2.He was indicated for unlawful use of the mails for transporting lottery tickets.

3. The legal issue was to decide if the issue was over riding his 4th amendment rights. The court was asked to decide, if the search and seizure of Weeks home violate the 4th amendment.

4. The court issued that yes, Weeks rights were violated.

5.They reached that decision because they entered his house with out a warrant which was violating his privacy rights, that is defended by the 4th amendment and looked through things, and took them.

6. The precedence was the first application that became known as the "exclusionary rule". Which meant that any evidence that was found was needed to be dropped and ignored because it violated his rights.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/232us383

2. Savana Redding, an 8th grade student was strip searched, because it was thought that she has ibuprofen in her possession, which was against school policy. Mrs. Redding felt her daughters 4th amendment was violated, so she brought the case to court.

3. The legal issue was deciding if the strip search was necessary. The court asked,  does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy? and are school officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983?

4. The court issued that yes, Savana's rights were violated.

5. They reached this decision, because they stated the school didn't contain a warrant to search Savana, and didn't take her age into consideration.

6. The precedence was that strip search was unconstitutional in schools.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-479

2. James Acton was denied participation to play on his his high school football team because he and his parents refused to be tested for drugs which was authorized by the Vernonia school district

3.The question the court asked was: does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment?

4. The court decided on a 6-3 vote in favor of Vernonia.

5. They decided by stating that it was Government authorized and it was a safe process only viewed by certain authorities.

6. The precedence was that random drug tests that are authorized by the district and the Government are legal and do not violate the 4th Amendment.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/94-590