Supreme Court Case
Story Project
By: Greg Hare
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
 Two girls were found smoke cigarettes in a
New Jersey High School bathroom
 Two girls, one admitted to the crime, the
other did not
 T.L.O. (the girl that denied) said that the vice
principal unlawfully searched her purse and
found marijuana
 T.L.O. tried to have the evidence suppressed
New Jersey v. T.L.O.
 The juvenile court overturned it stating that
under school rules, faculty and staff have the
right to search with probable cause

The probable cause was cigarette papers
 T.L.O. appealed her conviction to the appellate
division but did not help her case
 She then appealed to the New Jersey supreme
court
 The supreme court however ruled it unlawful
since cigarettes are legal to have on school
grounds, it is just illegal to use them in
undesignated smoking areas
Conclusion of NJ v T.L.O.
 Supreme court ruled in favor of the school
and concluded that school officials do not
need a warrant to justify a search and
seizure.
Stafford v. Redding
 Savana Redding, an eighth grader in arizona,
was striped searched because of an accusation
of another student

The student told school officials that she had
ibuprofen on her person which violated the
school policy.
 Redding filled a lawsuit against the school and
school officials reasonable for the search

She alleged her Fourth Amendment right was
violated
 The district court favored redding and granted
the motion for summary and had the case
dismissed.
Miranda v. Arizona
 Ernesto Miranda was a Mexican living in Arizona
that was picked out of a line up by a crime
victim

He was charged with rape and kidnapping

During his interrogation, police officers did not
inform him of his fifth or sixth Amendment rights.
 During the court case, Miranda's attorney
argued that his confession should have been
excluded from the trial because of the not
being informed of his full rights.

Miranda was sentenced 20 to 30 years in prison
Conclusion Miranda v. AZ
 Although Miranda's appeal to the Supreme
court ruled in favor of him, he still had to
fulfill his conviction
Gideon v. Wainwright
 Clarence Earl Gideon was found guilty of
breaking and entering and petty larceny in
Panama City ,FL in 1961
 After being found guilty, he was unable to
afford an attorney but was not given one by
a court and had to defend himself.
 While in prison, Gideon studied law and
wrote a petition for habeas corpus with the
supreme court of Florida.
Conclusion of Gideon
 The court ruled in his favor now no matter
what, a defendant will have a attorney.