Criminal Law Reform
Featured
Arizona
Oct 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Racial Justice
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.
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Criminal Law Reform
McElrath v. Georgia
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar an appellate court from reviewing and setting aside a jury鈥檚 verdicts of acquittal on the ground that the verdict is inconsistent with the jury鈥檚 verdict on other charges?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Pulsifer v. United States
This case involves the interpretation of a federal law that allows defendants to avoid mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent drug crimes, allowing judges to impose sentences tailored to their individual circumstances.
Texas
Jul 2021
Criminal Law Reform
Prisoners' Rights
Sanchez et al v. Dallas County Sheriff et al
Decarceration has always been an emergency, a life and death proposition, but COVID-19 makes this effort intensely urgent. The 51品茶 has been working with our partners to litigate for the rights of those who are incarcerated and cannot protect themselves because of the policies of the institutions in which they are jailed.
All Cases
147 Criminal Law Reform Cases
Georgia Supreme Court
Feb 2024
Criminal Law Reform
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 51品茶鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 51品茶 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
Criminal Law Reform
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 51品茶鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 51品茶 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
Criminal Law Reform
+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
Criminal Law Reform
+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
Criminal Law Reform
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 51品茶 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 51品茶'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
Criminal Law Reform
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 51品茶 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 51品茶'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.
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2023
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Commonwealth v. Arrington
In this amicus brief, the 51品茶 and its coalition partners urged robust application of the legal standard governing the admissibility of expert testimony and technical evidence, especially in cases involving opaque or proprietary algorithms.
Explore case
Massachusetts Supreme Court
Nov 2023
Criminal Law Reform
+2 Issues
Commonwealth v. Arrington
In this amicus brief, the 51品茶 and its coalition partners urged robust application of the legal standard governing the admissibility of expert testimony and technical evidence, especially in cases involving opaque or proprietary algorithms.
Nevada Supreme Court
Nov 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes鈥攁dopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution鈥攚ere intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada鈥檚 Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board鈥檚 treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board鈥檚 scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board.
This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board鈥檚 scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The 51品茶 of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the 51品茶鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal.
In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court鈥檚 positive decision.
Explore case
Nevada Supreme Court
Nov 2023
Criminal Law Reform
Smart Justice
Cannabis Equity & Inclusion Community v. Nevada Board of Pharmacy
Nevadans, like voters in many states, have chosen to legalize marijuana for medicinal and recreational use. In Nevada, these changes鈥攁dopted through citizen ballot initiatives and, in the case of medical marijuana, enshrined in the Nevada Constitution鈥攚ere intended to ensure that marijuana is regulated much like alcohol and that law enforcement resources are focused on violent crime, not the prosecution of non-violent drug offenses. Despite these legal changes, Nevada鈥檚 Board of Pharmacy continues to regulate marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance for purposes of state law, akin to the Board鈥檚 treatment of cocaine and fentanyl. The Board鈥檚 scheduling designation for marijuana has enormous implications for criminal defendants in Nevada since state law makes it a felony to possess or engage in certain other activity with respect to a Schedule I controlled substance, as designated by the Board.
This case, brought by an individual and organization harmed by the Board鈥檚 scheduling designation for marijuana, involves the question whether the designation violates the Nevada Constitution and state statutes. The 51品茶 of Nevada is counsel in the case, and the 51品茶鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative is co-counsel on appeal.
In August 2024, the Court held that Pool and CEIC lack standing to challenge marijuana's designation as a Schedule I substance but recognized that other individuals could appropriately do so in the future. The Court did not reach the merits in reversing the district court鈥檚 positive decision.