4th Amendment Cases by Lindsey Hanson

Terry vs. Ohio

han514098 — 2024-05-15 14:37:36 UTC

Terry and two other men were seen by a policeman who believed they had weapons on them and were ready to commit a crime. The officer stopped the men and found weapons on two of them. Terry was then convicted of having a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men in violation of the Fourth Amendment?

SCOTUS ruled 8 - 1 in favor of the officer due to him having a reasonable suspicion to search the men.

The defendant's rights were limited because SCOTUS ruled the officer had the right to search him.

Vernonia school district vs Acton

2024-05-15 14:38:03 UTC

Summary- High school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illegal drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increased the risk of sports-related injuries. Vernonia School District authorized random urinalysis drug tests for the 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 drug testing.

Question- Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?

6-3 decision for Vernonia School District. Random drug tests of high school athletes do not violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment.

Limited

Safford Unified School District V. Redding

2024-05-15 14:46:31 UTC

Summary: Savanna Redding, an eighth grader at Safford Middle School was strip searched by the school officials. Adults suspected she might have had ibuprofen on her. Ms Redding filed suit because it violated her Fourth Amendment rights.

Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip-searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?

SCOTUS ruled 8-1 in favor of Savanna Redding because adults had a suspicion of her having ibuprofen on her on school campus

Protected

Riley vs Cailfornia

2024-05-16 12:52:39 UTC

David Leon Riley was apart of a gang on August 2, 2009, he and others opened fire on a rival gang member driving past them and field. Cops later found him in a different car with expired license registration tags. Before they could impounded, they perform an inventory search to confirm that the vehicle has all its components at the time of seizure, to protect against liability claims in the future, and to discover hidden contraband. During the search, police found two guns and subsequently arrested Riley for possession of the firearms. Riley had his cell phone in his pocket when he was arrested, so a gang unit detective analyzed videos and photographs of Riley and found him guilty for the shooting.Before trial, Riley moved to suppress the evidence regarding his gang affiliation that had been acquired through his cell phone. His motion was denied .

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 Ruled 9-0 police officers have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant by disconnecting the phone from the network and placing the phone in a "Faraday bag."

the defendant rights were limited because SCOTUS Ruled that the police have the right to search his phone.

Caniglia vs. Strom

han514098 — 2024-05-16 13:31:24 UTC

Caniglia and his wife Kim gun into a heated agreement in their home where he pulled a gun on her, resulting in her running away.

Does the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extend to the home?