IDENTITY OF PETITIONERS

A. IDENTITY OF PETITIONER
Petitioners, Jarod Cardenas, Luis Aranda, Borga Sahbal, Mikey Ngo, Jason Lei, and
Amethyst Johnson of the law firm J.L.B.M.J.A. and Partners, ask this court to accept
review of the decisions of the New Jersey v. TLO Court rulings designated in Part B of
this motion.
B. DECISION
This matter was heard by SCOTUS, which ruled that the search was constitutional.
C. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
1. Whether the assistant vice principal's search of T.L.O.'s purse was unreasonable under the
Fourth Amendment, as it was based on knowledge of smoking and not on concrete
evidence that would justify a broader search of T.L.O.'s belongings, given that SCOTUS
determined possession of cigarettes wasn’t a violation of school policy.
2. Whether the school official's decision to search T.L.O.'s purse was based on subjective
perceptions, assumptions, and implicit biases, rather than objective facts and proper
precaution, which led to an overreach of their authority.
3. Whether there was evidence that implicated T.L.O. in a more serious offense such as
drug dealing, violence, or consuming illegal substances which may have justified a
further search of T.L.O.'s person.
4. Whether the search was performed with a lack of standard procedure such as probable
cause or reasonable suspicion, which allowed for potential bias and discrimination in the
application of searches in a school setting as opposed to other public and/or private
places.

D. STATEMENT OF CASE
1. Background of Action: New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) involved a 14-year-old high school
student (T.L.O.) who was accused of smoking in the school bathroom. Upon being
confronted, T.L.O. denied the accusation, and an assistant vice principal decided to
search her purse. During the search, the vice principal found cigarettes, marijuana, and
evidence of drug dealing. T.L.O. was charged with possession of marijuana and later
admitted her guilt. However, she moved to suppress the evidence found in her purse,
arguing that the search violated her Fourth Amendment rights. The trial court denied her
motion, and the case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court of New Jersey, which
held that the search was unconstitutional.
2. Procedural Background: The case began in a trial court, where T.L.O. moved to suppress
the evidence found in her purse, arguing that the search violated her Fourth Amendment
rights. The trial court denied her motion, holding that the search was reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment, and T.L.O. was convicted of the charges against her. The case was
then appealed to the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court, which

1
 affirmed the trial court's decision. T.L.O. further appealed to the Supreme Court of New
Jersey, which reversed the lower courts' decisions and held that the search was
unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the decision
of the New Jersey Supreme Court. In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the
search of T.L.O.'s purse was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The Court
established that school officials do not need a warrant to search students, as long as they
have reasonable suspicion that the student has violated school rules or the law. The Court
further held that the search of T.L.O.'s purse was reasonable based on the accusation of
smoking in the bathroom, and the discovery of marijuana and evidence of drug dealing
during the search did not violate her constitutional rights. Despite the U.S. Supreme
Court's ruling, the case continues to be a source of debate regarding the balance between
school safety and students' constitutional rights, the standard of reasonable suspicion, and
the role of school officials in enforcing the law.
E. ARGUMENT
1. The search conducted by the assistant vice principal was unjustified and overly invasive,
as it was based on a single accusation of smoking and went beyond the initial scope of
looking for cigarettes. The school official initiated the search based solely on an
accusation of smoking, without any concrete evidence to justify a broader search of
T.L.O.'s belongings. There was no indication that T.L.O. was involved in more severe
illegal activities, such as drug dealing, that would warrant the search of her purse. The
search extended beyond the initial justification, delving into private compartments within
T.L.O.'s purse and discovering marijuana and other contraband, despite already finding
the cigarettes that prompted the search. In the case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347
(1967), the Supreme Court held that searches and seizures are unreasonable if they
violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. This principle should have been
applied to protect T.L.O.'s privacy rights in her purse.
2. The erosion of students' privacy rights in a school setting has negative consequences,
limiting students' personal growth and inhibiting the development of critical thinking
skills. The Tinker v. Des Moines case emphasizes the importance of students' right to free
expression in schools, which is undermined when privacy rights are compromised. The
extensive search conducted by the assistant vice principal demonstrates the potential for
abuses of power by school officials, particularly when the reasonable suspicion standard
is applied inconsistently or based on subjective perceptions.
3. The application of the reasonable suspicion standard raises concerns about fairness and
equal treatment of all students, particularly when considering the potential for implicit
biases and stereotypes. The T.L.O. case highlights the potential for inconsistency and
discriminatory application of the reasonable suspicion standard. School officials should
be held to more stringent standards, such as probable cause or get law enforcement
2
 involved, to ensure that searches are conducted in a manner that respects students'
constitutional rights. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the Supreme Court established
the reasonable suspicion standard for searches and seizures, but this standard wasn’t
upheld during the search violating T.L.O.’s privacy rights.
4. In order to protect students' privacy rights, ensure the fair treatment of all students, and
maintain school safety, clear guidelines and standards must be established for searches
conducted in schools. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable
searches and seizures, and these standards should be applied to searches conducted by
school officials, who should be recognized as state actors. The court's designation of
school officials as acting in place of parents fails to acknowledge their responsibility as
state actors to uphold students' constitutional rights. Holding school officials to the same
legal standards as other government officials, such as police officers, would provide a
consistent and fair approach to protecting students' rights. By recognizing school officials
as state actors and adopting more stringent search standards, the risk of discriminatory or
biased application of the reasonable suspicion standard would be reduced, ensuring the
fair treatment of all students. This recognition would also help maintain a balance
between the need for school safety and the protection of students' privacy rights while
preventing potential abuses of power by school officials.

F. CONCLUSION
Based upon the above, Petitioners ask the court to grant their motion for discretionary
review. Respectfully submitted this 4th day of April, 2023.
Jarod Cardenas
WSBA No. 23563
Attorney for Petitioner
DECLARATION OF SERVICE
The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of
Washington, that on April 4th, 2023, they caused a true and correct copy of Petitioner’s
Motion for Discretionary Review to be delivered by Legal Messenger on April 4th, 2023,
to:
Saul J. Goodman
Attorneys at Law
1109 Law street, Suite 500
Albuquerque, New Mexico 98101-2988