# data[].attributes.body
Before Ernesto Miranda was interrogated by police, his rights were not clearly stated.

This resulted in confessions being submitted as evidence without his knowledge.

# data[].attributes.body
The 6th Amendment was involved in this case because Miranda did not have a fair jury as the result of the lack of knowledge of his rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that detained suspects must be informed of their constitutional rights to an attorney and the right to remain silent following questioning of police. This case is where the "Miranda Warning" that all police officers read following an arrest began.

# data[].attributes.body
Earl Gideon was charged in the state of Florida for a felony.

When he was tried, he was denied a lawyer by the court.

Following this, he was sentenced to five years in prison.

In response to the denial of a lawyer, Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition, arguing that his 6th Amendment rights were violated.

# data[].attributes.body
The 6th Amendment was involved in this case, which guarantees that citizens have a quick trial with a fair jury and a lawyer.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that all states must abide by the 6th Amendment and provide attorneys or lawyers to those convicted.

# data[].attributes.body
After Danny Escobedo was arrested, he was denied the right to speak to his lawyer by the police.

He was placed in prison following his trial.

# data[].attributes.body
The 6th Amendment was involved in this case due to the fact that Escobedo was denied the right to speak to his lawyer.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that, if a person is denied the ability to speak to their attorney or lawyer, that their 6th Amendment has been violated.

# data[].attributes.body
"California v. Acevedo." Oyez. Cornell Law School, 2017 Web. 18 Nov. 2017.

"Escobedo v. Illinois." Oyez. Cornell Law School, 2017. Web. 15 Nov.. 2017.​

"Gideon v. Wainwright." Oyez. Cornell Law School, 2017. Web. 15 Nov. 2017.

McBride, Alex. "Miranda v. Arizona." PBS. Public Broadcasting Service, Dec. 2006. Web. 15 Nov. 2017.

"New Jersey v. T.L.O. Podcast." United States Courts. Federal Judiciary, 2017. Web. 18 Nov. 2017.

"Olmstead v. United States." Oyez, Cornell Law School, 2017. Web. 18 Nov. 2017.

Skelton, Chris. "Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)." Justia Law. Justia, 2017. Web. 18 Nov. 2017.

"Tull V. U.S." The United States Department of Justice. The United States Department of Justice, 24 May 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2017.

"Weeks v. United States." Quimbee. Quimbee, 2017. Web. 19 Nov. 2017.

Wilson, Melanie. "Mapp v. Ohio Podcast." United States Courts. Federal Judiciary, 2017. Web. 19 Nov. 2017.

# data[].attributes.body
T.L.O, a high school student at Piscataway High School in New Jersey, was searched by school officials after being suspected of having cigarettes.

After the search, the officials found out that she had been selling marijuana to other students at school.

She wound up confessing to selling marijuana at the local police station

As a result, charges were pressed against her by the state of New Jersey.

In response, she took it to the New Jersey Supreme Court and argued that her 4th Amendment rights were violated for having been searched without her consent.

# data[].attributes.body
The 4th Amendment was involved with this case, which deals with the searching and/or seizuring of items from people with their consent (or special seizure warrants).

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that the school officials had the right to search students attending the school to ensure the safety of other students.

# data[].attributes.body
Charles Acevedo was stopped by police due to the fact that there was a container in his car that was suspected to be full of marijuana.

After it was found that the container had the illegal substance inside of it, he was fined.

In response, Acevedo took the case to the California Court of Appeals, stating that his 4th Amendment rights were violated because police searched his car without a warrant.

# data[].attributes.body
The 4th Amendment was involved with this case, which deals with the searching of items and/or people.

# data[].attributes.body
The Court ruled that it was perfectly legal for police to search the car without a warrant due to the fact that there was a belief that there is evidence of the illegal substance in the container of the car.

# data[].attributes.body
Because Roy Olmstead was thought to be a bootlegger, federal agents wiretapped the phone lines of Olmstead's office.

Evidence was obtained through the wiretapping.

In response, he took them to court, saying that they violated his privacy rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The 4th and 5th Amendments were involved in this case.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme court ruled that the 4th and 5th Amendment rights of the parties were violated through wiretapping the conversations because they were not forced to hold such conversations on the phone.

# data[].attributes.body
Katz was suspected of gambling with people from other states over the telephone.

In response to these suspicions, federal agents used devices to eavesdrop on his conversations from the phone booth he used.

After he was found guilty, he went to the appellate court, saying that his privacy rights were violated and that the recordings couldn't be used as evidence against him.

# data[].attributes.body
The 4th Amendment was involved in this case.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that Katz was allowed to be protected by the 4th Amendment rights granted to him by the Constitution, because his phone calls were held via a public payphone.

# data[].attributes.body
When police showed up at Dollree Mapp's house, they demanded to search it due to the fact that they suspected she was hiding a bomber.

She denied their access because they did not have a warrant, but the police intruded her home anyways.

They did not find the bomber, and instead found obscene pictures.

After her arrest, she went to court, stating that her 4th Amendment rights had been violated.

# data[].attributes.body
The 4th Amendment was involved in this case.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that since the evidence was seized from Mapp's home without a search warrant, it could not be used during her trial at the state court.

# data[].attributes.body
Fremont Weeks was suspected of using the postal system as a way of illegally gambling with others around the United States.

Letters that were found at Weeks' home were used as evidence during his trial.

However, the police did not have a search warrant to do so.

# data[].attributes.body
The 4th Amendment was involved in this case.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that Weeks' 4th Amendment rights had been violated because the police did not have the right to search his home without a warrant.

# data[].attributes.body
Edward Lunn Tull was a real estate developer who was dumping construction waste into the Virginia wetlands nearby the neighborhood development he was working on.

This was in violation with the Clean Water Act, which prohibits the dumping of any harmful or polluting substances into waterways.

In response, the United States brought suit against him.

Tull demanded to have a jury trial, but was denied.

# data[].attributes.body
The 7th Amendment was involved in this case, which allows a trial by jury to make decisions involving liabilities that may violate acts.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled that being denied a trial by jury was in violation of Tull's 7th Amendment rights.