This brief urges the Court to require disclosure of the social media monitoring policies requested by appellants in the case. A huge thank you to the Thomas Merton Center and NPAP Board Vice President Jon Feinberg of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin.
Daniels v. City of Pittsburgh et. al. addresses the case of Mark Daniels, who was running away when he was shot in the back and killed by a Pittsburgh police officer. Mr. Daniels was not armed but the officer believed that Mr. Daniels had shot at him earlier the same day. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants relying in large part on the officer's unsworn statements in his use of force report even though there was evidence in the record contradicting these statements.
B.W. v. City of New Orleans et. al. is the case brought by the parents of B.W., a minor who was killed during an interaction with New Orleans police officers who failed to activate their body-worn cameras (BWCs) at the time of the fatal incident.
In Irizarry v. Yehia the plaintiff is Abade Irizarry, a journalist/blogger who attempted to film a DUI stop until a police officer obstructed his ability to film first by standing in front of him and then by shining a light into his camera.
Our brief in Gonzalez v. Trevino et. al. explains that illegal arrest for disfavored speech is a serious and systemic problem, and provides concrete illustrations of this phenomenon with a particular focus on how law enforcement targets communities of color.
Reed v. Goertz deals with the case of Rodney Reed, who was convicted of murder after police declined to test key pieces of evidence for DNA and investigate other suspects (including the victim's police officer fiancé). There were numerous investigation failures and testi-lying about those failures by the law enforcement officers involved in the case. You can read more about Mr. Reed's fight for exoneration here.
This brief argues that application of Louisiana's one-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions presents significant challenges that are specific to victims of police violence, resulting in an inability to obtain redress for civil rights violations and a perpetuation of police misconduct. Such application is inconsistent with the federal policy underlying § 1983 claims, which is to provide a federal remedy in federal court for violations of an individual's civil rights.