If Katz had the right to privacy in a public phone booth, then why do we give up that right in a public school? TLO should be not guilty her 4th amendment rights were violated and she should have been innocent. In the case Katz v. United States, Katz was suspected of involvement of illegal gambling activities, and he was relaying gambling information across the phone in a public telephone booth. It was ruled unconstitutional because the FBI needed a warrant to listen in to Katz's conversations which was done without a warrant and therefore the charges were dropped and he was released. In the case T.L.O v. New Jersey a 14-year-old girl was caught smoking in the bathroom, and when the principal searched her purse he found marijuana, rolling paper, cigarettes, a large amount …show more content…
New Jersey the text explains that the Fourth Amendment's fundamental command is that the search must be based on probable cause and the searches must be reasonable." Must be based upon "probable cause" to believe that a violation of the law has occurred.... The fundamental command of the Fourth Amendment is that searches and seizures be reasonable, and although "both the concept of probable cause and the requirement of a warrant bear on the reasonableness of a search.... in certain limited circumstances neither is required". (TLO v. New Jersey) In the article Katz v. United States it clearly says that it is a requirement of the constitution to have a judicial officer interposed between citizen and police. TLO committed the crime of dealing drugs on school property and broke the law as a result police were involved. There was not a warrant to search TLO making it an illegal search and seizure. These two cases contradict themselves because both incidences occurred in public places involving breaking the law in some form of way, which requires a warrant to search and seize, in conclusion TLO had her rights violated and she should have been