红杏视频

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.

Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to a police officer's intentional use of physical force against a fleeing person, if that use of force does not succeed in terminating her movement.

The Etowah County Sheriff鈥檚 Department has subjected a family in Alabama to an ongoing series of unannounced, random, and suspicionless inspections of their home, threatening the family with arrest if they fail to cooperate.

Whether collecting and analyzing DNA samples from arrestees without a warrant or consent violates the Fourth Amendment.