4th amendment cases by Bridget Smolen

Vernonia School District 47J V. Acton (1995)

2024-05-15 16:36:00 UTC

Summary

Through investigation, school athletes were discovered to be using illegal drugs
The school had a policy which authorized random drug tests for student athletes
James Acton was denied participation from a football game after him and his parents refused to a drug test

Question: Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the 4th amendment?

Conclusion

in a 3-6 decision the ruling was no, because they said high school athletes who are under State supervision during school hours are subject to greater control than over free adults

Safford Unified School District vs Redding (2009)

gia513746 — 2024-05-15 16:37:53 UTC

SUMMARY - An 8th grader was strip-searched by the administration based on a tip that a student gave saying they may have ibuprofen on their person.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE/QUESTION - Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit school officials from strip-searching students suspected of possessing drugs in violation of school policy?

SCOTUS' RULING - 8-1 For Redding

The strip search that was conducted on Redding was a violation of her 4th amendment however SCOTUS said that 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."

Rights Upheld

Terry vs Ohio (1968)

smo514268 — 2024-05-15 16:39:24 UTC

Summary:

Terry and 2 other men were observed by a plain clothes policeman, in what the officer believed to be "casing a job".

The officer then searched the men, and found weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and sentenced to 3 years in jail.

Constitutional Question:

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

SCOTUS Ruling: 8-1 for Ohio

The court ruled that the search taken by the officer was reasonable under the 4th amendment. The court found that the searches were designed to protect the officer's safety.

Rights limited

Riley v. California (2014)

sol514402 — 2024-05-15 16:40:54 UTC

Summary: In 2009 Riley was previously involved with a gang rivalry shooting and was pulled over by cops for having expired tags and license. He then had to have his car impounded by state law having the officers search the entire car finding two firearms. A detective then came to the scene to go through his phone to find any gang relations. At court, he was sentenced to 15 years with life but later appealed to SCOTUS. They ruled in a 9-0 decision in favor of Riley stating that his 4th amendment rights were majorly violated due to the phone not posing any harm to the cops in order to seize it.

Question: 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?

Rights: upheld

2024-05-16 16:15:30 UTC

Summary:

a man was pulled over for going over the speed limit
police suspected he was drunk
took him to get a blood and urine test
after the man said he could not go for the urine sample, they used a needle like object to take it out of him forcefully
the man admitted to being drunk but sued the police for "violating his civil rights"
Federal judge in Indiana said "police were entitled to qualified immunity"
Overall the courts sided with police

smo514268 — 2024-05-16 16:16:31 UTC

Five judges in recent years have found that officers have violated residents' constitutional rights during traffic and pedestrian stops. Maurice Vaughn had pulled into his brother in law's driveway, a police car tailing him and the officer also pulled in behind him. A detective questioned Vaughn about a cracked windshield, then arrested him for driving with a revoked license. However, what they did next was upsetting to Vaughn. Even though he was parked in his relative's driveway, the officers impounded it and conducted a search that day in 2018. Officers found a gun inside, and Vaughn was charged with felony gun possession. Later, a federal judge found that the officers violated his 4th amendment rights, and the judge took the rare step of throwing out the evidence.