4th Amendment CaseStudy by Ethan

Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995)

ppatel82039 — 2015-11-11 15:42:08 UTC

The parties in this case were the petitioner Vernonia School District 47, and respondent Acton. This case was bought to court because "an official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned so they adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its 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 testing" (Oyez 2015). The illegal issue was that high school athletes participated in illicit drug use. The question court was asked to decide was Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? The court decided In the case of high school athletes who are under State supervision during school hours, they are subject to greater control than over free adults. The decided by the privacy interests compromised by urine samples are negligible since the conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results are viewed only by limited authorities. The precedence established by this was "balancing the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the promotion of legitimate governmental interests."

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

Priya Patel

Safford Unified School District v Redding

lhass56635 — 2015-11-11 15:42:17 UTC

the school officials conducted a strip search on an 8th grader named Savana Redding because they were told she may have ibuprofen on her which would be a violation of school rules. Redding alleged her 4th amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure was violated.

the questions were

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

2) Are school officials individually liable for damages in a lawsuit filed under 42 U.S.C Section 1983?

it was a 8-1 conclusion for Safford unified school district. the court reached this decision because the school had reasonable suspicion to believe that she was in violation of the rules

search measures used by school officials to root out contraband must be "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." was the precedence established by the case.

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

by Lane Hass

Weeks v United States

nguzzo51631 — 2015-11-11 15:43:12 UTC

Who were the parties in the case? The parties in this case were Fremont Weeks and the United States Government.

What key events occurred that brought this case to court? The local police and a US Marshal unlawfully searched and seized papers after arresting Weeks for using the mail to transport lottery tickets. Weeks was then convicted due to the use of the unlawfully obtained documents.

What was the legal issue? The unlawful search and seizure of Fremont weeks' apartment

What question was the court asked to decide? Was the use of the papers that were seized a violation of the fourth amendment.

How did the court decide the case? The court overturned Weeks conviction they reached decided this by looking at the facts of the case and the fourth amendment and ultimately decided that the use of such evidence was a violation of the fourth amendment on the grounds of unreasonable search and seizure because the police searched his home for evidence twice before obtaining a warrant and proving probable cause.

Why did the court reach that decision? Justice Day delivered the verdict and his the court's rationale behind the decision was that the search and seizure was unreasonable due to lack of a warrant and the use of evidence found by such searches and seizures in court renders the fourth amendment null and void. So this evidence can not be used in a court of law and this decision set the precedence of the exclusionary rule.

What precedence was established by the case? The exclusionary rule.

By Nick Guzzo

LInks: http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/weeks.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weeks_v._United_States

New Jersey v. T.L.O

eschneider57898 — 2015-11-11 15:46:41 UTC

The Parties in the case included T.L.O and the state of New Jersey

This case was brought to court regarding the actions of school officials at Piscataway High School and those of T.L.O. The search and seize of T.L.O's personal belongings by these officials was argued a violation of the 4th Amendment, however, T.L.O's attempt to move in order to suppress the discovered evidence did not help her case.

Question;

Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?

The original decision of the case was not decided, and a re-argument case date was set. The new question that would be asked: Did the assistant principal violated the Fourth Amendment in opening T.L.O's purse?

"Justice John Paul Stevens wrote a dissent, stressing that New Jersey chose not to include the Fourth Amendment question in their petition. Justice Stevens felt that it is not the role of the Supreme Court to offer guidance on questions the parties did put at issue."