Review It
As you read in the Tinker v. Des Moines Supreme Court case, justices can have very different opinions when interpreting the Constitution. Although the majority opinion becomes law, the concurring opinion and dissenting opinion may be used as evidence in a future court ruling.
The next Supreme Court case you will read about involves Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. In New Jersey v. T.L.O., the Supreme Court decided whether the vice principal’s search of T.L.O.’s purse violated her Fourth Amendment rights.
Look for evidence in the text that supports an author’s point of view.
In this review activity, read both the majority opinion and dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court in order to determine each point of view and the details the justices included to present their opinions.
Tips for Finding Author's Point of View
To determine an author’s point of view, ask yourself these four questions as you read:
- What is the author’s purpose in writing this document?
- What is the main idea the author is trying to convince you to agree with?
- How does the author’s choice of words influence your thinking as you read about the topic?
- How does the author’s choice of facts or examples influence your thinking as you read about the topic?
Read the excerpt from the majority opinion written by Justice Bryon White. As you read, use the highlighter tool to identify evidence that supports the author’s point of view.
(You can download a PDF of the two excerpts to highlight on paper.)
"In determining whether the search at issue in this case violated the Fourth Amendment, we are faced initially with the question whether that Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches conducted by public school officials. We hold that it does.
…Although this Court may take notice of the difficulty of maintaining discipline in the public schools today, the situation is not so dire that students in the schools may claim no legitimate expectations of privacy…
Against the child's interest in privacy must be set the substantial interest of teachers and administrators in maintaining discipline in the classroom and on school grounds. Maintaining order in the classroom has never been easy, but in recent years, school disorder has often taken particularly ugly forms: drug use and violent crime in the schools have become major social problems…
The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment: requiring a teacher to obtain a warrant before searching a child suspected of an infraction of school rules (or of the criminal law) would unduly interfere with the maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures needed in the schools… [W]e hold today that school officials need not obtain a warrant before searching a student who is under their authority.
…[T]he legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search…Under ordinary circumstances, a search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be "justified at its inception" when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated."
- Justice Byron White, 1985
Now read the dissenting opinion written by Justice John Paul Stephens. As you read, use the highlighter tool to identify evidence that supports the author's point of view.
"…there is a quite obvious and material difference between a search for evidence relating to violent or disruptive activity, and a search for evidence of a smoking rule violation. …its occasional violation in a context that poses no threat of disrupting school order and discipline offers no reason to believe that an immediate search is necessary to avoid unlawful conduct, violence, or a serious impairment of the educational process.
…I would view this case differently if the Assistant Vice Principal had reason to believe T.L.O.'s purse contained evidence of criminal activity, or of an activity that would seriously disrupt school discipline. There was, however, absolutely no basis for any such assumption—not even a "hunch".
One of our most cherished ideals is the one contained in the Fourth Amendment: that the government may not intrude on the personal privacy of its citizens without a warrant or compelling circumstance.
- Justice John Paul Stephens, 1985
Click the Show Answer box to reveal four key points of view from the majority opinion written by Justice White, as well as evidence from the text that supports the author’s point of view.
Click the Show Answer box to reveal four key points of view from the dissenting opinion written by Justice Stephens, as well as evidence from the text that supports the author’s point of view.
