# data[].attributes.body
Summary: Terry and two other men were approached by a police officer not in uniform as the officer believed that the men where "casing a job, a stick-up" (looking like they were going to do something with guns) the officer searched the men and found weapons on two of the three of them. Terry was sentenced to jail for 3 years for carrying a concealed weapon.

Question: Was the search and seizure of Terry and the men a violation of the 4th amendment?

SCOTUS Ruling: 8-1 in favor of the officer

Rights upheld or limited: Rights limited because the men were searched without warrants and the evidence could be used this violated their privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1995, an investigation led a school to believe student athletes had been doing drugs, so they implemented a random urinalysis drug test for student athletes and a student named James Acton, wasn't allowed to play football because he and his parents denied the test. The supreme court ruled a 6-3 vote in favor of the school district. Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
Summary: Riley belonged to a gang in San Diego. In August 2009 Riley and others opened fire on a rival gang. The Rival gang took his car and drove away with it. In August 22 2009 Riley was stopped by police because he was driving a different car and driving under an expired drivers license. The police ordered his car to be impounded. Before the car was impounded the police had to do a mandatory search of the car. In the search the police discovered two guns so they arrested Riley. Riley had his phone in his pocket and without a warrant a detective searched his phone. They found photos and videos of Riley making gang signs showing that he is part of a gang. Riley was tied to the August 2009 shooting and other crimes. He was later sentenced to 15 years in prison to life.

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: unanimous in favor of Riley

Rights upheld or limited?: Rights upheld because the detective searched his phone without a warrant which violated the 4th amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
35 year old Maurice Vaughn’s Toyota Camry was parked in his relative’s driveway, officers insisted on impounding it and conducting a search and they found a gun. A federal judge, said that officers violated Vaughn’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure, and took the rare step of throwing out the evidence. All charges were dropped on him and evidence was thrown out. However he still lost his job and apartment for the "crime".

# data[].attributes.headline
Supreme Court asked if police dog's paws violated Constitution during traffic stop

# data[].attributes.subject
Supreme Court asked if police dog's paws violated Constitution during traffic stop

# data[].attributes.body
Nero the police dog put his paws on the car door they pulled over. Nero did his job sniffing out bottles and bags of Meth. They got a warrant to charge the driver. Nero jumped into the car and it opened the question "Does the dog’s mere touching of the car violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on "unreasonable searches." Idaho's top court concluded in March that they needed a warrant for that search. Because of this they dropped the case.