In-Class Scratchpad

This page serves as a kind of blackboard/whiteboard for in-class instruction. I will use this page when it would be helpful for students to have text available outside of the slides that I am presenting.

Feb. 01, 2026 - Interpretation Exercise

Facts of the case:

Like many other high schools, Loyola City public high school has been dealing with a problem of cyberbullying. To address this problem, the principal of the high school created an anonymous reporting system for students to alert the school administration to incidents of bullying. The principal received an anonymous tip that a high school sophomore J.T. had been harassing his female classmates online and through text messages. The principal called J.T. into his office, asked him to hand over his cellphone, and looked through J.T.’s messages, browser history, and photos. The text messages and browser history revealed that he had repeatedly messaged female classmates on multiple platforms, asking them on dates, commenting upon and criticizing their physical appearance, and describing in lurid detail the sexual acts he would like to perform with them. In almost all instances, the classmates asked J.T. to stop texting them, but he kept texting, including messaging them on alternate platforms when they blocked his phone number. The photos on the phone, complete with geolocation data, revealed that he had also been following some of his classmates home from school and taking photos of them from outside their home.

As a result of this evidence, J.T. was arrested and prosecuted for stalking. At the trial court level, J.T. filed a motion to suppress the evidence, arguing that the principal searched his cellphone in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 2, Section 6 of the Loyola Constitution. The trial court denied the motion. The Loyola Court of Appeals affirmed. The case is now being heard by the Loyola State Supreme Court.

Please write a majority and dissenting opinion for this case.

Relevant constitutional provisions:

U.S. Constitution, Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Loyola Constitution, Article 2, § 6

No person shall be disturbed in their private affairs, or have their home invaded, by an unreasonable search or seizure. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

U.S. Supreme Court Precedent:

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)

A teacher caught a high school freshman, T.L.O., smoking in the school bathroom, and took her to the principal’s office. T.L.O. denied she had been smoking. The principal demanded to see her purse. He opened it and found a pack of cigarettes. He also saw a packet of cigarette rolling papers, which he believed was closely associated with marijuana use.

Because he suspected a further search of the purse would turn up evidence of drug use, he searched the purse thoroughly. He found a small amount of marijuana, a pipe, a large amount of cash, and what appeared to be a list of students who owed T.L.O. money. The state brought charges. At trial, T.L.O. argued that the evidence seized from her purse should be suppressed, because the principal searched it in violation of her Fourth Amendment Rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures does apply to searches by public school officials. The Court said that school students have legitimate expectations of privacy, and they do not waive all rights to privacy by bringing items onto school grounds. But school officials have a responsibility to keep students safe and maintain order at the school, so the Fourth Amendment applies in a slightly different way at school than it does in public. Warrants are not required for searches at school. Also, the “probable cause” standard required for a search outside of school is replaced with a “reasonable suspicion” standard.

In assessing a search by school officials, courts must ask two questions: 1) was the search justified by reasonable suspicion when it began? And 2) was the scope of the search reasonably related to the circumstances that justified the search? Here, it was reasonable to believe that a search of T.L.O.’s purse would turn up cigarettes, in violation of school rules. Once the principal saw the rolling papers, it was reasonable for him to search further and his search was not excessively intrusive. The evidence against T.L.O. could be used in court against her.

Loyola Supreme Court Precedent

The Loyola Supreme Court follows the interstitial approach for addressing claims that arise under both the federal and state constitutions.

The Loyola Supreme Court “gives respectful consideration to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in its interpretation of parallel provisions of the Federal Constitution” but has found on multiple occasions that Article 2, § 6 “affords our citizens greater protection against unreasonable searches and seizures than does the fourth amendment.”

The Loyola Supreme Court has not yet addressed how Article 2, § 6 applies to searches conducted by public school officials. In the policing context, the Loyola Supreme Court has found that Article 2, §6 — like the Fourth Amendment — requires police to have probable cause before conducting a warrantless search.

The court has defined private affairs as those “interests which citizens of this state have held, and should be entitled to hold, safe from government trespass.”

As a matter of history, the Supreme Court of Loyola adopted its constitution in the year 1900 and recognized the exclusionary rule 50 years before the United States Supreme Court.

Note: The summary of New Jersey v. T.L.O. was copied from Colorado Law Constitution Day Project September 2019, available at https://www.colorado.edu/law/sites/default/files/attached-files/constitution_day_lesson_plan_2019.pdf