Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Canning CBA

No description
by

Rachel Canning

on 2 January 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Canning CBA

New Jersey Vs. T.L.O.

By Rachel Canning Public schools cannot unresonably search students. So, what happened?
A high school girl, age 14, was found smoking in the bathroom. When Mr. Choplick, the vice principal, asked if T.L.O was smoking, she lied. Mr. Choplick then searched her purse for cigarettes to prove she was smoking. While searching, Mr. Choplick found small amounts of maraijuana, a list of people who owed her money and a good amount of money in one dollar bills. Turned out T.L.O was not only smoking in the bathroom instead of designated areas, she was dealing maraijuana. What constitution amendments were involved?
The fourth amendment was involved. It says "No unreasonable search or seizure, to be secure in your persons...and effects." Effects are your purses, backpacks, pockets, wallets, cars etc. To search somebody an official must have a warrant from a judge. How does the fourth amendment apply to this case? The fourth amendment applies because T.L.O. was searched unreasonably without a warrant. What rights were violated? T.L.O.'s fourth amendment right to be secure from unreasonable search or seizure was violated.

How were the rights violated? T.L.O. was searched unreasonably and without a warrant. The only time a person can be searched without a warrant is when someone's life could be in danger. No one was in direct danger. It's not like anyone was going to die on the spot when T.L.O. was searched.
The greater good! Would somebody be in danger if T.L.O ISN'T stopped? I'm afriad I'll have to clarify the question... Would the public be in danger if T.L.O. IS stopped? I don't think the public would be in danger if T.L.O. is stopped because then drug dealing from her would stop and so would the smoking in the girls bathroom. Individual rights or the greater good... I think T.L.O.'s rights are more important then the greater good. If you take away T.L.O's right to be secure from unreasonable search, then you take away that right from the people who own effects. That is a lot of people. The results of the case The juvenile court said that the fourth amendment rights did not apply to her. They also concluded that the vice principal's search was reasonable. Court declared T.L.O a delinquent and put her on a one year probation. After she was off probation, the New Jersey Supreme Court declared the search unreasonable. Later, the Supreme Court of America over ruled New Jersey's rulings. My opinion I don't agree with what the juvenille court decided. I think that the fourth amendment rights were violated and that the search was unreasonable. The teacher walked in the bathroom and found the girls smoking. Then she turned them in saying they were smoking. Why would Mr. Choplick need to search T.L.O for cigarettes to see if she really was smoking after the teacher said she was? Special thanks to my sources! - http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/cases/new_jersey_v_tlo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_v._T._L._O. - http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/tlo.html http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_712 - http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0469_0325_ZO.html - Thanks for watching my presentation! Would anybody be in long-term danger? Meaning, would anybody be in danger over time? Yes, they would. Bathrooms are small! People can get second-hand smoke and get seriously ill from doing drugs. They could eventualy die it they continue doing drugs and smoking. Besides taking drugs was their choice. T.L.O. wasn't forcing anybody to buy the drugs. Would anybody be in "short-term" danger? In other words, were people going to die right at the moment T.L.O was searched? No. Sure, the kids buying the drugs from T.L.O might die if they keep doing drugs. T.L.O. wasn't going to kill somebody on the spot. Thesis
Full transcript