Amendment: 6 Clause: Right to Counsel Clause Selective Incorporation: Yes Precedent Set: Everyone will receive a lawyer if they cannot afford one. And apart from education, the school has the obligation to protect pupils from mistreatment by other children, and also to protect teachers themselves from violence by the few students whose conduct in recent years has prompted national concern. Sheppard, 1984 ; Segura v. Finally, students may have perfectly legitimate reasons to carry with them articles of property needed in connection with extracurricular or recreational activities. Brief Facts of Case: Johnson burned an American flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention protesting Reagan's policies. In this case, such extraordinary governmental interests do exist and are sufficient to justify an exception to the warrant requirement. We do not agree that this is an accurate characterization of the New Jersey Supreme Court's opinion.
Choplick was not entitled to take them out of T. The seminal statement concerning the nature of the probable cause standard is found in Carroll v. Choplick's belief that the rolling papers indicated the presence of marihuana, she does contend that the scope of the search Mr. Nonetheless, we believe that the New Jersey court's application of that standard to strike down the search of T. He had, at best, a good hunch.
One town reimbursed parents for transportation costs to its four Catholic schools. The presence of rolling papers in the purse gave rise to a reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind that T. At the same time, the reasonableness standard should ensure that the interests of students will be invaded no more than is necessary to achieve the legitimate end of preserving order in the schools. On the basis of the confession and the evidence seized by Mr. Because the search resulting in the discovery of the evidence of marihuana dealing by T. Every adult remembers from his own schooldays the havoc a water pistol or peashooter can wreak until it is taken away.
Just as a police officer could not obtain a warrant to search a home based solely on his claim that he had seen a package of cigarette papers in that home, Mr. Where a careful balancing of governmental and private interests suggests that the public interest is best served by a Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness that stops short of probable cause, we have not hesitated to adopt such a standard. A legitimate balancing test whose function was something more substantial than reaching a predetermined conclusion acceptable to this Court's impressions of what authority teachers need would therefore reach rather a different result than that reached by the Court today. Choplick overreacted to what appeared to be nothing more than a minor infraction - a rule prohibiting smoking in the bathroom of the freshmen's and sophomores' building. The matter was turned over to the police, and the state plaintiff brought juvenile-delinquency charges against T. One of the two girls was the respondent T. Moreover, the majority's application of its standard in this case -- to permit a male administrator to rummage through the purse of a female high school student in order to obtain evidence that she was smoking in a bathroom -- raises grave doubts in my mind whether its effort will be effective.
Such hairsplitting argumentation has no place in an inquiry addressed to the issue of reasonableness. Rather, it is the costs of applying probable cause as opposed to applying some lesser standard that should be weighed on the government's side. Surely it cannot be said that under these circumstances, T. Board of Education, , 1954 , and government has a heightened obligation to safeguard students whom it compels to attend school. The states are free to interpret their Constitutions and laws in a manner that gives more protections to individuals than the U. In short, we cannot conclude that the search for marihuana was unreasonable in any respect.
The New Jersey Supreme Court's holding on this question is plainly correct. The government is charged with protecting the privacy and security of the citizen, just as it is charged with apprehending those who violate the criminal law. Both these conclusions are implausible. The maintenance of discipline in the schools requires not only that students be restrained from assaulting one another, abusing drugs and alcohol, and committing other crimes, but also that students conform themselves to the standards of conduct prescribed by school authorities. Choplick was not entitled to search possibly the most private possessions of T. The attitude of the typical teacher is one of personal responsibility for the student's welfare as well as for his education. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.
The suspicion upon which the search for marihuana was founded was provided when Mr. Our review of the facts surrounding the search leads us to conclude that the search was in no sense unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. This distinction does not imply that a no-smoking rule is a matter of minor importance. Thus, warrantless searches of students by school administrators are reasonable when undertaken for those purposes. Although I join Part I continue to believe that the Court has unnecessarily and inappropriately reached out to decide a constitutional question.
We are not yet ready to hold that the schools and the prisons need be equated for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. Moreover, even if a reasonable suspicion that T. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings. When respondent, in response to the Assistant Vice Principal's questioning, denied that she had been smoking and claimed that she did not smoke at all, the Assistant Vice Principal demanded to see her purse. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states.
The principal demanded to see the girl's purse and found evidence that she was also selling marijuana at school. This standard will, we trust, neither unduly burden the efforts of school authorities to maintain order in their schools nor authorize unrestrained intrusions upon the privacy of schoolchildren. In re Gault, , -27 1967. See ante at -333, n. Choplick - the search for evidence of the smoking violation that was completed when Mr. The vehicle through which representatives of special interestgroups are able to express opinions on matters before the Court iscalled an amicus curiae pl.
Therefore, the fruits of this illegal search must be excluded and the judgment of the New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed. Two Terms ago, in Illinois v. Although I agree that school administrators must have broad latitude to maintain order and discipline in our classrooms, that authority is not unlimited. The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a teacher to obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules or of the criminal law would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools. On the other side of the balance would be the serious privacy interests of the student, interests that the Court admirably articulates in its opinion, but which the Court's new ambiguous standard places in serious jeopardy. This is in accord with the Court's summary of the views of a majority of the state and federal courts that have addressed this issue. Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case.