# data[].attributes.body
"United States v. Lara." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 29, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-107>

"Gideon v. Wainwright." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 29, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155>

"Miranda v. Arizona." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 29, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759>

"New Jersey v. T.L.O.." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 29, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-712>

"Mapp v. Ohio." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 29, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1960/236>

"Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 29, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1968/21>

"Edwards v. South Carolina." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Nov 29, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/86>

# data[].attributes.body
Gideon vs Wainwright (1962-1965):

Background:
1.) Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking into a pool room and stole multiple items from the poolroom.
2.) When it came time for his trial he didn't have enough money for a lawyer and wasn't provided one by the court.
The Constitutional issue:
Does the right to an attorney extend to everyone without the need of special circumstances, and was Gideon given a fair trial.
The Supreme court's decision:
The supreme court decided that Gideon was not given a fair trial and would have another trial but he would be given an attorney. This set up the new rule that there does not need to be any special circumstances where a person isn't given a lawyer to represent them in a court of law.

# data[].attributes.body
Miranda vs Arizona (1965-1967):

Background:
1.) Miranda was convicted of kidnapping and rape where he was taken to a line up where a witness pointed him out.
2.) The police interrogated him with multiple techniques to get him to confess, but the police had never told him of his 5th amendment rights.
The constitutional issue:
Does Miranda's 5th amendment rights to pleading the fifth, or not having to sell yourself out or not having to be forced to talk protect him from being charged of this case.
The Supreme court's decision:
Miranda was indeed protected by his fifth amendment rights to an attorney and to the right to remain silent. The Supreme court decided that every man/woman in custody has these rights and the police are required to tell the person being arrested of their 5th amendment rights under the constitution.

United States vs Lara (1994-2005):

Background:
1.) Billy jo Lara was arested on a national reservation  for public intoxication.
2.) He attack a police officer while under the influence.
3.)He pleaded that this court went against his right of double jeopardy
The constitutional issue:
Does the indian civil rights act give tribes the right to prosecute those that are nonmembers of the tribes for crimes, and does the prosecution of the tribal and federal courts for the same crime count as double jeopardy.
The Supreme court's decision:
The court came to the decision that being accused of a crime by a federal and a tribal court of the same thing does not go against the constitution. The Indian Civil rights act is still present when they issued this decision making a statement of indians of tribes are separate from americans.

# data[].attributes.body
New Jersey vs T.L.O (1981-1986):

Background:
1.) A student was found smoking inside a school bathroom which was outside the designated area to smoke.
2.) The principal conducted a search on the student that was in position of the cigarettes without asking for permission of the student.
3.) The principal found a box of cigarettes and other possessions that were not permitted on school grounds (drugs) and the dealing of sed posetions.
The constitutional issue:
Is T.L.O. protected by the fourth amendment giving the right that people are not allowed to search your possessions without a warrant. Also if the exclusionary rule applied to the principal searching the girls purse.
The Supreme court's decision on the case:
The principal had the right of searching the students belongings on school grounds and T.L.O.'s rights were not being acted upon. This decision gave every principal the right of "reasonable suspicion" that allowed them to conduct searches on students without needing a warrant.

Mapp vs Ohio (1958-1962):

Background:
1.) Dollree Mapp was in possession of obscene illegal materials within her home.
2.) The police had searched her home without a warrant looking for something else other than the obscene materials.
The constitutional issue:
Is the materials that she possessed, and later been confiscated by the police, protected by the 4th amendment rights of freedom of being searched without a warrant.
The Supreme court's decision:
The court came to the decision that her rights were protected by the 4th amendment and the police officers had not right in searching her home without a warrant. This court created the new rule of there being anything found in a search of one's possessions, that is a police officer searching, without a warrant is considered to not be legal to use within a court case.

# data[].attributes.body
Tinker vs Des Moines (1967-1969):

Background:

1.) Students in Des Moines, Iowa, wanted to  protest the fallout of the Vietnam war by wearing black armbands.
2.)Schools decided to make the decision of banning the armbands and not allowing students to wear them, and because of this rule 4 students were suspended for their way of harmless protesting.
The constitutional issue:
This new rule in the schools went against the student's 1st amendment rights, freedom of speech, which allows someone to express their views on society through words and symbols. The supreme court during this case had to answer the question of, "was the prohibition of the black armbands going against the students right of symbolic speech?"
The Supreme court's decision on the case:
The supreme made the decision of, yes, the new rule at the schools was violating the right of symbolic speech that the students are guaranteed. This decision defined this freedom, as well as expanding it broad horizon of different ways of speech, as a way of showing what you believe, being it protest, etc, through the means of speech or symbols is something that you cannot take away.

Edwards vs South Carolina (1962-1965):

Background:
1.) 187 protesters set up a march on South Carolina's State house on a peaceful protest of segregation, that didn't cause anyone a danger.
2.) A group of 30 police officials confronted the protest, saying that if they aren't to stop the protest they will submitted to arrest. But they didn't stop and were arrested and accused of a breach of peace.
The constitutional issue:
This decision went against the 1st amendment's right of the freedom of Assembly, allowing people to gather together in a peaceful matter. The question that was being asked for this case was, that were the rights in the 1st amendment taken away from the petitioners convicted of disturbing the peace.
The Supreme Court's decision:
The answer to this question was, yes. Because, the convictions that they were given had been going against their freedoms as a citizen of the U.S. under the first Amendment. The petitioners were convicted of expressing the rights that were given to them, and after this case it showed that no man or woman can have their rights of the first amendment taken away from them if they were to rally together and protest.