Kent v. US determined that juvenile delinquents are entitled the same amount of due process protections while under the jurisdiction of a juvenile court. It analyzed the degree of discretion associated with transfer proceedings. In 1961, a woman was robbed and raped in her own Washington D.C apartment. The fingerprints matched 16 year old, Morris A. Kent. He was detained and interrogated by the police. He did, in fact, have a record with the juvenile court. When he was 14 years old, he was apprehended for burglary and theft. Because he was under the authority of the juvenile court for two years already, and now being accused of such a heinous crime, the judge believed Morris should be tried as an adult. Immediately, Kent’s mother hired a lawyer who could represent him. Together, they argued the juvenile court did not conduct a full investigation before waiving jurisdiction. However, the judge denied. Kent was transferred to district court where he was found guilty and sentenced to 30- 90 years in prison. Kent appealed, and challenged his conviction. The Supreme Court ruled the waiver was invalid, and the case was sent back for rehearing. In re Gault provided juveniles delinquents similar due process rights already afforded to adults. The Supreme Court established that juveniles are guaranteed a fair trial and privileges against self incrimination apply to them as well. It impacted the entire juvenile justice system, accommodating the motives of of rehabilitation and treatment with children’s rights. Gerald Francis Gault, 15 years old, made several inappropriate pranks calls to a neighbor, Mrs. Cook, while with his friend. After Mrs. Cook made a complaint, officers arrived at Jerry’s house, arrested him, and brought him the Children’s Detention Home. His parents were at work during the time of his arrest, and the officers made no attempt to notify them about their son. When dinner was served that night, Gault was not there. Concerned, his older brother went looking for him. A few days later, the family of Ronald Lewis informed the family about the arrest. At the end of the trial, Gault was found guilty and sentenced to a juvenile facility until he turned 21 years old. Eventually, the case was appealed. He was never notified of the charges against him, did not have the opportunity to confront his accuser or witness because they did not show up to testify against him, was not informed of his right against self incrimination, and was denied the right of an attorney. The Gaults filed a petition, but it was dismissed. Therefore, they sought relief from the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. McKeiver v. Penn held that a jury trial is not required for juvenile delinquents by the Sixth or Fourteenth Amendments. Joseph McKeiver, 16 years old, was charged with robbery, larceny, and theft. At the adjudicatory hearing, his attorney requested a jury trial. However, his motion was denied. He was found guilty, and sentenced to probation. Consolidated with another case, McKeiver appealed and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. It ruled that trial by jury does not apply to minors. New Jersey v. TLO determined that the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures conducted by school officials in order to maintain school safety. A teacher saw two girls smoking in the laboratory, which is a violation. They were brought down to the office and met with Assistant Vice Principal Theodore Choplick. One of the girls identified herself was TLO, a 14 year old high school freshman. She admitted to violating a rule, but denied that she smoked. Mr. Choplick demanded she come with him into his private office so he can search her purse. At first, he discovered cigarettes. Then, he conducted a more thorough search and found marijuana, some rolling paper, a pipe, a large sum of money, a list containing people who owe TLO money, and two letters in connection to dealing. Immediately, he notified her mother and the police. She was charged with possession of marijuana. She tried to suppress the evidence, but the court denied her motion. She was found guilty and sentenced to one year probation. She appealed, and took her case to the New Jersey Supreme Court under the assumption that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated. They reversed, stating the search was unreasonable and the evidence cannot be used. The state of New Jersey appealed, however, stating the decision was erroneous. The case was then transferred to the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that school officials do not need to obtain a search warrant before searching students under authority. All they need is reasonable suspicion.