Reforming Police

Featured

Arizona
Oct 2023
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of

Reforming Police

Racial Justice

Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of

Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s 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.
Fund For Empowerment V. Phoenix, City Of. Explore Case.

All Cases

35 Reforming Police Cases

State v. Kern
Oregon Supreme Court
Sep 2025

Reforming Police

Privacy & Technology

State v. Kern

This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.
Explore case
State V. Kern. Explore Case.
Oregon Supreme Court
Sep 2025
State v. Kern

Reforming Police

Privacy & Technology

State v. Kern

This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.
State V. Kern. Explore Case.
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
California
Jun 2025

Reforming Police

Racial Justice

Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco

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.
Explore case
Coalition On Homelessness V. City And County Of San Francisco. Explore Case.
California
Jun 2025
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco

Reforming Police

Racial Justice

Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco

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.
Coalition On Homelessness V. City And County Of San Francisco. Explore Case.
State v. Bishop
Tennessee
May 2025

Reforming Police

Prisoners' Rights

State v. Bishop

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 ACLU’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof 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.
Explore case
State V. Bishop. Explore Case.
Tennessee
May 2025
State v. Bishop

Reforming Police

Prisoners' Rights

State v. Bishop

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 ACLU’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof 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.
State V. Bishop. Explore Case.
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante
Hawaii Supreme Court
Apr 2025

Reforming Police

State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante

In 1994, the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court’s supervisory authority over lower courts.
Explore case
State Of Hawaiʻi V. Zuffante. Explore Case.
Hawaii Supreme Court
Apr 2025
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante

Reforming Police

State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante

In 1994, the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court’s supervisory authority over lower courts.
State Of Hawaiʻi V. Zuffante. Explore Case.
Roland Branch v. State of Maryland
Maryland Supreme Court
Dec 2024

Reforming Police

Roland Branch v. State of Maryland

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 ACLU, alongside the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµargued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition.
Explore case
Roland Branch V. State Of Maryland. Explore Case.
Maryland Supreme Court
Dec 2024
Roland Branch v. State of Maryland

Reforming Police

Roland Branch v. State of Maryland

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 ACLU, alongside the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµof Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓÆµargued that the court should take up the question of whether pretextual stops violate the Maryland Constitution. In September 2024, the Court denied the petition.
Roland Branch V. State Of Maryland. Explore Case.
1
23...