Justice Stevens agreed with the other Justices that school officials do not need a warrant in order to conduct a search. However, Justice Stevens disagreed with the Court establishing the reasonable suspicion standard. Justice Stevens noted, “I believe the nature of the suspected infraction is a matter of first importance in deciding whether any invasion of privacy is permissible.” Justice Stevens believed that conduct should be “unlawful” or at the very least “significantly disruptive” in order to provoke a search such as the one Choplick performed on T.L.O. In his dissent, Justice Stevens explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in this case would communicate to school officials that they may “search students suspected of violating only the most trivial school regulations and guidelines for behavior.” Justice Stevens worried that with the reasonable suspicion standard in place, the Court allowed for school officials to abuse their
Justice Stevens agreed with the other Justices that school officials do not need a warrant in order to conduct a search. However, Justice Stevens disagreed with the Court establishing the reasonable suspicion standard. Justice Stevens noted, “I believe the nature of the suspected infraction is a matter of first importance in deciding whether any invasion of privacy is permissible.” Justice Stevens believed that conduct should be “unlawful” or at the very least “significantly disruptive” in order to provoke a search such as the one Choplick performed on T.L.O. In his dissent, Justice Stevens explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in this case would communicate to school officials that they may “search students suspected of violating only the most trivial school regulations and guidelines for behavior.” Justice Stevens worried that with the reasonable suspicion standard in place, the Court allowed for school officials to abuse their