红杏视频

This petition to the Supreme Court of Maryland asked the court to reconsider its adherence to Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996), which declared that a traffic stop undertaken for pretextual reasons does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution so long as the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred. The 红杏视频, alongside the 红杏视频 of Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant鈥檚 petition, in which the 红杏视频 argued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition.

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.

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.