4th amendment cases by Jackson Lesner

Vernonia School District vs Acton (1995)

bec513988 — 2024-05-15 15:19:03 UTC

Summary - There was a suspicion that high school football athletes were using drugs. The school district decided to give a random drug test to find out if their suspicion was correct. James Acton was one of the players on the team, he was kicked off after he and his parents denied participation in the drug test.

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

Ruling - 6-3 in favor of Vernonia School District. The Supreme Court said that random drug tests do not violate the Fourth Amendment. The defendant's rights are being limited.

Terry v Ohio (1968)

les514144 — 2024-05-15 15:19:05 UTC

Terry and 2 other men were stopped by a police officer. Terry was convicted of carrying a weapon and sentenced to 3 years in jail.

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

8-1 decision against Terry, saying the search was reasonable and the cop acted on more than a "hunch"

The defendant's rights were limited

Safford vs Redding (2009)

2024-05-15 15:19:13 UTC

SUMMARY:Savannah Redding, was strip searched by school officials, off of a hunch another student had and thought she had ibuprofen on her. She filed a suit against them and said that her 4th amendment rights were being violated,

QUESTION: 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 Redding, saying her fourth amendment rights were violated.

The rights of the defendant, Redding, were protected.

Riley vs California (2014)

gon514483 — 2024-05-15 15:23:53 UTC

Summary: Riley got pulled over because he expired license tags and was also on a suspended license. While the police were doing a search in the car they ended up finding 2 guns and later they searched his phone and found that he was with a gang and killed people.

-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: 9-0 does have the right to privacy without a warrant

Kisela v Hughes (2018)

bec513988 — 2024-05-16 14:27:08 UTC

Summary - Police officers responded to a radio call about a crazy woman with a knife stabbing a tree. When they got there they found they saw Amy Hughes holding a large kitchen knife in what appeared to be a confrontation with another woman later identified as Sharon Chadwick. Despite at least two commands to drop the knife, Hughes did not do so and instead took several steps toward Chadwick. Kisela fired four shots through the chain link fence, seriously injuring Hughes.

Constitutional Question - Did Kisela's shooting of Hughes violate clearly established law, thus depriving him of qualified immunity?

Ruling - 7-2 in favor of Kisela. The Supreme Court said that Kisela did not use excessive force. The defendants rights are being limited.

Arizona v Grant (2009)

les514144 — 2024-05-16 21:40:15 UTC

SUMMARY - Rodney Grant was stopped by Arizona state police on a warrant for a suspended license. After Grant was put in the police car, the cops searched his car and found a gun and a bag of cocaine. At his first trail, the car search was an exception to the fourth amendment. Then the decision was reversed. The Supreme Court stated that exceptions to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement must be justified by concerns for officer safety or evidence preservation but the search was not directly linked to his arrest.

Question - Is a search conducted by police officers after handcuffing the defendant and securing the scene a violation of the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Scotus - 5-4 decision saying the search is only reasonable if Grant were to access his car.

The rights were protected