469 U.S. 325 (1985)
On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School in Middlesex County, New Jersey, discovered two girls, including fourteen-year-old freshman T. L. O., smoking in a school lavatory in violation of school rules.1 The teacher escorted the girls to the principal’s office, where they met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick.2 When questioned, T. L. O. denied smoking in the lavatory.3
Choplick then took T. L. O. into his private office and demanded to inspect her purse.4 Upon opening the purse, Choplick found a pack of cigarettes and a package of cigarette rolling papers.5 Suspecting drug involvement, he conducted a thorough search of the purse, uncovering a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, empty plastic bags, a substantial quantity of one-dollar bills, an index card listing students who owed T. L. O. money, and two letters implicating her in marijuana dealing.6
Choplick turned this evidence over to the police, and T. L. O. was charged with delinquency based on possession of marijuana with intent to distribute.7 T. L. O. moved to suppress the evidence from her purse, arguing that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.8 The Juvenile Court denied the motion to suppress.9
The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the suppression motion but remanded on other grounds.10 The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed, holding the search unreasonable and ordering suppression of the evidence.11 The State of New Jersey petitioned for certiorari, which the United States Supreme Court granted.12 The Court initially focused on the exclusionary rule but later ordered reargument on the Fourth Amendment standard applicable to school searches.13
Whether the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches of students by public school officials?14
The Fourth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.15 It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures by state officers.16 Public school officials act as state representatives when enforcing publicly mandated disciplinary policies.17 Therefore they are subject to its constraints.18
Yes. On March 7, 1980, a teacher at Piscataway High School discovered T. L. O.
and another girl smoking in a lavatory in violation of school rules and escorted them to Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick’s office.19 When T. L. O.
denied smoking, Choplick took her into his private office and searched her purse.20 These facts establish that Choplick, a public school official, performed the search while carrying out school disciplinary authority derived from state law, rendering the search state action subject to the Fourth Amendment.21
The Fourth Amendment applies to the search of T. L. O.’s purse by the school official.22
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice O’connor
Justice Powell filed a concurring opinion.23 He agreed with the judgment but emphasized the special characteristics of elementary and secondary schools.24 Students possess a lesser expectation of privacy than the general population because of close supervision and teacher authority.25
The teacher-student relationship differs fundamentally from the adversarial relationship between police and suspects.26 Discipline must be established before education can occur.27 Powell concluded that the full panoply of adult Fourth Amendment rules does not apply with equal force inside the schoolhouse.28
Justice O’Connor concurred in the judgment.29 She stated that the search in this case was reasonable under the circumstances.30 Her agreement rested on the facts developed in the record showing that the assistant principal’s actions stayed within permissible bounds given the initial report of smoking and the items observed in the purse.31
Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment and agreed with much of the opinion.32 He wrote separately to clarify that the Court may depart from the warrant and probable-cause requirements only when confronted with a special law-enforcement need for flexibility.33 He identified the elementary and secondary school setting as presenting such a special need because immediate responses are required to maintain order and protect students.
Teachers lack the training to apply probable cause.34 Blackmun concluded that the balancing test was appropriate here precisely because of these exceptional circumstances beyond ordinary law enforcement.35
Whether the search of T. L. O.’s purse was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment?36
A search by a school official is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment when justified at its inception by reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence the student has violated or is violating the law or school rules, and when the scope of the search is reasonably related to the objectives and not excessively intrusive in light of the student’s age, sex, and the nature of the infraction.37
No. The initial search for cigarettes was justified at its inception because a teacher had reported T. L. O. smoking in the lavatory and T.
L. O. had denied the accusation, giving Choplick reasonable suspicion that cigarettes would be found in her purse.38 Once the purse was open, the discovery of rolling papers provided reasonable suspicion of marijuana possession that justified the further search.39
The further search revealed marijuana, a pipe, plastic bags, money, an index card, and letters, all consistent with the facts of the case.40 The scope remained tied to the initial suspicion and the evidence progressively uncovered.41
The search of T. L. O.’s purse was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.42
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, concurred in Part II that the Fourth Amendment applies to school officials but dissented from the remainder of the opinion.43 He argued that the thorough search of T. L.
O. ’s purse was a full-scale search requiring probable cause. Probable cause was absent once the cigarettes were found because the rolling papers alone did not supply probable cause to believe marijuana would be discovered.44
Brennan maintained that the Court’s reasonableness balancing test improperly displaced the constitutional probable-cause standard and that the evidence should have been suppressed.45
Joined by Justice Marshall And Justice Brennan (in Part)
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Marshall and in part by Justice Brennan, concurred in Part II that the Fourth Amendment applies but dissented from the application of the standard to this case.46 He contended that the search was unreasonable because the suspected infraction of smoking in the lavatory was minor and did not threaten school order or safety.47 The majority’s standard would permit searches for trivial rule violations.48
Stevens argued that the nature of the infraction must be weighed and that the New Jersey Supreme Court correctly found the search unconstitutional on the facts presented.49