Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Both federal appellate courts and state courts of last resort have inconsistently decided whether the Fourth Amendment protects social guests from unreasonable searches when they visit a home but do not spend the night. In the decision below, the New York Court of Appeals widened this split by ruling that a social guest who [*5] visited for dinner, but did not stay the night, did not have standing to challenge the search of his host's home. See People v. Ibarguen, 37 N.Y.3d 1107, 1107-08 (2021). The inconsistent application of the Fourth Amendment [*6] to social guests also degrades the efficacy of the exclusionary rule in providing clear standards for police conduct and concomitant deterrence of police misconduct by making it difficult to institutionalize uniform practices and compliance through widely-used training materials.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners. 

Argument: This case asks whether a reasonable jury could find that police officers use excessive force when they kill a shackled and handcuffed arrestee inside of a jail cell by compression asphyxiation. The Eighth Circuit’s decision departs from an otherwise uniform national rule established by all other courts of appeals that have addressed the issue that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments categorically prohibit the asphyxiation of a restrained arrestee or pre-trial detainee who poses no threat to officers or others. The national rule applied outside of the Eighth Circuit is the only rule that conforms to the Supreme Court’s cases governing the use of deadly force, is deeply rooted in the Fourth Amendment and prevailing common-law rules, and is consistent with statutes and law enforcement policies already in effect across American jurisdictions. Categorically prohibiting the use of deadly force, such as compression asphyxia, on restrained citizens is essential to the fair administration of criminal justice. 

Compelled cell phone password & seizure materials.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent.

Argument: Kansas's bright-line rule is incompatible with the flexible reasonable-suspicion standard. Automated license-plate reader technology highlights the constitutional problems with Kansas's rule. Kansas's rule lets computers, not case-by-case judgments, control the constitutional analysis. The proposed cure for "mistaken stops"--that they will be brief--is no substitute for the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable seizures. Adopting Kansas's rule would create an incentive against investigation. The erosion of privacy would disproportionately affect the poor. A suspended or revoked license indicates economic status, not unsafe driving. ALPR technology unduly affects the poor. 

Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: The Fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable pretrial seizures, even after initiation of legal process. Decades of experience confirm that recognizing malicious prosecution claims based on the Fourth Amendment does not chill legitimate law enforcement conduct. This Court can provide direction to lower courts by clarifying that malice is not an element of a § 1983 claim grounded on the Fourth Amendment and by adopting Justice Ginsburg's view of continuing seizure.