4th amendment cases by Louis Long

Terry V Ohio (1968)

2024-05-15 15:16:21 UTC

SUMMARY: Terry and two other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman in what the officer believed to be "casing a job; a stick-up". The officer stopped and frisked the three men and found weapons on two of them.

QUESTION: Was the search and seizure of terry and the other men in violation of the fourth amendment

SCOTUS: 8-1 decision, the court held that the search undertaken by the officer was reasonable under the fourth amendment.

PROTECTED/LIMITED- Limited, Court ruled the search was reasonable under the fourth amendment.

Verona school district 47 v acton

lon513636 — 2024-05-15 15:21:28 UTC

a boy who wanted to be in a sport for his school would have to have a drug test done but he and his parents refused to do so because of this he was denied to play the sport for the school. Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? SCOTUS ruled that no it does not violate forth amendment rights their rights were limited

Safford Unified School District Vs redding (2009)

2024-05-15 16:41:04 UTC

Summary-Savana Redding, an eighth grader was stripped-searched by school officials because of another student's tip that Savana might have ibuprofen.Its a violation of school policy.Savana alleged her fourth amendment right to be free of unreasonable search was violated.The district court dismissed the case.The U.S court appealed and reasoned that the strip search was not justified nor was it reasonably related to the circumstances.

Constitutional issues-Does fourth amendment prohibits school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?

Scouts rule- 8-1 ruling with savanna's fourth Amendment was violated.

Rights were protected

Riley v California (2014)

2024-05-16 13:59:22 UTC

SUMMARY

On August 2nd 2009, David and others fired on a rival gang member driving past them. The shooters then got into his car and drove away. Later that month David was then pulled over in a different car because his driver's license was suspended and then his car was to be impounded. His car was then searched because police are required to before the car is impounded. They then found two guns, following them to search his phone. They then found gang affiliated activity. Which David thought wasn't fair.

QUESTION:

Was the evidence that was admitted in trial from searching David's phone violate his 4th amendment right to be from unreasonable search?

SCOTUS:

9-0 held that the warrantless search exception following an arrest for the purposes of protecting officers safety and preserving evidence, neither of which is at issue in the search of digital data.

PROTECTED/LIMITED?:

LIMITED because his 4th amendment was violated.