1 Answer | Add Yours
Both cases were landmark decisions for individual rights. In both cases, one sees how the Supreme Court interpreted the 4th Amendment to the Constitution as foundational to the rights of individuals in society. In Mapp v. Ohio, the court ruled that the Fourth Amendment is fundamental and cannot be vitiated in any form. Police and law enforcement are bound by the concept of a legal search, complete with warrant and just cause. Despite all zeal for public safety and communal interests, the rights of the accused individuals cannot be violated or mitigated through this decision. In the T.L.O. case, the court was confronted with the issue of whether or not a school executed a search of a student within the bounds of Constitutionality. Ironically enough, the court under the guidance of Chief Justice Rehnquist was decidedly more conservative and more animated by the principles of judicial restraint. Although the court ruled that the school search was Constitutional, there had to be an expectation of reasonably that accompanied such a search. While it did not strike down the search, the court ruled that there had to be a reasonability expectation which guided the search. Such a decision limited the scope of school officials into being able to be bound by the idea of resonability and just cause when conducting a search. In both cases, the Constitution is seen as a document that safeguards the personal freedoms and liberties of individuals. At the same time, both cases prove that the Constitution is synonymous with the protection of a sphere of "negative freedom," a domain where the individual has the right to be left alone, free from intrusion. This realm can be intruded upon if there has been legal benchmarks and procedures met as well as the presence of a reasonability as an expectation for all accused individuals.
We’ve answered 317,520 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question