# data[].attributes.body
Who were the parties in the case? Vernonia School District, and Acton and his family.

What key events occurred that brought this case to court? The New student athlete drug policy, and Acton refusing  to consent to the test.

What was the legal issue?
Should student athletes be required to take drug random drug tests, in order to play their sport.

What question was the court asked to decide?  Does random drug testing of High School Student athletes, violate their fourth amendment?

How did the court decide the case?
They ruled: No, It does not violate your fourth amendment. " In the case of high school athletes who are under State supervision during school hours, they are subject to greater control than over free adults. " As in, the student athletes under supervision, meaning that that they are responsible for the students/ student athletes. That they should have less privacy than an adult, thus meaning the searches are validated.

Why did the court reach that decision? I feel as if they reached that decision based on the premise that student athletes have less freedom under state-supervision, then the average male.

What precedence was established by the case? That schools can Drug test their student-athletes, As well as that Student-Athletes have next to no privacy.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-590 - Source.

https://www.aclu-or.org/sites/default/files/acton.jpg

- Peter Kostopoulos

# data[].attributes.body
1. The parties in the case were Fremont Weeks (petitioner) and the United States (respondent)

2. Key events: The police seized took evidence from Fremont's home without a search warrant, and tried to convict him with it. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned  for his stuff back.

3. Legal issue: Did the search and seizure of Weeks' home violate the Fourth Amendment?

4. The Supreme Court held a unanimous decision that made the evidence seized excluded from prosecuting Fremont.

5. Why: The court stated that the seizure of the items from Fremont's home directly violated his constitutional rights because it was done without a search warrant. The court also stated that the  government's refusal to return Weeks' possessions violated the fourth amendment.

6. Precedence: The Exclusionary Rule-   evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.

Link: "Weeks v. United States." Oyez, 1 Nov. 2017, www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/232us383.

-Kayela Belcina

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
1.The parties in the case were Safford Unified School District (petitioner) and April Redding (respondent)

2.Key Events that brought this case to court: Savana Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School, was strip-searched by school officials that Redding might have ibuprofen on her .  She alleged e of unreasonable search and seizure Fourth Amendment right to be free was violated.

3.What was the legal issue? what question did the court ask?  Ms. Redding's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated. It reasoned that the strip search was not justified nor was the scope of intrusion reasonably related to the circumstances.  Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?

4. How did the court decide the case? The Supreme Court held that Savanna's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers.

5.Why did the court reach that decision? School officials did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant extending the search of Savanna to her underwear.

6.What precedence was established by the case?
Protects people from unlawful searches and seizures. This means that the police can't search you or your house without a warrant or probable cause.

"Safford Unified School District v. Redding." Oyez, 1 Nov. 2017, www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-479.
-Elle Lolis

# data[].attributes.body
1.  The parties in the case were T.L.O, (Student) and the New Jersey High School. (State)

2. Key Events: Student was caught smoking marijuana in school, the principal searched her bag without her consent, T.L.O (student)  argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated.

3. Legal Issue: Was T.LO.'s Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures violated?

4. The Supreme Court met a decision that ruled that the search was reasonable and that school administrators do not need a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search.

5.Why: The High court said that school  administrators do not need a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search because the expectation of privacy for students in school is reduced.

6. The precedence established by the case was that school administrators don't need to have a search warrant or probable cause before conducting a search.

Link: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/new-jersey-v-tlo-podcast

pic

-Kyle Trespalacios