1. The 13th Amendment: Section 1 Section 2 By Elaf
Slavery in United States was abolished by the 13th amendment.
Section 2
Congress shell have power to make sure that country follow section1
By Elaf

2. Discrimination You can’t against any practice race. Jones v Mayer
Mayer don’t want to sell the house to Jones because he is African American
Its unconstitutional on 13th amendments
By Elaf

3. The Right to keep and Bear Arms
2nd amendments
People can keep and use gun.
Security of Home and Person
Government can not come in an whim.
By Elaf

4. Arrest ILLINIOS V Wardlow
Police don’t need a warrant to arrest someone
They can arrest anyone who commits a crime or who is about to commit a crime
ILLINIOS V Wardlow
Its was a case when there was high way crime and a guy name Wardlow just felt like running. It cap chased him and was arrested Wardlaw was guilty and police officer was innocent.
By Abdoul

5. Drug Testing 3 cases No warrant for drug testing Ntev v Von Raab
Skinner v Federal Railway Labor Executives Association
VSP v Acton, important because all school students who take part in sport had to be tested for drugs,
They want to court and had to still be tested
By, Abdoul

6. Exclusionary Rule:
If a search or seizure was made that was unlawful, could the evidence found be used in court?
If the answer is yes,
that means the 4th amendment doesn't offer real protection for a person acussed of something.
To help solve this problem, the court adopted and is still refining, the Exclusionary Rule. The rule is this: evidence gained by an illegal search or seizure cannot be used against that person in court.
By :Zaineb

7. Wiretapping:
Wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, video taping are few of the more sophisticated means of "bugging" are now quite widely used in the U.S. They present difficult search and seizure questions.
The leading case today is Katz v. United States, Katz had been convicted of transmitting gambling information across State lines.
He had used a public phone booth in Los Angleles to call his contacts in Boston and Miami. A lot of the evidence against him came from an electronic tap planted on the roof- outside-the phone booth. The court said that the bugging evidence could not be used against Katz. Even though he was in public he was entitled to make a private call.
By Zaineb

8. Automobiles
The court has difficulty applying the 4th amendment to automobiles . It has several times held that an officer needs no warrant to search an automobiles or any other vehicle, when there is probable cause to know if there is any illegal activities.
Carroll v. United States, 1925, early leading case on the point. The court emphasized that “where the securing of a warrant is reasonably practicable it must be used”
The court overturned a long string of automobile search cases in Before, it had several times held that a warrant was usually needed to search a glove compartment, but in California v. Acevedo, 1991, the court set out what it called “one clear-cut rule govern automobile searches. “ but police lawfully stop a car, they do not need a warrant to search anything in that vehicle that they have reason to believe holds evidence of a crime includes a passenger’s belongings, Wyoming v. Houghton, 1999.

9. Probable cause
The basic rule laid down by the 4th amendment is this: Police officers have no general right to search for evidence or to seize either evidence or persons. Except in particular circumstances, in addition, the must be obtained with Probable Cause, a reasonable suspicion of crime.
Florida v. J. I Illustrates the basic rule. Miami police had received an anonymous tip that a teenager was carrying a concealed weapon. then two officers went to the bus stop where the tipster said the young man could be found . the police located the suspect. Then searched him, pulled a gun from his pocket, and arrested him.
The Supreme Court held that the police acted illegally because they did not have a proper warrant. However, Police do not always need a warrant. But police must most often have a warrant.

10. The 4th Amendment
The 4th amendment also grew out of colonial practice. It was to prevent the use of writs of assistance blanker search warrants with which British customs officials had invaded private homes to search for smuggled goods.
Unlike the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment has proved a highly important guarantee. It says:
“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. ”
Each state constitution contains a similar provision.