# data[].attributes.headline
Veronica School District V Acton (1995) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Veronica School District V Acton (1995) 

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMARY: Due to the school being notified of its athlete's illicit drug use. They adopted a Student Athlete Drug Policy to help prevent sports-related injuries. This policy gave the school the right to give the athletes random drug tests. James Acton and his parents denied the policy and James was removed the ability to participate in the school's football program.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE/QUESTION: Do random drug tests of high school athletes violate their 4th amendment rights?

SCOTUS' RULING: The Court ruled 6-3 in favor of the Vernonia School District.

RIGHTS UPHELD or LIMITED: The student's rights are upheld because it isn't invasive or intrusive to the athlete's privacy. The form of collecting the urine samples isn't intrusive and the results are only viewed by authorized individuals. The student has free will in deciding whether he wants to be drug tested or not, just with the consequence of not being able to play sports for the school.

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMARY: There were two rival gangs and on that day there was a drive-by a couple of days later Riley was pulled over on a suspended driver's license they searched the vehicle and it was permitted they found two guns he was arrested but then they searched his phone without a warrant and they connected him to the shooting. so they went to the Supreme Court and by a unanimous decision it was unconstitutional for them to search his phone.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE/QUESTION: They searched his phone

SCOTUS' RULING: 9-0 for Riley

RIGHTS UPHELD or LIMITED: Rights were upheld.

# data[].attributes.body
Terry and two men were seen by a police officer and he believed they had weapons on them and were planning a robbery. When the officer stopped the men, he found the weapons on them. Terry was convicted of having a concealed weapon on him and sentenced to a few years in prison.

Did searching Terry and the other men, and seizing the weapons, violate their 4th amendment rights?

SCOTUS ruled 8-1 in favor of the officer, saying that he had probable cause, more than a hunch, to search Terry since he was acting suspiciously and (rightfully) suspected he has weapons that posed a threat.

In this case, Terry's 4th amendment rights were limited because SCOTUS ruled the officer had a right to search him.

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

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

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: The case against the school violating the Fourth Amendment rights were violated

Constitutional: Are school officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983?Issue/Question: They had strip search the Redding

Scotus Ruling: The conclusion of the case was Safford Unified School District had won the case 8-1

Rights upheld or Limited: Limited

# data[].attributes.body
SUMMARY: This person flashed a gun at his wife she left, and then to cops came went in his house and found 2 guns without a warrant.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE/QUESTION: going in his house and searching it.

SCOTUS' RULING: 9-0 for Caniglia

RIGHTS UPHELD or LIMITED: Rights were upheld.

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: Dollree Mapp was convict of possessing obscene materials, that was found during an illegal police search of her house. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.

Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the fourth amendment?

SCOTUS Ruling: 6-3 the majority brushed aside First Amendment issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.

Rights where upheld

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mapp v. Ohio: Illegal Search and Seizure

# data[].attributes.body
Police arrested 4 men connected to series of armed robberies. One of the convicted admitted guilty and handed over his phone. The FBI took this phone and wire tapped into it under protection of the "Stored Communications Act." The act itself says they may only obtain information from the phone that's relevant to the case, nothing else. During the case, they used the location and time of the man's calls to find further evidence and eventually charged Timothy Carpenter of aiding and abetting robbery that affected interstate commerce. Timothy argued they needed probable cause to warrant obtaining the info they did, the district court dismissed this and the sixth court affirmed the decision.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE/QUESTION: Does the warrantless search and seizure of cell phone records, including location and movement of user, violate the 4th amendment?

SCOTUS RULING: ruled 5-4 in favor of Carpenter and agreed his rights were violated. Additionally, they acknowledged that reasonable expectations of privacy in one's cellular device would be protected under the 4th amendment. They denied a third party doctrine protecting users rights from 3rd parties collecting their information.

UPHELD OR LIMITED: Upheld!