吃瓜大本营

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 ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU 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.

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.

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 ACLU 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 ACLU'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.

Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to a police officer's intentional use of physical force against a fleeing person, if that use of force does not succeed in terminating her movement.