The Fourth Amendment
New Jersey v T.L.O 1985
In New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. at 328, 105S. Ct at 735 a high school teacher had caught two girls smoking cigarettes in the bathroom. The two girls were taken to the office of the principal where one of them admitted to having been doing the illegal act. However, the other girl known as T.L.O refuted the claims. Furthermore, the principal demanded to have a look at the girl’s purse, and he got even perturbed when he found out that she was involved with marijuana. T.L.O was then taken to the police station where she confessed to selling marijuana. Therefore due to her confession and the evidence confiscated in her purse, the New Jersey State, the plaintiff, brought charges against T.L.O. in a juvenile court the accused, T.L.O, argued that the school principal had violated her fourth amendment rights.
In the lower court 1, it was ruled that the fourth amendment applies to searches conducted by officials of schools as they act as agents of the state. Therefore the court held that the fourth amendment had not been violated; thus, the defendant, T.L.O, was found delinquent and sentenced to one year of probation. Likewise, in the lower court two and lower court 3, the rulings affirmed that there was no violation of the fourth amendment by the school principal. The Supreme Court concluded that under the events of T.L.O case, the fourth amendment was not violated; nonetheless, the Supreme Court also decided that the fourth amendment applies to the officials of schools.
I think that the principal searching the purse of T.L.O did not violate the fourth amendment as the search was justified at its inception. Furthermore, the principal had more reasons to look at T.L.O’s purse for any evidence because she had been caught smoking, which is against the school rules. Nevertheless, I still believe that the fourth amendment applies to the school officials, and the students are entitled to some privacy.
State of Louisiana v. K.L 2017
Mr Gaddies had witnessed a sinister transaction between K.L and another student during a bus detail, and that is when he demanded K.L to remove whatever he had in his pockets. Unfortunately, K.L had a plastic bag that contained marijuana and because Mr Gaddies was his behaviour mentor, informed the New Orleans police. He further informed the school resource officer as the police department prepared a report and put the bag of marijuana into central evidence property (“STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.”, 2020). Thus on 10 May 2016 by delinquency petition K.L was charged for possessing marijuana in violation of La R.S. 40:966(E)(1).
Additionally, the defendant K.L filed a motion on 7 June 2016 to suppress the evidence. However, the suppression motion by K.L was denied by the juvenile court and thus adjudicated that K.L was delinquent of marijuana possession which violated La. R.S. 40:966(E)(1) (“STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.”, 2020). For this reason, K.L was committed by the juvenile court to care custody that is secure for 6 months nonetheless the court put the execution of the sentence on suspension and placed K.L on active probation for 18 months. K.L appealed, but the court of appeal still affirmed K.L’s adjudication of delinquency for the reasons as mentioned earlier.
I think that the juvenile court made an appropriate and lawful decree as the teacher; Mr Gaddies had reasons to know what K.L had put in his pocket because he was his behaviour mentor. Furthermore, the fourth amendment provides for the privacy of K.L. Nevertheless, there was a reason for Mr Gaddies to confiscate the marijuana evidence.
References
Russo, C. J. (2016). Update on School Searches. School Business Affairs, 82(11).
STATE OF LOUISIANA IN THE INTEREST OF K.L.. Justia Law. (2020). Retrieved 12 June 2020, from https://law.justia.com/cases/louisiana/fourth-circuit-court-of-appeal/2017/2016-ca-1151.html.