students in school could be searched in ways that would violate their

rights as private citizens outside of the school context. The Supreme Courts decision would

teach students, for whom civics lessons are particularly formative, that school officials may

search them with the backing of the U.S. government.

Reflection

The U.S. Supreme Court clearly supported the right of school officials to search students

using the reasonable suspicion standard. School officials appreciated the guidance that the

decision offered and were relieved to have the law on their side. They were charged with

keeping order in schools and the Court granted them latitude in doing so with reasonable

suspicion. Many citizens opposed the ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O., however, because they

feared an erosion of liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. People feared that the Supreme

Court had set a dangerous precedent by deciding in which contexts the guaranteed rights of

citizens were, in fact, guaranteed. The fact that some rights of Americas youngest citizens did

not apply in schools was unnerving for some.

Academic Response to New Jersey v. T.L.O.

In the Tulane Law Review, Josh Kagan argued that the relationship between schools and

law enforcement is complicated. Therefore, the doctrine established in the New Jersey v. T.L.O.

ruling should be revisited. The institutions of school and law enforcement are separate. In order

for schools and law enforcement agencies to share information, this decision must be

reexamined. The legal rationale that allows school officials to search students using the standard

of reasonable suspicion is linked to the concept of a special needs search. Kagan contends that

the Supreme Court did not sufficiently explain what other types of searches, particularly by

police officers, warrants a special needs search. He explains that maintaining discipline and

order in a school setting requires immediate action. Requiring probable cause and a warrant for

a student search would make such immediate action impossible. Noteworthy is Kagans

coverage of Justice Powells concurrence with the majority opinion in New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Justice Powell argued that the basic relationship between criminal suspects and police officers is

fundamentally different than the relationship between school officials and students. Because the

relationship between suspects and police is, by nature, adversarial, probable cause is appropriate

when conducting a search. The relationship between students and school officials is not

exclusively adversarial, so the reasonable suspicion standard is appropriate for searches in school

settings.

In the New York University Law Review, Stuart C. Berman argued that a school official can

search a student without a warrant using the standard of reasonable suspicion because this action

falls within a distinct category of searches. When a student enters the school, they leave an

environment of relative freedom and enter a structured and supervised environment. In writing

the majority opinion, Justice White made this dynamic clear in allowing school officials to

search students using the standard of reasonable suspicion. The school setting is crucial,

however, because the decision in New Jersey v. T.L.O. would not permit a school official to

search a student outside of the school setting. Therefore, Berman warned, the decision in this

case is best read narrowly. A school official who takes too much liberty with the concept of

school setting or reasonable could find himself or herself in violation of the Fourth

Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Reflection

Josh Kagan and Stuart C. Berman clearly illustrate the unique legal status of school

officials regarding student searches in school settings. The concept that school officials may

conduct searches using the rationale of special needs is quite powerful, especially considering

that police officers cannot search students in schools using the same rationale. The Supreme

Court placed great responsibility on the shoulders of schools to maintain order by allowing

school officials to search students using the reasonable suspicion standard. It is extremely

important for school officials to understand the scope of this power. Students under the authority

of a school have less freedom than outside of a school setting. However, it is still possible for

school officials to act outside of the scope of reasonable suspicion, violate a students rights, and

damage the learning environment.

Reflection on the Impact of New Jersey v. T.L.O.

During the tumultuous decades of the 1950s and 1960s, United States Supreme Court

Chief Justice Earl Warren presided over a series of landmark cases that secured and expanded

the rights of persons accused of crimes. The ruling in Mapp v. Ohio (1961) rendered evidence

obtained without a search warrant inadmissible in court. The majority opinion in Tinker v. Des

Moines (1969) stated, Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gates.

President Richard M. Nixon nominated Warren Burger as Chief Justice to succeed Earl Warren

in 1969. This comparatively conservative Supreme Court decided in favor of maintaining order

in New Jersey v. T.L.O. rather than protecting students from searches in the context of school.

This landmark decision set the precedent for student searches by school officials.

