Infographic Template Galleries

Created with Fabric.js 1.4.5 The Supreme Court upheld Bostick's conviction, finding that the practice of contacting citizens on buses in this fashion did not constitute an unlawful seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Atwater and her husband filed suit alleging that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable seizure had been violated because the police arrested her for a crime punishable only by a fine. Minnesota v. Carter Carter and Johns argued that the officer's observation of their activities inside the apartment constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence obtained as a result of this unreasonable search was therefore inadmissible. Florida v. Wells Bond moved to suppress the seizure of the drugs, arguing that Agent Cantu's seach was illegal. Bond v. United States On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court remanded the case to the District Court to determine the intrusiveness of the thermal imaging test. The District Court found the imaging devict to be non-intrusive, noting that "the device used cannot penetrate walls or windows to reveal conversations or human activities". The District Court upheld the warrant as valid and affirmed the denial to suppress the evidence seized. Board of Edu. v. Earls Terry v. Ohio Fourth Amendment Supreme Court Cases Timeline 1968 Defendants were convicted and appealed, claiming that the frisk violated their Fourth Amendment right against unlawful searches and seizures. 1973 1991 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte In reaching this decision, the Court overturned the more strict "waiver test", which required that suspects be fully informed of their Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures before they can give valid consent. Charged with possession of a controlled substance, Wells moved to suppress the marijuana on the ground that it was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 1990 1998 2000 2001 Atwater v. City of Lago Vista 2001 2002 Florida v. Bostick Kyllo v. United States 1990 Alabama v. White For these reasons, the drug testing policy was not a significant intrusion on the student's privacy expectations and therefore, was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, holding that the officers did not have the reasonable suspicion required under Terry v. Ohio (1968) to stop White's car and that the siezure of the marijuana and cocaine was a violation of her Fourth Amendment protections.
Create Your Free Infographic!