4th Amendment Cases by Madeline Pieroni

Terry V Ohio (1967)

pie514210 — 2024-05-15 16:36:23 UTC

-Terry and 2 other men were in plain clothes and a police officer thought they were suspicious. Terry ended up having a weapon on him and was sentenced to 3 years in jail

-Was the search and seizure of Terry and the other men considered a violation of their 4th amendment rights?

-SCOTUS voted 8-1 to limit the rights of Terry and others

Vernonia School District 47 v Acton (1995)

2024-05-15 16:46:03 UTC

-Vernonia School District 47 was requiring random drug tests for the football team, James Acton refused claiming it violated his 5th amendment rights.

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

- No it does not because it would be putting the school and football team in a safety issue.

SCOTUS was 6-3. His rights where limited.

Riley v California

2024-05-15 16:47:49 UTC

David Leon Riley belonged to the Lincoln park gang of San Diego, he and others opened fire on a rival gang driving pass them. 20 days later after Riley was pulled over driving a different car; he was driving an expired license tags. Police policy required to perform an inventory Search before getting impounded to comfirm that the vehicle has all its components, and to discover hidden contraband. During the search Officers found two guns and arrested Riley for possession of the firearms, and Riley has his cell phone in his pocket. Detectives analyzed videos of Riley making gang signs that connected him to being gang-affiliated. Riley has tied too the shooting and was charged with murder, vehicle, and assault with a semi-automatic firearm.
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 yes 9-0 the warrantless search following an arrest exists to protect officer safety and preserve evidence, neither of which is at issue. The digital data cannot be used as a weapon to harm the arresting officer and they have the ability to preserve evidence while awaiting a warrant by disconnecting the phone by putting it in a Faraday bag
- The defendants' rights were limited because his car tags were expreied the officer has all the rights to search his car for his safety and also for an inventory search.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding

2024-05-15 16:49:12 UTC

-Savana Redding was an eight grader in Safford Middle School

-She was suspected to have ibuprofen on her

-She was stripped searched by school officials

-She filed suit against the school district and the school officials responsible for the search

-Questions: Does the 4th amendment stop schools from being able strip search student suspected of possessing drugs? and Are school officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983?

-8-1 decision, SCOTUS ruled that the school violated her 4th amendment right.

-They said that with reasonable suspicion, search measures, "reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction."

-They also ruled that implicated school administrators were not personally liable

-The defendant's rights were protected

When the Cops Take Your Urine by Force

2024-05-16 16:14:46 UTC

IS it unreasonable search or seizure when a cop forcefully takes your Urine? In March 2009 police pulled over Lockard for not stopping at a stop sign, and thought he was drunk and he blew a .07 just under the legal limit. the police obtained a search warrant for blood and urine samples and took Lockard too a local hospital. the blood draw was with no resistance from Lockard but Urine was different Lockard did not want to go. A police sergeant held one of Locards Ankles and another officer held the other one, while a nurse inserted a catheter, a tube 16 inches long in his penis. he was guilty of reckless driving and then sued the police officers for forced catheterization had violated his civil rights. In 2011 they threw out the lawsuit ruling that the police was entitled to immunity because the forcible extraction of urine remains an unsettled area of the law.

SCUTUS states you can't look through phones without warrants

pie514210 — 2024-05-16 16:16:10 UTC

-Supreme court ruled that the police cannot look through the phones of people they arrest without a warrant

-Ruling was unanimous in 2014

-The police can still search through a person if they are arrested or detained but because of the phone's encrypted data, they need a warrant

-Ruling hasn't changed to this day

What Federal Judges’ Rulings Reveal About the Memphis Police Tactics

2024-05-16 16:16:27 UTC

Man was driving with a broken windshield then followed by police. then arrested him for driving with a revoked license. Officer violated his fourth amendment rights by searching his car and finding a gun.