Prior to the ruling in New Jersey v. T.L.O., a need existed to clarify the legality of student

searches in the context of a school setting. The majority opinion concluded that, when students

are in the care of the school, they should expect a lesser degree of privacy than the population in

general. Because a school official is a state officer, and acts in loco parentis, less evidence is

necessary for to legally search a student in his or her care than the Fourth Amendment requires in

criminal cases. School officials searching students are held to the reasonable suspicion

standard, which is lower than the police who are held to the probable cause standard.

I am surprised to learn how much power that school officials have to search students in

the context of school. I am shocked to learn that school officials have more latitude in searching

students, and their belongings in schools than police officers. When speaking with a colleague

who caught a student using a vape pen, I asked what he would have done if the student denied

having the device. He said that he would have called the School Resource Officer so that a

search could take place. That course seemed logical to me until I learned that our administrators,

operating under the standard of reasonable suspicion, would have more latitude to search the

student than the School Resource Officer, who would need to establish probable cause.

I tend to praise the Warren Court for upholding the rights of the accused. I believe in the

Constitution and the guarantees of personal freedoms contained in the Bill of Rights. If, as a

student of history, I were to consider the decision New Jersey v. T.L.O. by another name, in

another place, and possibly in a different time, I might share the sentiments of Austin Sarat and

Nat Hentoff that the government had overreached its grasp and set a dangerous precedent.

However, as a teacher and potential school leader, I believe schools are unique settings in many

ways. Schools shoulder an extremely important responsibility to maintain order and effective

learning environments to serve the best interests of students. Therefore, I appreciate the

Supreme Courts decision to support student searches by school officials using the standard of

reasonable suspicion. Students do not always act in their own best interest, or the best interest of

the schools mission. I believe that this ruling allows school officials to carry out the

responsibility of serving the best interests of the school community. Because school officials

have been granted considerable latitude regarding student searches, school officials must take

this great responsibility very seriously.

References

Berman, S. (1991). Student Fourth Amendment Rights: Defining the Scope of the T.L.O. School-Search Exception.
New York University Law Review, 66 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1077. Retrieved February 18, 2015, from LexisNexis Academic.

Feinberg, L. (1985, January 20). "Search" Ruling Hailed; School Officials Welcome Court's Support. Washington
Post. Retrieved February 20, 2015, from http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy-
millersville.klnpa.org/hottopics/lnacademic/

Hentoff, N. (1985, February 21). Students of the "'Real World," Washington Post, p. C19. Retrieved February 20,
2015, from http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy-millersville.klnpa.org/hottopics/lnacademic/

Kagan, J. (2012). Reappraising T.L.O.'s "Special Needs" Doctrine in an Era of School-Law Enforcement
Entanglement. Tulane Law Review, 87 Tul. L. Rev. 353. Retrieved February 19, 2015, from LexisNexis Academic.

Korchnak, L. (2012). Case Law and Common Sense: A Guide to Pennsylvania School Law (4th ed.). Allison Park,
PA: Educational Services, 117-121.

Mapp v. Ohio, 368 U.S. 871; 82 S. Ct. 23; 7L. Ed. 2d 72; 1961 U.S. LEXIS 796

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 105 S. Ct. 733, 83 L. Ed. 2d 720; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 41; 53 U.S.L.W. 4083

Sarat, A. (1985, January 30). Leaving the Constitution at the Schoolhouse Door. New York Times. Retrieved
February 20, 2015, from http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy-millersville.klnpa.org/hottopics/lnacademic/

Shapiro, J., & Stefkovich, J. (2001). Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education: Applying Theoretical
Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas (Third Edition ed., pp. 155-157). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

State in the Interest of T.L.O., Juvenile-Appellant, State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Jeffrey Engerud,
Defendant- Appellant, 94 N.J. 331; 463 A.2d 934; 1983 N.J. LEXIS 2737

Tinker Et Al v. Des Moines Independent Community School District Et Al., U.S. 503; 89 S. Ct. 733; 21 L. Ed. 2d
731; 1969 U.S. LEXIS 2443

Trachtman, M. (2006). The Supremes' Greatest Hits: The 34 Supreme Court Cases That Most Directly Affect Your
Life (pp. 9-12, 17-20). New York: Sterling Pub.

U.S. Const. XIV

10