# data[].attributes.body
Summary: Terry and two other men were stopped by a police officer in plain clothes. He searched them 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?

SCOTUS ruling: 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment

Rights were limited

# data[].attributes.headline
Safford Unified School District vs Redding (2009)

# data[].attributes.subject
Safford Unified School District vs Redding (2009)

# data[].attributes.body
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?

School Strip Searched a girl because another student said she might have ibuprofen and they said that the strip search might have been unconstitutional. and that they violated the girl's 4th amendment the vote on whether the Fourth Amendment was violated was 8-1 for Stanford Unified School

prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: The Vernonia School District held an official investigation which had revealed that there was drug usage with some high school athletes. As a result the school district adopted a random urinalysis drug testing via the SADP (Student Athlete Drug Policy)

The question asked: Is random drug testing of high school athletes a violation of the 4th amendment?

The vote was a 6-3 majority ruling that the drug testing was not a violation of the 4th amendment, based on the fact that they were under state supervision during school hours. Along with the fact that the safety of minors overrode the minimal, if any intrusion of student's privacy.

Rights were limited since it was not believed that this form of search impeded the 4th amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
David Leon Riley belonged to a Lincoln Park Gang of San Diego. August 2, 2009, him and others opened fire on a rival member driving past them. The shooters got into Riley's car and drove away. August 22, he was pulled over by police driving a different car with expired tags. His car was impounded and during a search the police found 2 guns, he was arrested for possession of the firearms. During the Arrest he had his phone on him, a gang unit detective analyzed videos of Riley making gang signs. Later on Riley was tied to the shooting on August 2nd.

Question - Was the evidence admitted at trial from Riley's cell phone discovered through a search that violated his 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches?

Scotus Ruling - 9-0 Unanimous decision

Limited - A warrantless cell phone search violates the Fourth Amendment right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.headline
"When the cops take your urine by force."

# data[].attributes.subject
"When the cops take your urine by force."

# data[].attributes.body
Lockard was pulled over and police were suspecting he was drunk. He blew just under the legal limit. They obtained a search warrant for blood and urine samples and took Lockard to a local hospital. They had no issue receiving his blood but Lockard said he couldn't go, they then handcuffed him to a bed and the nurse inserted a catheter up the urethra into the bladder. He then sued the police offers and the city of Lawrenceburg, alleging the forced catheterization had violated his civil rights. The lawsuit settled for $250,000.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Michigan lawsuit over local government drone use in zoning dispute. Drone had been over the five-acre 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. The township did so without getting a warrant first – and Maxon and his legal team say that infringed his constitutional right against unreasonable searches. Rights were protected

# 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
The event: The cornerstone that started all of this was a drone; This drone was used by the local Long Lake Township of Michigan to survey a citizen's home. That citizen is named Maxon. In 2018 Maxon was walking his dog with his kid when he saw a drone hovering over his 5 acres of property for the 2nd or 3rd time that month. The problem was that the township had not gotten a warrant prior to this form of searching. The reason for the searching was that Maxon had allegedly operated an unlicensed junk yard. The main issue with this is that compared to the ruling that took place in 1980's which addressed man operated vehicles such as helicopters that made noise to make it very obvious whether or not someone was being surveyed, a drone is small, quiet, and hard to identify meaning that you don't know when you are being watched. The significance of this case would create a new precedent in terms of methods of investigation, along with new regulation if it comes to that.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Intrusive' drones? US surveillance case tests privacy law | Context

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Michigan lawsuit over local government's drone use in zoning dispute could jumpstart limits for fast-evolving issue across the country