New Jersey v. T. L. O.

1984-07-05

Headline: School-search case restored for reargument as the Court asks whether an assistant principal violated the Fourth Amendment by opening a student's purse, potentially affecting how schools search students' belongings.

Holding: The Court restored the case for reargument and directed the parties to brief and argue whether an assistant principal violated the Fourth Amendment by opening a student's purse.

Real World Impact:

Could change how school staff may search students' bags and personal items.
May determine whether evidence from school searches can be used in criminal proceedings.
Brings national high-school search rules back before the Court for possible change.

Topics: school searches, student privacy, Fourth Amendment, evidence in criminal cases

Summary

Background

The dispute involves New Jersey and a student known as T.L.O. A school assistant principal opened the student's purse, and the New Jersey Supreme Court considered three questions: what standard should apply to school searches, whether that standard was broken here, and whether evidence taken by school officials can be used in criminal proceedings. The State asked this Court to review only the exclusion-of-evidence question.

Reasoning

Instead of deciding only the question the State raised, the Court restored the case for reargument and asked the parties to brief and argue whether the assistant principal’s opening of the purse violated the Fourth Amendment. The New Jersey Supreme Court had said the proper standard is reasonable suspicion (not probable cause), found a violation on these facts, and excluded the evidence; the Supreme Court’s order now seeks further argument on the search’s constitutional reasonableness.

Real world impact

A later decision on reargument could change how much leeway school staff have to search students and whether items found at school can be used in criminal or delinquency cases. Because the Court ordered reargument, the outcome is not final and could either confirm or alter the New Jersey court’s handling of student searches and evidence rules.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented, arguing the Court should not force reargument on issues the State did not want to raise and criticizing the Court’s decision to decide additional Fourth Amendment questions on its own initiative.