C) Maximum fine of $250,000 and/or five years in jail
The SCOTUS did not rule that T.L.O’s 4th amendment (searches and seizures) rights had been violated. They ruled that the school administrations search of the bag was reasonable under the circumstances (i.e T.L.O. Being a minor and on school property, meaning that while at school, administration is responsible for the well-being and safety of all students, thus allowing them to search T.L.O’s bag for marijuana). A good way to think of it is that while you’re at school, the administration acts as your parents. Your parents don’t need a warrant to search through your room and neither does the administration if you are on school property. The 4th amendment applies to this case because it protects against unlawful searches and seizures (i.e. searches and seizures that are without a warrant). The constitutional question was whether or not T.L.O. Could be charged with a crime/punished or not because the school administration did not have a warrant. However, because the school administration was acting as a loco parentis (latin term for “in place of the parent”) they did not need a warrant to search her bag. Hope this helped!
Una pluralidad de la Corte, señalando los "derechos fundamentales de los padres para tomar decisiones sobre el cuidado, la custodia y el control de sus hijos", 709 revocó esta decisión, señalando la falta de deferencia a los deseos de los padres y la contravención de la presunción tradicional de que un padre en forma actuará de la mejor manera
Answer:
The Safety Responsibility Act was enacted to ensure all drivers are financially responsible for the death, injury, or property damage they may cause while operating a motor vehicle.
Explanation:
So people that get into an accident and run off leaving some other guy in the dirt wouldn't get away with it.
