14-year old female, T.L.O., a student at New Jersey high school, was caught by a teacher smoking cigarettes in the girls’ bathroom. After being brought to the office, the female’s belongings where searched, resulting in the discovery of a pack of cigarettes, rolling papers, and marijuana. T.L.O. was then brought to the police station where she confessed to selling marijuana. She was then put on trial and later found guilty of possession of marijuana and placed on probation. T.L.O.’s actions violated school rules making her subject to search and seizure.

The schools decision to search T.L.O.’s belongings was justified. T.L.O argued that the Fourth Amendment provides, “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” What T.L.O. failed to realize was that students have “a reduced expectation of privacy when in school.”

A student is not fully protected under the Fourth Amendment when in a public school. The Court held that while the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to public school officials, they may conduct reasonable warrantless searches of students under their authority notwithstanding the probable cause standard that would normally apply to searches under the Fourth Amendment.

Schools carry several responsibilities that involve keeping hundreds of students safe. In order to do so, they must enforce their rules and provide discipline to those who don’t obey them. While students have legitimate expectations of privacy, it must be balanced with the school’s responsibility for “maintaining an environment in which learning can take place.”

Some, like New Jersey’s highest court, may be in favor of T.L.O.’s case. The court reversed, holding, in T.L.O.’s case, the school administrator’s conduct was not reasonable because the mere possession of cigarettes did not violate school rules and the administrator’s desire to catch T.L.O. in a lie did not justify rummaging through her purse.

The court’s view on this case does have some justification to it, but still does not necessarily cover the whole decision of whether or not her rights were violated. The Court had established a test to determine the reasonableness of the search: whether the search was 1) justified at its inception and 2) as the search was conducted, was it reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference in the first place. The court came to the conclusion that this search was justified at its inception. The initial report from the teacher that T.L.O. was smoking in violation of school rules constituted reasonable suspicion that cigarettes were in her purse.