Get 40-50% Off Sitewide! Code: MXMAY Ends: 5/23 Details

  1. Help
Get 40-50% Off Sitewide! Code: MXMAY Ends: 5/23 Details

court case

Hello, you either have JavaScript turned off or an old version of Adobe's Flash Player. Get the latest Flash player.

court case - Page Text Content

S: court case


1: Page 1: Table of Contents Page 2: Table of Contents Page 3: Table of Contents Page 4: Important Terms Page 5: Important Terms Cont'd Page 6: Fourth Amendment Expl. | TABLE OF CONTENTS

2: TABLE OF CONTENTS | Page 7: Fourth Amendment Expl. Cont'd Page 8:Background Information Page 9: Background Information Cont'd Page 10: Filing Suit Page 11: Filing Suit Cont'd Page 12: Certiorari Page 13: Certiorari Cont'd Page 14: Supreme Court Ruling

3: Page 15: Supreme Court Ruling Co. Page 16: The Majority Opinion Page 17: The Majority Opinion Co. Page 18: Understanding the Decision Page 19: Understanding the Decision Page 20: Citations

4: IMPORTANT TERMS: | American Civil Liberties Union: non partisan organization that works to protect the fundamental rights given to Americans in the Constitution. They also refer people fighting civil suits to pro-bono lawyers (willing to work for free), if they cannot afford an attorney. Fourth Amendment: Protects Americans from unfair and unwarranted search and seizure Plaintiff: The party claiming suit (the Acton's) Defendant: The party answering the suit (Vernonia)

5: Random Drug Testing: the act of requesting bodily fluid to confirm that one is not intaking any illegal substances, (often required by schools for participation in sports to avoid any performance altering substances and to ensure the safety of the athlete) Public Schools: Secular (non-religious) teaching institutions that are offered to ALL students. | IMPORTANT TERMS CONT'D:

6: THE FOURTH AMENDMENT: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

7: This Amendment brings about an argument held in the Supreme Court by the plaintiff, the Actons and the defendant, Vernonia School District

8: In 1991, James Acton, (pictured to the right), was at the beginning of seventh grade. Acton decided that he wanted to tryout for football that year, as he was already very active in school, participating in basketball and track. In making this decision, Acton was informed that he must sign a consent form with his parents, agreeing to random drug testing: one at the beginning of the season and once each week in which a student drew 10% of the athlete's names with the supervision of two adults. This 10% would have to provide a urine sample under supervision to ensure that they were giving their own sample. The supervisors for the boys had to stand at least 10 feet away at the urinal in ordinance with privacy restrictions and the girls had the privacy of a stall where a supervisor could hear them but not see them. | BACKGROUND | INFORMATION

10: Filing Suit | The Acton's refused to sign the agreement as they believed that the school was violating the rights of their son, James, and the other student athletes in Vernonia. The Actons filed suit against the Vernonia school district on the grounds that the school district was violating the Fourth Amendment as well as Article I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, (unreasonable searches and seizures). The case went to one of the 91 Federal district courts where Judge Maclom F. Marsh was assigned to determine the case. The Actons contacted the Amercian Civil Liberties Union for support and were given a list of pro bono lawyers who were attorneys that would work for free. With the help of the ACLU, the Actons gained Thomas Christ as their lawyer to represent them in court. Following this, the case was presented to Judge Marsh who decided that the school was not in violation with the Oregon Constitution or the American Constitution. The Actons decided to appeal to the Ninth Circuit (Oregon). The Ninth Circuit opposed the original decision and stated that Vernonia was violating the Fourth Amendment and was also violating Amendment I, Section 9 of the Oregon Constitution, favoring the Actons appeal.

12: "Certiorari" After losing to the Actons in the Ninth Circuit, Vernonia decided that they wanted to appeal to the Supreme Court with a Certiorari (appeal to a higher court), in hopes of a different outcome

13: William Rehnquist, (pictured left), was the Chief Justice at the time of this case.

15: SUPREME COURT RULING | June 26th, 1995 | S u p r e m e C o u r t D e c i s i o n | When the case was presented to the Supreme Court, it was decided in a majority vote of 6 to 3, in Vernonia's favor, that the requirement of providing a drug test WAS NOT in violation of the American Constitution or the Constitution of Oregon. This decision impacted many future cases and the decisions regarding how far a school can truly go in holding back certain Constitutional rights.

16: PHANG NGA BAY, PHUKET | November 7 | THE MAJORITY: This 6 to 3 decision was made by the majority:Scalia,Rehnquist,Kennedy,Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer


18: UNDERSTANDING THE DECISION When the Supreme Court made this decision in favor of Vernonia, their conclusion was that while students were "under state supervision in a public school", they were less free than adults. The only way it would have been violating the Fourth Amendment rights of the students would have been if the school did not have the students best interest at heart and if the results of the drug test were given to non-government officials which would be an invasion of privacy. However, this access was only granted to the government and was even past the authority of the superintendent

20: CITATIONS VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ACTON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 16 May 2012. . Perisco, Deborah A. Vernonia School District v. Acton, Drug Testing in Schools. Berkeley Heights: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1999. Print. Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Sizes: mini|medium|large|huge
Default User
  • By: Ally H.
  • Joined: about 6 years ago
  • Published Mixbooks: 1
  • Default User
    • By: Allie M.
    • Contributions: 0 photos , 0 pages
  • Default User
    • By: allie m.
    • Contributions: 11 photos , 21 pages

About This Mixbook

  • Title: court case
  • Tags: None
  • Published: almost 6 years ago