Search and Seizure
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix鈥檚 practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn 红杏视频 Search and Seizure
All Cases
19 Search and Seizure Cases
Iowa Supreme Court
May 2024
Search and Seizure
Singer v. Orange City
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.
Explore case
Iowa Supreme Court
May 2024
Search and Seizure
Singer v. Orange City
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.
Virginia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Search and Seizure
Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Leach-Lewis
In this case, the Virginia Supreme Court is considering whether the U.S. Constitution and/or the Virginia Constitution require the exclusionary rule鈥攚hich protects people from unconstitutional searches and seizures鈥攖o apply in civil zoning enforcement actions. The Institute for Justice, along with The 红杏视频 of Virginia and the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and the State Supreme Court Initiative at the 红杏视频, submitted an amicus brief arguing that the exclusionary rule should apply in civil actions to protect Virginians鈥� search and seizure rights.
Explore case
Virginia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Search and Seizure
Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Leach-Lewis
In this case, the Virginia Supreme Court is considering whether the U.S. Constitution and/or the Virginia Constitution require the exclusionary rule鈥攚hich protects people from unconstitutional searches and seizures鈥攖o apply in civil zoning enforcement actions. The Institute for Justice, along with The 红杏视频 of Virginia and the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and the State Supreme Court Initiative at the 红杏视频, submitted an amicus brief arguing that the exclusionary rule should apply in civil actions to protect Virginians鈥� search and seizure rights.
Georgia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Search and Seizure
Tatum v. State
This case at the Georgia Supreme Court involves the 鈥渋ndependent source鈥� doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that evidence that is acquired through means genuinely independent of a prior unlawful search or seizure may be accepted by the court. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in this case because the police relied on information acquired from a prior, illegal search when they applied for a warrant to search the defendant鈥檚 cell phone. The Court鈥檚 opinion vacated Tatum鈥檚 conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state鈥檚 decision to seek the search warrant was 鈥減rompted鈥� by the prior unlawful search.
Explore case
Georgia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Search and Seizure
Tatum v. State
This case at the Georgia Supreme Court involves the 鈥渋ndependent source鈥� doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that evidence that is acquired through means genuinely independent of a prior unlawful search or seizure may be accepted by the court. The 红杏视频鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 红杏视频 of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in this case because the police relied on information acquired from a prior, illegal search when they applied for a warrant to search the defendant鈥檚 cell phone. The Court鈥檚 opinion vacated Tatum鈥檚 conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state鈥檚 decision to seek the search warrant was 鈥減rompted鈥� by the prior unlawful search.
Michigan
Jan 2024
Search and Seizure
+2 Issues
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers鈥� reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Explore case
Michigan
Jan 2024
Search and Seizure
+2 Issues
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers鈥� reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Minnesota Supreme Court
Dec 2023
Search and Seizure
State v Malecha
In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court is considering the scope of a crucial doctrine that protects criminal defendants from being convicted based on evidence obtained in violation of their constitutional rights. Under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, courts apply an 鈥渆xclusionary rule鈥� that allows criminal defendants to seek the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of their rights. For nearly 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the exclusionary rule by adopting and expanding the 鈥済ood faith exception,鈥� a doctrine providing that in some situations courts need not exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. In this case, officers acquired evidence after arresting someone based on a warrant that was listed as valid due to a recordkeeping error, but which in fact should have been recalled. In July 2023, together with other 红杏视频 attorneys and partners, the SSCI submitted an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court asking it to hold as a matter of state constitutional law that the exclusionary rule applies to this situation, and that the good-faith exception does not apply. In March 2024, the Court ruled in the 红杏视频's favor, stating that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant's arrest warrant had been quashed before her arrest and the good-faith exception did not apply.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Dec 2023
Search and Seizure
State v Malecha
In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court is considering the scope of a crucial doctrine that protects criminal defendants from being convicted based on evidence obtained in violation of their constitutional rights. Under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, courts apply an 鈥渆xclusionary rule鈥� that allows criminal defendants to seek the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of their rights. For nearly 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the exclusionary rule by adopting and expanding the 鈥済ood faith exception,鈥� a doctrine providing that in some situations courts need not exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. In this case, officers acquired evidence after arresting someone based on a warrant that was listed as valid due to a recordkeeping error, but which in fact should have been recalled. In July 2023, together with other 红杏视频 attorneys and partners, the SSCI submitted an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court asking it to hold as a matter of state constitutional law that the exclusionary rule applies to this situation, and that the good-faith exception does not apply. In March 2024, the Court ruled in the 红杏视频's favor, stating that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant's arrest warrant had been quashed before her arrest and the good-faith exception did not apply.