1 / 5

Significant U.S. Documents

Significant U.S. Documents. Mike Eichenlaub Per. 6 APUSH. Vernonia Vs. Acton (1995).

xinqian-jun
Télécharger la présentation

Significant U.S. Documents

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Significant U.S. Documents Mike Eichenlaub Per. 6 APUSH

  2. Vernonia Vs. Acton (1995) • "No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers,and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but uponprobable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized."

  3. Vernonia Vs. Acton (1995) • James Acton had signed up for High School football, but had been denied admittance to the team after he and his parents had refused to sign random alcohol/drug testing consent forms, which would violate the fourth and fourteenth amendment.

  4. Vernonia Vs. Acton (1995) • The court found Vernonia well within their boundaries to conduct the alcohol/drug tests with the consent of the athletes and their reasons for cutting Acton were found to be justified.

  5. Vernonia Vs. Acton (1995) • The Vernonia School District could resume random drug/alcohol testing of athletes. • Acton appealed, but lost again as neither side challenged the justification of a warrantless search. • Court also stated the tests were for the athletes safety, although the random testing of non-athletes was not mentioned. • Because of en loco parentis, during school hours, the district holds legal responsibility over its students allowing it to “protect” them through drug testing.

More Related