Amicus Briefs

This brief urges the Fourth Circuit to affirm the lower court's decision properly applying circuit precedent to the plaintiff's selective enforcement defense. The selective enforcement defense was appropriately supported by statistics revealing significant racial disparities in the Richmond Police Department’s (“RPD”) enforcement of traffic stops against Black drivers compared to their white counterparts. The evidence supplied by the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated both discriminatory effect and discriminatory purpose, meeting the threshold for a selective enforcement claim.

Case Summary

The question presented is whether the Supreme Court should reject the "moment of the threat" doctrine and permit the Fifth Circuit (and other circuits that have adopted the same approach) to evaluate the totality of the circumstances when evaluating the constitutionality of an officer’s actions.

This brief is in support of the petitioner, Mr. Coffey, who is suing under the Post Conviction Relief Act to challenge his wrongful conviction that resulted from coercive investigation tactics. More on his case here. Our brief explains: (1) how coercive interrogation tactics are likely to result in wrongful convictions; and (2) Philadelphia Police Department's documented practice of using coercive investigation tactics to obtain false accusations in the '80s and '90s.

Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) vs. Whitmer is a more technical case about when claims accrue in Michigan state court. Our brief focuses on why civil rights plaintiffs should be given time to investigate claims and file a complaint.

Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections et. al. concerns a woman who was subjected to an invasive strip search when she visited her incarcerated husband in Georgia state prison. The panel found that while the search violated the woman's 4th Amendment rights, the officers were protected by qualified immunity. 

In this brief we argue that the court should grant rehearing because the Panel opinion conflicts with and would undermine this Court’s decisions in prior cases that make clear that “[w]hen “mental illness” is present and apparent in a police encounter, it “must be reflected in any [Fourth Amendment] assessment of the government’s interest in the use of force.” In other words, this Court has clearly established that when police officers perceive signs of a person’s mental disability, they “should make a greater effort to take control of the situation through less intrusive means.”

In this brief, NPAP urges the Court to reverse the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity to Defendants-Appellees. The District Court’s opinion granting qualified immunity to Defendants- Appellees Aukes and Parks adopted far too restrictive a definition of “clearly established law” and should be reversed.

Sargeant v. Barfield addresses whether an incarcerated person can sue a federal employee for First Amendment retaliation under Bivens. The plaintiff in this case was retaliated against for filing a grievance by an officer that was intentionally placing him in cells with people that had a known propensity for violence. 

Our brief argues accountability in these cases will not chill law enforcement job performance.