New Jersey V. T. L. O. Case Study

New Jersey v. T.L.O

In a New Jersey high school, a teacher found two girls smoking in the bathroom and took them to the principal's office. One girl admitted to smoking but the other, known as T.L.O., denied it. The principal demanded to see the girl's purse and found evidence that she was also selling marijuana at school. T.L.O. was taken to the police station where she admitted to selling marijuana. Based on her confession and the evidence in her purse, the state of New Jersey brought charges against her. In a juvenile court, T.L.O. argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated. The court sided with the school, and T.L.O. took her case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which

Acton, case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 26, 1995, ruled (6–3) that an Oregon school board’s random drug-testing policy for student athletes was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

In response to concerns about increased drug use among students, the school board of Vernonia, Oregon, instituted a drug-testing policy for student athletes in 1989. The policy focused on student athletes because they were seen as “leaders of the drug culture” at their high school and because there were concerns that drug use would increase the risk of sports-related injuries. The policy required all those who wished to play on interscholastic athletic teams to submit to urinalysis drug testing.

In 1991 James Acton, a seventh-grade student, was not allowed to participate in interscholastic athletics after he and his parents refused to sign a consent form for drug testing. The Acton’s subsequently filed a lawsuit. A federal district court upheld the policy, but the appellate court reversed that decision on the basis that the policy violated both the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments and the Oregon

Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth Amendment, which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended (by the Fourteenth Amendment) to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools, Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, it was necessary to turn to the question of reasonableness. To that end, the court pointed out that even though school officials are agents of the state, as a result of their custodial and tutelary relationship with students, they have the authority to act in loco parentis in safeguarding the children in their care. The court then cited the fact that schoolchildren are already subjected to physical examinations, such as scoliosis testing, and to various vaccinations. According to the justices, student athletes have a lesser expectation of privacy than their peers who are not athletes. The court noted that locker rooms offer little privacy and that student-athletes voluntarily subject themselves to a greater degree of regulation as well. . In addition, the school policy featured various privacy safeguards, such as stating where monitors could stand while athletes provided the urine samples. Last, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that in light of the board’s wish to deter drug use by student athletes, as well as to prevent harm to them, it articulated an important