ºìÐÓÊÓƵ

This case asks whether it violates equal protection principles to impose a prison sentence, instead of probation, based on a defendant’s inability to purchase a house. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Iowa filed an amicus brief arguing that imposing a harsher sentence based on a criminal defendant’s inability to purchase a home impinges on the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution.

Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco’s efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public.

This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.

This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.