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!
Answer: False
Explanation:
The statement that "Under the US structure and operation of government each state can make, enforce and intrepret its own laws even if the laws are inconsistent with another state's laws or federal law" is false.
Even though state governments have the right to prescribe certain policy on education, taxation, commerce etc, it should be noted that such laws should not contradict the federal laws.
According to the Constitution of the United States, the federal law is being regarded as the supreme law and no.other state can contradict what it says.
Answer:
she should discuss options with the airport since she is only a pilot and the airport authorities should decide on the choices
