Case Summary: New Jersey vs. TLO Analysts
New Jersey vs T.L.O Analysts BNCAPS-TLO
This case brings the question up of was T.LO's rights broken or not. The fourth amendment is 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. T.L.O is the person who sued because she felt that the contents in her bag were only found because it was searched unlawfully. In Juvenile Court it was decided that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation. T.L.O was searched without probably cause of any illegal activity. The fact that she was smoking cigarettes in school have the principle no reason to think she is dealing marijuana. Without T.L.O's purse being search it would not have been discovered that she was dealing narcotics. The principle also started questioning and searched T.L.O who is a minor without a parent or guardian in the room. Although T.L.O was indeed aware of her Fifth Amendment right. The states that No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
This case brings the question up of was T.LO's rights broken or not. The fourth amendment is 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. T.L.O is the person who sued because she felt that the contents in her bag were only found because it was searched unlawfully. In Juvenile Court it was decided that there had been no Fourth Amendment violation. T.L.O was searched without probably cause of any illegal activity. The fact that she was smoking cigarettes in school have the principle no reason to think she is dealing marijuana. Without T.L.O's purse being search it would not have been discovered that she was dealing narcotics. The principle also started questioning and searched T.L.O who is a minor without a parent or guardian in the room. Although T.L.O was indeed aware of her Fifth Amendment right. The states that No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."