红杏视频

The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary 鈥渇light鈥� can never be suppressed鈥攅ven when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop鈥攐n the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the 红杏视频 of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution鈥攚hich guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures鈥攔equire a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.

This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.

On May 16, 2025, the 红杏视频, NYCLU, and Executives Transforming Probation and Parole (EXiT) filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the federal government cannot impose blanket, burdensome supervised release rules during sentencing without telling the defendant.

This case asks whether Alabama law enforcement officers can demand physical ID when enforcing an Alabama that allows them to 鈥淪top and Question鈥� people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already held that Alabama鈥檚 stop-and-question law does not authorize officers to demand physical ID, a federal district court in Alabama certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court effectively asking the Court to reject that interpretation. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Cato Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Woods Foundation, and Kaplan Legal Services, filed an amicus brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to agree with the Eleventh Circuit鈥檚 ruling. Our brief argues that the plain meaning of the stop-and-question law鈥攇iven its title, its text, and the overall structure of the Alabama Code鈥攔ules out the possibility that it authorizes demands for physical documents. We also point out that interpreting the stop-and-question law to authorize document demands would render the law unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.