4th Amendment Assignment by JNitti 77379 https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680 Made with a curious mind en-us 2017-10-31 16:50:05 UTC 2025-10-20 14:15:24 UTC hello@padlet.com Weeks v. united states(1914) ygonzalez62319 https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680/wish/202236479 who were the parties in the case?
Fremont Weeks
United States
what key events occurred that brought this case to court?
Police entered the home of Fremont Weeks and seized papers which were used to convict him of transporting lottery tickets through the mail. This was done without a search warrant. Weeks took action against the police and petitioned for the return of his private possessions.
what was the legal issue?what question was the court asked to decide?
Did the search and seizure of Weeks' home violate the Fourth Amendment?
How did the court decide the case?
 The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful searches and seizures applies to Weeks and the evidence which seized must be excluded from prosecuting him.
Why did the court reach that decision?
 They reached this decision because the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause
What precedence was established by the case?
 This was the first application of what eventually became known as the "exclusionary rule." 
link: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/232us383
 

 Yaritza Gonzalez






]]> 2017-10-31 16:53:34 UTC https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680/wish/202236479 New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) jnitti77379 https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680/wish/202236923 Who were the parties in the case?New Jersey v. T.L.O 

What key events occurred that brought this case to court?
School officials searched T.L.O.'s purse suspecting she had cigarettes. The officials discovered cigarettes, a small amount of marijuana, and a list with the names of students who owed money. T.L.O. was charged with possession of marijuana.

What was the legal issue? What question was the court asked to decide?
Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?

How did the court decide the case?
6–3 DECISION FOR NEW JERSEY MAJORITY OPINION BY BYRON R. WHITE
The search resulting in the discovery of the evidence of marijuana dealing by the student was reasonable

Why did the court reach that decision?
The court reached the decision by deciding that school officials have the right to look through your bag as long as they have probable cause or suspicion that their is something dangerous or harmful to others inside.

What precedence was established by the case?
Public school officials, may conduct reasonable without a warrant searches of students with the probable cause standard that would normally apply to searches under the Fourth Amendment.

Link: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/83-712

Johnny Nitti]]> 2017-10-31 16:54:23 UTC https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680/wish/202236923 Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009) hklindera29959 https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680/wish/202237407 who were the parties in the case?
Savannah Redding V Safford Unified School DIstrict
 What key events occurred that brought this case to court?
 strip-searched by school officials on the basis of a tip by another student that Ms. Redding might have ibuprofen on her person in violation of school policy. Ms. Redding subsequently filed suit against the school district and the school officials responsible for the search in the District Court for the District of Arizona. She alleged her Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure.
 What was the legal issue? What question was the court asked to decide?
 1) Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?
2) Are school officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983?
 How did the court decide the case?
 The Supreme Court held that Savanna's Fourth Amendment rights were violated when school officials searched her underwear for non-prescription painkillers. 
 school officials did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant extending the search of Savanna to her underwear 
 the implicated school administrators were not personally liable because "clearly established law [did] not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment." 
 Why did the court reach that decision?
 school officials did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant extending the search of Savanna to her underwear
 What precedence was established by the case?
 does not require a constitutional scholar to conclude that a nude search of a 13-year old child is an invasion of constitutional rights of some magnitude.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-479

Haley Klindera

]]> 2017-10-31 16:55:18 UTC https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680/wish/202237407 Vernonia School District v. Acton polsen70466 https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680/wish/202239121 Who were the parties?
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
What key events brought this case to court?
 An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a student, was denied participation in his school's football program when he and his parents refused to consent to the testing.

What was the legal issue?
 In 1991 James Acton, a seventh-grade student, was not allowed to participate in interscholastic athletics after he and his parents refused to sign a consent form for drug testing. The Actons subsequently filed a lawsuit. A federal district court upheld the policy, but the appellate court reversed that decision on the basis that the policy violated both the Fourth and fourteenth amendments and the Oregon Constitution.

How did the court decide the case?
 The case was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 28, 1995. The court noted that the Fourth , which forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, was extended (by the Fourteenth Amendment) to cover searches and seizures by state officers, including those at public schools. Since the collection and testing of urine under the school policy was a search and thus subject to the Fourth Amendment, it was necessary to turn to the question of reasonableness. To that end, the court pointed out that even though school officials are agents of the state, as a result of their custodial and tutelary relationship with students, they have the authority to act in loco parentis in safeguarding the children in their care.

Why did the court reach this decision?
 According to the justices, student athletes have a less privacy than their peers who are not athletes. The court noted that locker rooms offer little privacy and that student athletes voluntarily subject themselves to moreregulation as well. In addition, the school policy featured various privacy safeguards, such as stating where monitors could stand while athletes provided the urine samples. Last, the Supreme Court was of the opinion that in light of the board’s wish to deter drug use by student athletes, as well as to prevent harm to them, it articulated an important interest.

 What precedence was established by the case?
 On the basis of those findings, the court found that the school policy met the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement and was thus constitutional. The appellate court’s decision was overturned.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Vernonia-School-District-47J-v-Acton
Paul Olsen]]> 2017-10-31 16:58:56 UTC https://padlet.com/jnitti77379/5q4g8ob8p680/wish/202239121