Finding the right balance between protecting students’ privacy rights and maintaining discipline in public schools requires some adjustments to the Fourth Amendment, according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court decided in New Jersey v. T.L.O. (Case No. 83-712) that public school officials do not need a warrant to search a student and also reduced the level of suspicion required to justify such a search. The dissenting Justices, Brennan, Marshall, and Stevens, criticized the majority opinion, arguing that the court unnecessarily decided a constitutional question.
In the case of T.L.O., a high school official in Piscataway, New Jersey, searched a student’s purse to find evidence of a school rule violation, specifically smoking in the restrooms. During the search, drug paraphernalia and other evidence indicating that the student was selling marijuana were discovered. The student confessed to the police based on the evidence found by the school official, and she was later declared delinquent by a trial court.
Justice Byron R. White, speaking for the majority, argued that when a careful balance of government and private interests suggests that a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness is more appropriate than probable cause, the court has not hesitated to adopt such a standard. The standard adopted in T.L.O. allows a teacher or school official to search a student if there are reasonable grounds to suspect a violation of the law or school rules. The search should be reasonably related to the objectives and not excessively intrusive considering the student’s age, sex, and the nature of the infraction.
By setting a less strict standard for searches conducted by public school officials, the court rejected the argument made by the state of New Jersey that Fourth Amendment protection does not apply to searches conducted by school officials. Justice White emphasized that school officials are subject to the First Amendment and due process clause of the 14th Amendment, and therefore should not be exempt from Fourth Amendment protections when conducting searches of their students.
The court also dismissed the state’s claim that the constant supervision students experience in public schools eliminates their expectation of privacy in personal belongings brought into school. Justice White acknowledged that maintaining discipline in schools is challenging, but students still have legitimate expectations of privacy. Children may need to carry legitimate, noncontraband items with them, and this does not automatically waive their rights to privacy. The court did not address the issue of whether students have a legitimate expectation of privacy in lockers, desks, or other school property used for storage.
Teachers and other educators have responded to this ruling with mixed opinions. While some argue that it strikes the right balance between privacy and discipline, others express concerns about the potential for abuse of power by school officials. These varying opinions reflect the ongoing debate surrounding students’ rights and the role of public-school officials in ensuring a safe and orderly learning environment.
According to Richard Emory, a legal advisor for the New York Civil Liberties Union, “The ruling essentially affirms the current law in most states and how it is enforced in lower federal courts. It does not expand or limit students’ rights.”
Constitutional Matter
In reaching its decision, the Court overturned a previous ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that declared the evidence obtained from the search of T.L.O.’s purse in 1980 as invalid. While the state high court applied a “reasonable-grounds” standard similar to the one recently announced by the Justices, it determined that the school official’s search was unlawful. Consequently, the court reversed the girl’s delinquency charges, stating that the Fourth Amendment’s “exclusionary rule” prevented the use of evidence concerning her drug sales. Although the Supreme Court was specifically asked by New Jersey to examine whether the exclusionary rule should have applied to the evidence found during the search, it chose to expand its inquiry and assess the constitutionality of the search itself. Ultimately, the Court found that the actions of the Piscataway school official did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
‘Reasonable’ Search
The Justices concluded that the assistant principal’s decision to search T.L.O.’s purse was reasonable, as was the subsequent search for marijuana once drug paraphernalia was discovered. By classifying the search as “reasonable,” the Court focused solely on establishing the appropriate standard for evaluating the legality of similar searches conducted by public-school officials.
The reasonableness standard adopted by the Court “aims to ensure that students’ privacy interests are invaded only to the extent necessary to maintain order in schools,” stated the majority opinion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger and Associate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Lewis F. Powell Jr., and William Rehnquist fully joined the majority opinion. Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun concurred with the majority but filed a separate opinion that underscored the “special need” of school officials to respond promptly to discipline issues. Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell also filed a separate concurring opinion.
‘Unnecessary Departure’
In addition to criticizing the Court for ruling on the constitutional matter instead of strictly addressing the exclusionary rule as requested, Justice Brennan described the majority opinion in his dissenting opinion as an “unclear, unprecedented, and unnecessary departure” from Fourth Amendment standards, which require search warrants and a stricter standard of “probable cause.” Justices Stevens and Marshall voiced their dissent by challenging the standard set by the Court, asserting that it would allow school officials to search students when they believe evidence of even the most minor school regulations will be uncovered. They also opined that the Court’s decision in T.L.O. sets a negative example for students, stating, “The classroom is often the first encounter most citizens have with the power of the government… The Court’s decision today sends a troubling message to the nation’s youth.”