# data[].attributes.body
Parties of the Case
Fremont Weeks: Petitioner
Martin J. O'Donnell:Advocate for Weeks
John W. Davis: Solicitor General
Winfred T. Denison:  Assistant Attorney General
Key Events
Police barged into the home of Fremont Weeks without a search warrant and confiscated papers that were then used to convict him of selling lottery tickets. When Weeks requested his items back, he was plea was refused.
Legal Issue
According to the 4th Amendment, any sort of government worker, like a police officer, needs a warrant to look for or take anything from someones private property.
Question asked of the court
Did the search of Weeks' home violate the Fourth Amendment?
Courts Decision
Unanimously, the court decided  that the Fourth Amendment applies to Weeks' case, both in the search and seizure, as well as the refusal to return the items to Weeks. Therefore, none of the items seized could be used in court against Weeks.
Reason
Allowing this search and seizure to be legal would mean that the Fourth Amendment would hold no value.
What precedence was established by the case?
The first application of what became known as the exclusionary rule. This rule states that any evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.
By: Jake Sinatra
Sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=the+exclusionary+rule&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS756US756&oq=the+excl&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.5585j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+exclusionary+rule&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS756US756&oq=the+excl&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.5585j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS756US756&biw=1366&bih=662&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=b0b6WZK-J-u4jwThsbOgDw&q=weeks+vs+the+united+states+court+picture&oq=weeks+vs+the+united+states+court+picture&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10132.13177.0.13344.16.15.1.0.0.0.79.924.14.14.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.0.0....0.kBrj5_8wGZo#imgrc=jZaJ-U38kEjY2M:

# data[].attributes.body
Parties of the Case
7th grade student James action &  Vernonia School District 47J
KEY EVENTS

students speak out about their interest in the drug culture

Rise in disciplinary referrals between 1988-1989

athletes found to be top drug users.

drug polices implemented

drug testing begins on student athletes

WHAT WAS THE LEGAL ISSUE

Dose random drug testing of student athletes violate the 4th amendment's search and seizure clause?
WHAT WAS DETERMINED BY THE COURT?  NO.  it was a reasonable drug test. The privacy interests compromised by urine samples are negligible since the conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed only by limited authorities.
WHAT PRECEDENCE WAS ESTABLISHED?
Allowed schools to be able to drug test the student population only if the drug search is reasonable.
BY: Jake Piludu
Sources https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-590
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/646/
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/646/case.html

# data[].attributes.headline
Safford Univied School District v. Redding

# data[].attributes.subject
Safford Univied School District v. Redding

# data[].attributes.body
Parties of the Case
Savana Redding-13 year old student who goes to safford middle school
Safford Unified School District

Key Events

Student accused Savana Redding of giving her drugs

School officials told Savana to strip down to her bra and underwear and  to pull them away from her body exposing her breasts and genitalia

When no drugs were found,  Savana's parents filed a lawsuit against the school and it attracted national attention

What was the legal issue?
Does the fourth amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?
Are School Officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983?
What did the court decide?
The court decided that the pills in question, no stronger than two Advils, did not justify an "embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating search."
The court reached this decision because they felt that the pills in question, no stronger than two Advils, did not justify an "embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating search."
The new precedent is
based on a reasonable suspicion, search measures used by school officials to root out contraband must be "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction." Here, school officials did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant extending the search of Savanna to her underwear. The Court also held that the implicated school administrators were not personally liable because "clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment."
Visual
By: AJ Scardine
Sources
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-479
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/politics/26scotus.html