# data[].attributes.body
Acton was an athletic drug user who refused a urinalysis and was denied participation in his school's football program, so he took this case to court claiming that doing urinalysis violated the Fourth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Vernonia School District as the

Petitioner
Acton as the Respondent

# data[].attributes.headline
Key events occurred that brought this case to court

# data[].attributes.subject
Key events occurred that brought this case to court

# data[].attributes.body
the hard evidence on the actual usage was on the thin side, whereas there was plenty of evidence that people were going around bragging about drug use, glorifying drug use, giving the impression that it was a smart thing to do, and kids at that age claim to have done a lot of things that they haven't done.

# data[].attributes.body
Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?

# data[].attributes.body
petitioner -Fremont Weeks
respondent- United States

# data[].attributes.body
Savana Redding vs the school district

# data[].attributes.body
New Jersey high school

# data[].attributes.headline
What was the legal issue? What was the question the court had to decide?

# data[].attributes.subject
What was the legal issue? What was the question the court had to decide?

# data[].attributes.body
Savana Redding was illegally strip searched and her fourth amendment right was violated by the school district. The court had to decide weather or not her rights were truly vilated.

# data[].attributes.headline
What key events brought this case to court?

# data[].attributes.subject
What key events brought this case to court?

# data[].attributes.body
Savana Redding was stripped searched by school officials which violated her fourth amendment right. Redding then proceeded to file suit against the school district along with the school officials.

# data[].attributes.headline
What key events occurred that brought this case to court?

# data[].attributes.subject
What key events occurred that brought this case to court?

# data[].attributes.body
In a New Jersey high school, a teacher found two girls smoking in the bathroom and took them to the principal's office. One girl admitted to smoking but the other, known as T.L.O., denied it. The principal demanded to see the girl's purse and found evidence that she was also selling marijuana at school. T.L.O. was taken to the police station where she admitted to selling marijuana

# data[].attributes.body
police entered the home of weeks without a search warrant and seized papers that convicted weeks of transporting lottery tickets through the mail.

# data[].attributes.headline
What was the legal issue? What question was the court asked to decide?

# data[].attributes.subject
What was the legal issue? What question was the court asked to decide?

# data[].attributes.body
The court sided with the school, and T.L.O. took her case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which later found that the search was unreasonable and the evidence could not be used. The state of New Jersey appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
The court granted motion for summary judgement and later after rehearing the case the court of appeals decided that Reddings rights were in fact violated.

# data[].attributes.headline
legal issue, question court had to decide on

# data[].attributes.subject
legal issue, question court had to decide on

# data[].attributes.body
The question that  the court had  to decide on was  ''Did the search and seizure of Weeks' home violate the Fourth Amendment?'' the question was asked because the police violated weeks privacy by basically breaking into his house. the police didn't have a search warrant to search into his house causing weeks to claim that his privacy rights were violated.

# data[].attributes.body
The court knew that Reddings rights were violated, because there was no clear evidence that she was in possession of ibuprofen on the school grounds making the search a violation.

# data[].attributes.body
It was a 6-3 vote hat it was not a violation to the Fourth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.headline
What precedence was established by the case

# data[].attributes.subject
What precedence was established by the case

# data[].attributes.body
The case was established not to be a violation of the fourth amendment, however the courts concluded that there was a violation of Reddings rights.

# data[].attributes.body
Due to her age, T.L.O. faced delinquency charges in Juvenile Court.  The Juvenile Court denied T.L.O.’s motion to suppress (keep out) her confession and the evidence from the search. Her lawyer argued that the search of her purse was a violation of the Fourth Amendment. T.L.O. was found delinquent, and was put on probation

# data[].attributes.body
Agreed with the lower courts that the Fourth Amendment is applicable to the conduct of school officials; also agreed that school officials may conduct a warrantless search of a student when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a student possesses evidence of illegal activity or activity that interferes with school discipline and order.

# data[].attributes.body
The privacy interests compromised by urine samples are negligible since the conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed only by limited authorities.

# data[].attributes.headline
What precedence was established by the case?

# data[].attributes.subject
What precedence was established by the case?

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding citizens' protections against unreasonable searches and seizures-a right guaranteed by the 4th Amendment. In Weeks v. United States, 1914, the Court ruled that evidence obtained by police illegally is not admissible in federal court-a practice known as the exclusionary rule.

# data[].attributes.body
the court decided that  The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures applies to Weeks and the evidence thus seized must be excluded from prosecuting him. the decision was made after the Court held that the seizure of items from Weeks' residence directly violated his constitutional rights. The Court also held that the government's refusal to return Weeks' possessions violated the Fourth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Schools are allowed to drug test students in extracurricular activities.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-590
https://www.britannica.com/event/Vernonia-School-District-47J-v-Acton

# data[].attributes.body
the decision was made because in order   To allow private documents to be seized and then held as evidence against citizens it would have meant that the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring the right to be secure against such searches and seizures would be of no value whatsoever. This was the first application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary rule."

# data[].attributes.body
the precedence established by the case was the application of what eventually became know as the 'exclusionary rule''

# data[].attributes.body
link