Searches and Seizures: New Jersey v. TLO

            During the past week in class, we have discussed how the protection against searches and seizures actually applies. In my opinion, it barely does. In the case New Jersey v. TLO, a girl is caught smoking in a bathroom with another girl. At fourteen years old, upon refusing to admit to smoking, her bag is searched on the spot to find any evidence of the smoking incident. While looking in her purse, the principal finds rolling papers and automatically assumes they have to do with marijuana. He then searches further to find actual marijuana in her bag. In my opinion, this search was completely unreasonable and did not follow the rules of searches and seizures.

            When going to look in the bag, the principal was focused on only finding evidence of TLO smoking. The fact that he saw the rolling papers did not whatsoever allow him to continue his search. The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court case argued that the “relative ease with which teachers can apply the probable-cause standard” was unreasonable. I agree with their argument that by allowing this search, it is extremely easy for any teacher to decide to randomly search a student because they were ‘suspicious.’ The dissenting opinion also argued that “the search for evidence of the smoking violation that was completed when Mr. Choplick (the principal) found the pack of cigarettes—was valid.” I agree with this statement; the search was following rule by searching for the pack of cigarettes, but Mr. Choplick soon violated it when he went further.

            I greatly disagree with the overall ruling of the court, which was in favor of the school, not only because it violated the searches and seizure amendment, but because it violated morale on many levels. The search only showed TLO, and other students, that she was not protected in a place where she was supposed to feel most safe. As the dissenting opinion argues, “if the Nation’s students can be convicted through the use of arbitrary methods destructive of personal liberty, they cannot help but feel that they have been dealt with unfairly.” The simplest way to put it is that it is absolutely ridiculous for the school to ask students to feel safe and protected at a place where the school can eat away at a student’s dignity by searching or questioning them all because of a simple assumption or ‘hunch.’ In my opinion, the court should have ruled in favor of TLO because the school violated her right to protection of her personal belongings and herself.