When freedoms and civil liberties collide, the government and individual being controlled by law must follow the restrictions set in place to protect not only the individual, but the community too. The government has to protect the individuals to the best of its ability, while still allowing citizens rights of their own. If the government becomes too powerful it will be viewed as a communist control, but if not involved in areas with laws and protection of individuals, the nation would be chaos. In many cases the government has a vast amount of control to protect the individuals, but in while doing so, must not infringe upon the rights of the convicted.
In the case of Mapp v. Ohio, Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. The court cannot convict Mapp with possessing these obscene materials, and all evidence was not able to be used in court. The police were searching for a fugitive, and the illegal search of her home violates the 4th amendment laws. Although it is necessary for the police to protect the community, they cannot convict Mapp for any reason other than the fugitive they were on the search for. This protects the individual by informing them what is being looked for in their home, they have the right to be informed, and acquired evidence cannot be used in court.
In regard to 1st amendment speech, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag destruction. He was sentenced to one year in jail and was given a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. The police felt that this was against the law, and arrested him for such actions. The Supreme Court decided that this speech was protected, and was expressive in a political nature. Although many individuals frown upon the burning or destruction of the American flag, the court cannot justify the legality of the actions. Lee was symbolically speaking, and did not cause a safety hazard to the community, allowing his speech to be protected.
In situations where increased restrictions, such as in school systems, the school has total control over how the school is run, and with safety regulations. They are able to create this authority due to the need to protect the children from harm. While in school, the faculty has the authority of a parent, and since many children in high school are minors, the protection is necessary. In the case of New Jersey v. T.L.O a student was accused of smoking in the bathroom, and after her bag was searched marijuana products were found. This is not a violation of the 4th amendment because the school only needs probably cause to take action with students. Although the complete control of a school system over a student seems too powerful, it is needed to protect other students in the facility.
Schools must completely protect minors while they are in school. In the case of Vernonia School District v. Acton, regarding drug testing in athletic competitions. The school is able to test for illegal substances without probable cause due to the fact that sports or clubs are extracurricular events held by the school. The court decided that drug testing does not violate the 4th amendment because the government must protect minors, even though they may feel their rights are being violated. If they do not agree with the actions of the school, they can decide not to participate in such organizations.
