Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): officials’ need for maintaining order and discipline in school is such that school officials do not need either probable cause or a search warrant to search students and their belongings. Instead, T.L.O. provides that “the legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search.” Id. at 341,105 S.Ct. 733. In evaluating whether a search is reasonable under the circumstances, T.L.O. requires that courts apply a two-prong test: (1) whether the school authority’s search was justified at its inception and (2) whether the search was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the interference. Id.; see also Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Redding, — U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. 2633, 2639, 174 L.Ed.2d 354 (2009) (<HOLDING>). At issue in the present case is the first 
 Holding statements: (A) holding warrantless search of probationers home by law enforcement officer for investigatory purposes was reasonable when conditions of probation included a search term and search was supported by reasonable suspicion (B) holding a warrantless search of cell phone contents did not exceed permissible scope of search incident to arrest (C) holding that refusal to consent to search cannot support a finding of reasonable suspicion (D) holding that when reasonable suspicion exists a school search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search (E) holding that the challenged item was within the scope of the search because it reasonably fell within the expressed object of the search even though it turned out to be the defendants personal property
Output (English): holding that the challenged item was within the scope of the search because it reasonably fell within the expressed object of the search even though it turned out to be the defendants personal property