# data[].attributes.body
they had 8 out of 1 judges decide on its 8 of the agreed and one disagreed.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?

2) Are school officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983?

# data[].attributes.body
By Zach Saunders The case of Vernonia vs Acton was between the Vernonia School District and Acton. An investigation led to the discovery that athletes in the district were involved in illegal drug use. After the parents of James Acton denied a drug test, he was unable to participate on the football team. They asked the question "does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?" The court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision for Vernonia School District. They decided that the reasonableness of a search is judged by "balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests." The precedence was that the governmental concern for safety of minors under their supervision overrides the minimal intrusion in student-athletes' privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
they had searched ms.redding and she felt like that it was not okayShe alleged her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated.

# data[].attributes.body
Ms. Redding subsequently filed suit against the school district and the school officials responsible for the search in the District Court for the District of Arizona.

# data[].attributes.body
Decision: the court ruled in weeks favor because these actions violated his fourth amendment rights.

Reason why; the court reached that descion because the fourth amendment protect you from searches and seixures without lawful consent.

The precedence: established by this case was the exclusionary rule.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A case in which the Court found that the seizure of a person's private property from their home without a warrant, leading to a criminal conviction, directly violated the Fourth Amendment. This was the first application of what is now known as the "exclusionary rule."

# data[].attributes.body
By. Andrew B. Richarson

PARTIES INVOLVED-- State of New Jersey and "T. L. O."

SUMMARY-- Respondent is a high school student. At school her purse is searched because she is suspected of having cigarettes. During the search, they found cigarettes, a small amount of marijuana, and a list of people who owed her money. She is arrested.

QUESTION-- Her privacy was violated. So the question for the court was; Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?

COURT DECISION-- 6-3 for New Jersey. But there was no decision.

WHY?-- Brief arguing and discussing over whether or not the principle violated the 4th amendment. In the end,  Justice Stevens felt that it is not the role of the Supreme Court to offer guidance on questions the parties did put at issue.

OUTCOME-- Holding that the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment applies to searches and seizures conducted by school officials in public schools.

# data[].attributes.headline
Weeks vs The united States cont. Garrett Murray

# data[].attributes.subject
Weeks vs The united States cont. Garrett Murray

# data[].attributes.body
Parties; Fremont Weeks and the United states of america

Key events: Police entered weeks home and seized property but this search was done without a warrant, weeks then took this act and petitioned againt it.

Question; did the search and seizure of weeks home violate his fourth ammendment rights?