Civil Liberties Test

The first court case that illustrates when freedoms and protections collide is seen in the Texas v. Johnson case. In this court case Johnson burned an American flag as a mean of protest against Reagan administration policies. He was then tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration and was sentenced a year in jail and a 2,000 dollar fine until the case was eventually taken to the supreme court. It was found under the first amendment that Johnson's flag burning was a protected expression. Johnson's actions had conduct and political nature to it. Just because society disagrees and has different beliefs does not mean they are able to just arrest Johnson; it is freedom to express his beliefs in an orderly conduct. The next court case that displays when freedoms and protections collide is seen in the Vernonia School District 47 v. Acton. The background of this case is that the student athletes in the Vernonia School District took part in illicit drug use. As to their findings the Vernonia School District proposed the Student Athlete Drug Policy which reguired random drug testing of its students athletes. However, Acton and his parents decided to refuse the idea of drug testing and he was denied participation to play football. The parents then argued that the random drug testing violates the fourth amendment under the reasonable search and seizure clause. In the end it ruled that drug testing did not violate the amendment. The governments concern for the safety of its students under their supervision overrides any students privacy. This case really affects athletes out of school life. What they do outside of school drinking or taking part in drugs now affects their life in school and participation of sports. They do not have freedom to do what they want without consequences to follow. The third court case was said to have violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment. The New Jersey v. T.L.O. court case was an incident in which a fourteen year old girl was accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school because the principle smelled smoke coming from the bathroom. The principle then accused her and searched her purse which then was found a bag of marijuana and other drug paraphernalia. The argument following the principle actions was whether the search violated the fourth and fourteenth amendment. In conclusion it did not violate due to reasonable suspicion in the principal's mind. The principle had the right to search due to her suspicion. The girl did not have the freedom to bring dugs to school and is not protected under any amendment. It is the principles responsibility to ensure safety upon her students and is able to search under her suspicion to ensure that. The last court case is Gideon v. Wainright in which Gideon was charged with breaking and entering, but when requested the court to appoint an attorney for him the court refused to grant his wish. He was later sentenced to five years in state prison. All in all when the state court refused to appoint a counsel for Gideon it did indeed violate his right to fair trial and was protected under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. It is a fundamental right for fair trial for a defendant to be granted a counsel. Gideon's freedom brought him far in this case. It helped in gaining a fair trial and dismissed his five year sentence to possibly less due to his freedom and getting an appointed counsel.