there are two parts to the fourth amendment the reasonableness clause and the
Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution In New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that searches in public schools do not require warrants, as long as the searching officers have reasonable grounds for believing that the search will result in the finding of evidence of illegal activity.[79] However, in Safford Unified School District v. Redding (2009),[141] the Court ruled that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment when they strip searched a 13-year-old girl based only on a student claiming to have received drugs from that student.[142] Similarly, in Samson v. California (2006), the Court ruled that government offices may be searched for evidence of work-related misconduct by government employees on similar grounds.[143] Searches of prison cells are subject to no restraints relating to reasonableness or probable cause.[144]
Mapp v. Ohio Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in state law criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as in federal criminal law prosecutions in federal courts as had previously been the law. The Supreme Court accomplished this by use of a principle known as selective incorporation; in Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which are applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.