Question

High School

Court Cases Activity
Directions: Read the court cases and answer the questions. Try to determine how the Supreme Court would decide the cases.

Case #1 Facts: An out-of-uniform police officer observed three men in what the officer believed to be 'casing a job' (investigating a place before robbing it). Before the possible robbery occurred, however, the officer stopped and searched the men and discovered illegal hidden weapons. The men were convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to three years in jail.

Question: Was the search and seizure of the men in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Why, or why not?



Case #3 Facts: A school district adopted a policy permitting the random drug testing of student-athletes. There was a major drug problem in the school district. Student-athletes were the main drug users and dealers. Along with the drug problem came serious student behavior issues. To solve the drug and behavior problems, the district introduced the Student-Athlete Drug Policy, which required students to be drug tested to participate in sports. James Acton, a 7th grader, refused the testing, and his parents refused to consent to the testing. Because of this, he was not allowed to play football. He sued the school district for violating his rights.
Question: Does random drug testing of a public school student by a school official violate the 4th Amendment?
Case #4 Facts: Acting on a suspicion that a known suspect was transmitting gambling wagers over a public payphone to customers in other states, Federal agents attached an eavesdropping device to the public phone booth. Based on recordings of his conversations, the suspect was convicted of illegal transmission of wagering.
Question: Should the police be able to wiretap public phones?

Answer 1

ANSWER -

Case #1: The search and seizure of the men was not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The officer had reasonable suspicion based on his observation of the men casing a job, which justified the stop and search. The Fourth Amendment allows for reasonable searches and seizures, and in this case, the officer had sufficient grounds to believe the men were engaged in criminal activity.

Case #3: Random drug testing of public school students by school officials does violate the 4th Amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that in order for a search to be reasonable, it must be based on individualized suspicion of wrongdoing. In this case, the school district's policy of random drug testing did not meet that standard, and therefore violated the students' Fourth Amendment rights.

Case #4: The police should be able to wiretap public phones, but only with a warrant based on probable cause. The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Supreme Court has held that wiretapping constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Therefore, a warrant based on probable cause is required in order to wiretap a public phone. In this case, it is unclear whether the police obtained a warrant, but if they did, the wiretapping would be constitutional. If they did not, it would be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.