红杏视频

This case in the North Carolina Supreme Court involves the question of whether the police violated the U.S. Constitution when they searched the defendant, Mr. Wright鈥檚, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The 红杏视频 alongside the 红杏视频 of North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright鈥檚 eventual 鈥渃onsent鈥� was the result of police coercion. Our brief urges the court to consider the totality of the circumstances that make one more susceptible to coercion, including race and poverty.

This case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asks whether flight from the police in a high-crime area, without more, can justify an investigative stop. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Pennsylvania, filed an amicus brief arguing that it does not. The brief argues that the Pennsylvania Constitution supports broader protections against investigative stops than those recognized under the U.S. Constitution, and that flight in high-crime areas is not inherently more suspicious than flight elsewhere.

On February 21, 2017, the 红杏视频, the 红杏视频 of Wisconsin, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. This lawsuit challenged the Milwaukee Police Department鈥檚 unconstitutional stop-and-frisk program that targeted tens of thousands of people without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, primarily driven by racial profiling.

This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asked whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the 红杏视频 of Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The court ultimately held that the plaintiffs had raised only a facial challenge to the ordinance, and because the ordinance could operate without violating the Iowa Constitution in at least some circumstances, the challenge failed. The court's decision does not foreclose future challenges on an as-applied basis where the plaintiffs' claims are ripe for review.