Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Vernonia School District
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Vernonia School District

1,270

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,270
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Vernonia School District vs. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) By: Elizabeth Delgadillo Julia Gasca Jasmine Nguyen Truc Pham
  • 2. Court Case Summary <ul><li>An increase in drug usage in the 1980s to the 1990s in Vernonia, Oregon sparked fear in the school district. </li></ul><ul><li>The school district stated that athletes under the influence of drugs, while in season, may cause injuries to both the students and the onlookers. </li></ul><ul><li>In hopes of preventing these injuries, the Vernonia School District made it mandatory to have random drug testing for student athletes. If they did not sign the contract, they were not allowed to play. </li></ul><ul><li>Vernonia School District denied James Acton to play football due to his and his parents’ refusal to sign the contract for random drug testing for student athletes. </li></ul><ul><li>The Actons sued, claiming the district violated the 4 th Amendment, search and seizure. </li></ul>
  • 3. 4 th Amendment <ul><li>The 4 th Amendment states that police officers have no general right to search or seize evidence or persons without a warrant (court order) or without a cause (on reasonable grounds). </li></ul><ul><li>This is guaranteed by the Supreme Court saying that evidence gained from an unlawful search or seizure cannot be used at the court trial. </li></ul>
  • 4. History of the 4 th Amendment <ul><li>Originated from the controversy over the legality of a warrant (command from a judge to arrest a person; authority to search property). </li></ul><ul><li>The problem with these issued warrants was that they did not specify whom to arrest or what to look for. This led to the English courts declaring them illegal. </li></ul><ul><li>In 1767, Parliament authorized the writ of assistance (general warrant with which British custom officials invaded private homes and searched for smuggled goods). </li></ul><ul><li>Colonies refused such warrants and considered them illegal. </li></ul><ul><li>On Independence Day, several states banned these warrants and included the banning in state constitutions. </li></ul><ul><li>The 4 th Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to prohibit congress from authorizing a general warrant. </li></ul>
  • 5. Evolution of the 4 th Amendment <ul><li>The 4 th Amendment evolved from just searching and seizing property to persons as well. </li></ul><ul><li>Only limited protection of privacy and liberty under certain circumstances, meaning the 4 th Amendment will only help you if the situation is right. </li></ul><ul><li>Because of 9/11, security has increased and has now allowed warrants such as “Sneak and Peak” to be used on suspects. </li></ul><ul><li>The “Sneak and Peek” warrant allows police to enter and search a residence without notifying the residents that the search ever occurred. </li></ul><ul><li>-The authorities who enter the homes are prohibited from seizing any belongings. </li></ul>
  • 6. How the 4 th Amendment Is Used Today in Crimes <ul><li>Suspicion of terrorism in the United States </li></ul><ul><li>Smuggling of illegal substances </li></ul><ul><li>Gang affiliations </li></ul><ul><li>Traffic violations </li></ul><ul><li>Illegal drug Testing </li></ul><ul><li>Border searches </li></ul><ul><li>Sexual predators </li></ul><ul><li>Pirating </li></ul><ul><li>Child pornography </li></ul><ul><li>Illegal downloading/data </li></ul><ul><li>Identity theft </li></ul>
  • 7. Controversies with the 4 th Amendment <ul><li>To search and seize without a warrant is violating one’s privacy (under a certain criteria), regardless of what the USSC stated. </li></ul><ul><li>Police may search and seize belongings if the situation is an “emergency”. (Define emergency!) </li></ul><ul><li>The USSC will listen to the police or authority figures’ words other than the suspect. Meaning, whatever the authorities say is “permissible”, the USSC will consider it to be following the criteria they set. </li></ul><ul><li>Basically, the authority figures have a very high chance of abusing their power of search and seizure. </li></ul>
  • 8. End Result of the Court Case <ul><li>The supreme court ruling stated that the school had supervision over minors, since James Acton was not over the age of 18. </li></ul><ul><li>They declared that it was unconstitutional. </li></ul><ul><li>This was the ruling because students are under state control, and their rights belong to the district. </li></ul>
  • 9. 4 th Amendment Court Cases <ul><li>Aguilar vs. Texas (1962) </li></ul><ul><li>Spinnelli vs. United States (1964) </li></ul><ul><li>Kady vs. Dombrowski (1973) </li></ul><ul><li>Ilinois vs. Gates (1983) </li></ul><ul><li>Griffin vs. Wisconsin (1987) </li></ul><ul><li>Bond vs. United States (2000) </li></ul><ul><li>Atwater vs. City of Lago Vista (2001) </li></ul><ul><li>Board of Educations vs. Earls (2002) </li></ul><ul><li>Virginia vs. Moore (2008) </li></ul>
  • 10. Bibliography <ul><li>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/searches.htm </li></ul><ul><li>http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/amendment04/05.html </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-1082.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-590.ZO.html </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_590 </li></ul><ul><li>http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-590.ZO.html </li></ul>

×