Question

held that while the fourth amendment applies to schoo
easonable suspicion\ to search students. reasons to support the majority opinion 1. they had reasonable suspicion to search them becaus the vice principal suspected t.l.o smoking in the bathroom, which were also violating school rules, which gave them a reason to search her because she is smoking on school grounds. 2. since they founded rolling paper in her bag, which is obviously paired with marijuana they had a reason to continue searching because a 14 year old shouldn’t have marijuana at school :| 3. the supreme court had said that the school does not need a warrant or a probable cause because they only need reasonable suspicion to search because a school law was broken. do you see any flaws or issues with this argument? address one here. what was the actual outcome of the case? prompt: select a supreme court case that we’ve studied. write

Explanation:

For the "Do you see any flaws or issues with this argument? Address one here." sub - question:

One flaw is in the second reason. Just because rolling paper was found doesn't necessarily mean it's paired with marijuana. Rolling paper can have other uses, and assuming it's for marijuana is a hasty generalization. Also, the statement "a 14 - year - old shouldn't have marijuana at school" is a moral or regulatory claim, not a legal or logical justification for the search's extension. The search's extension should be based on reasonable suspicion related to the initial infraction (smoking), and the leap to marijuana use without more evidence is flawed.

In the New Jersey v. T.L.O. case, the Supreme Court ruled that school officials do not need a warrant to search a student when they have reasonable suspicion that the student has violated a school rule or the law. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard applies to school searches, and a search is reasonable if it is justified at its inception and the scope of the search is reasonably related to the circumstances that justified it.

Answer:

One flaw is in the second reason. Assuming rolling paper in the bag means it's paired with marijuana is a hasty generalization (rolling paper has other uses). Also, using "a 14 - year - old shouldn't have marijuana at school" as a justification for extending the search is not a valid legal/logical basis; the extension should be based on reasonable suspicion related to the initial infraction (smoking).

For the "What was the actual outcome of the case?" sub - question (assuming this is the T.L.O. case):