Search and Seizure

All Cases

20 Search and Seizure Cases

State v. Kern
Oregon Supreme Court
Sep 2025

Search and Seizure

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

Search and Seizure

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

Search and Seizure

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

Search and Seizure

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

Search and Seizure

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 Ƶof 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

Search and Seizure

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 Ƶof 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.
Roland Branch v. State of Maryland
Maryland Supreme Court
Dec 2024

Search and Seizure

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 Ƶof Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the Ƶargued 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

Search and Seizure

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 Ƶof Maryland, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant’s petition, in which the Ƶargued 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.
State v. Wright
North Carolina Supreme Court
Dec 2024

Search and Seizure

State v. Wright

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’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The Ƶalongside the Ƶof North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” 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.
Explore case
State V. Wright. Explore Case.
North Carolina Supreme Court
Dec 2024
State v. Wright

Search and Seizure

State v. Wright

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’s, backpack even after he repeatedly said no to the search requests. The Ƶalongside the Ƶof North Carolina filed an amicus brief arguing that the search was unconstitutional because Mr. Wright’s eventual “consent” 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.
State V. Wright. Explore Case.
1
23...