# data[].attributes.body
Summary: David Riley, a Lincoln Park gang member in California, opened fire on a rival gang as they drove by. Later police found him in a different care using an expired license. Police found hidden contraband in the vehicle including firearms and he was arrested for possession without a license, they later searched his phone without a warrant, finding videos and pictures of him holding up gang signs. He said the search of his phone was a violation of the 4th amendment.

Question: Was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches?

SCOTUS' Ruling: 9-0 in favor of Riley

Rights: UPHELD, a warrantless cell phone search violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Facts of the case: Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job, a stick-up." The officer stopped and frisked the three men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

Question: Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

Conclusion: In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and that the weapons seized could be introduced into evidence against Terry.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: An investigation led to the discovery of high school athletes in the Vernonia School District using drugs. School officials were concerned that using drugs would increase injuries so they authorized random urinalysis drug testing. A student, Acton, was denied participation in his school's football program when he refused to consent to the testing.

Question: Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?

SCOTUS: 6-3 decision in favor of Vernonia School District

Rights: Limited

# data[].attributes.headline
'Intrusive' drones? US surveillance case tests privacy law

# data[].attributes.subject
'Intrusive' drones? US surveillance case tests privacy law

# data[].attributes.body
A neighbour had already warned Todd Maxon of seeing something unusual hovering over his lakeside Michigan property – but then, suddenly, there it was.

"I walk out of my house, with my dog and kid, and here's a drone, directly above me," Maxon recalled of the 2018 incident.

It turns out the drone had been over the five-acre (two-hectare) property at least two other times in previous months, part of what turned out to be an effort by the local Long Lake Township to surveil the Maxons' land over a zoning dispute involving his hobby of fixing up old vehicles.

But the township did so without getting a warrant first – and Maxon and his legal team say that infringed his constitutional right against unreasonable searches.

Violation of 4th Amendment: The township Todd was in never had a warrant to use a drone to surveillance his land which was a form of an unreasonable search and seizure.

https://www.context.news/surveillance/intrusive-drones-us-surveillance-case-tests-privacy-law

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.alternative_text
<img src="https://ddc514qh7t05d.cloudfront.net/dA/742a553192af592c639e8b9a06b46346/2400w/80q" alt="An Airspace Systems Interceptor autonomous aerial drone flies during a product demonstration in Castro Valley, California March 6, 2017. REUTERS/Stephen Lam">