Menu
Close
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
In our brief, we highlight warrantless home entries committed in the pursuit of alleged misdemeanor crimes. So-called “hot pursuit” searches are a categorical exemption to our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment. Not only do these warrantless invasions infringe on these rights, they enable racialized policing and erode public trust in law enforcement.
Filed with the DKT Liberty Project, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and Reason Foundation.
The Supreme Court agreed with Due Process Institute that the Constitution puts limits on when police pursuing a fleeing suspect can enter a home without a warrant. You can read the 9-0 decision here.
Due Process Institute also thanks Jessica Amunson, Caroline Cease, and Philip Sailer of Jenner & Block for their amicus support on this case.
Amicus Brief in support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Filed Feb. 7, 2020
TOPIC: lethal force; seizure; police misconduct
The question in this case is if a “seizure” has occurred, in violation of the 4th Amendment, when police attempt to stop a suspect by force but do not immediately succeed in doing so. Our amicus brief argues that there are good public policy reasons for determining that such action is a “seizure” including accountability for police and improving public trust in law enforcement and their actions. Filed with American Association for Justice, Cato Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, R Street Institute, and Reason Foundation.
Update: The Court heard oral argument in this case on Oct. 14, 2020.
Amicus Brief in support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
Filed Dec. 11, 2020
TOPIC: “hot pursuit” warrantless searches
In this brief, we highlight warrantless home entries committed in the pursuit of alleged misdemeanor crimes. So-called “hot pursuit” searches are a categorical exemption to our constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the 4th Amendment. Not only do these warrantless invasions infringe on these rights, they enable racialized policing and erode public trust in law enforcement.
Filed with the DKT Liberty Project, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, and Reason Foundation.
Brief in Support of Petitioner
U.S. Supreme Court
Is there a Fourth Amendment warrant requirement exception for a statute stating that an individual implicitly consents to a blood draw?
OUTCOME: The Court unfortunately ruled against Mitchell in an opinion you can read here.
Amicus Brief in support of Certiorari
U.S. Supreme Court
The question in this case is if a “seizure” has occurred, in violation of the 4th Amendment, when police attempt to stop a suspect by force but do not immediately succeed in doing so. Our amicus brief argues that there are good public policy reasons for determining that such action is a “seizure” including accountability for police and improving public trust in law enforcement and their actions.
Filed with American Association for Justice, Cato Institute, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, R Street Institute, and Reason Foundation.
Update: The Court heard oral argument in this case on Oct. 14, 2020.
Amicus Brief in support of Defendant
Florida Court of Appeals
Filed Nov. 12, 2019
TOPICS: video surveillance; minimization
Our brief explains how the use of the police’s continuous covert video surveillance took advantage of the lack of privacy safeguards in the law and failed to utilize adequate minimization techniques to pass Constitutional muster–therefore the evidence obtained from that surveillance must be excluded.
Due Process Institute thanks Donnie Murrell for his amicus support on this matter.
OUTCOME: The Court agreed with our position that the recordings violated the 4th Amendment and were thus unconstitutionally obtained. You can read the Aug. 19, 2020 decision here.