Frasier v. Evans
This brief argues that the First Amendment protects the right to record the police and that such recordings are a vital tool of community oversight of police.
Amicus Briefs
In concert with our legislative advocacy and member education and support, the National Police Accountability Project files amicus briefs in the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeals and state appellate courts in cases involving abuses of power by police and corrections officers, as well as other government officials. Our amicus curiae work is motivated by a recognition that positive rulings in significant cases addressing police and corrections officer misconduct stand to create powerful case law that can expand access and avenues to recourse for citizens whose civil rights have been violated.
Instructions for Requesting Amicus Support
Use the fields below to filter by court, amicus counsel or parties, date filed, and tags.
Kong v. City of Burnsville
This brief argues that appellate jurisdiction does not extend to an appeal over the district court’s denial of qualified immunity based on factual disputes.
Manuel v. City of Joliet
This brief argues that pretrial detention in the absence of probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment and as such 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 provides recourse for such violation.
Thompson v. Clark - Merits Brief
Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.
Thompson v. Clark et. al. - Petition Brief
Thompson v. Clark asks whether an individual seized during criminal proceedings in violation of the Fourth Amendment must prove that the criminal proceedings ended in a manner indicative of their innocence before bringing a section 1983 action to redress the violation of their constitutional rights. This brief argues that criminal proceedings terminating in a manner indicating innocence is not a requirement for individuals seeking a 1983 claim.
Hernandez v. Mesa
In Hernandez v. Mesa, the parents of 15-year-old Mexican national Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca sued US Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr. Mesa was standing on US soil and Guereca on Mexican soil when Mesa shot and killed Guereca. This brief argues that Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) provides a cause of action against immigration enforcement agents as it does for all other federal law enforcement agents.
Carolina Youth Action Project v. Wilson
We filed our brief for CYAP v. Wilson in support of Carolina Youth Action Project and on behalf of thousands of of South Carolina students who have been arrested and charged for violating the state's vague statutes criminalizing typical and constitutional behavior in schools.
Rockett v. Eighmy
NPAP's brief for Rockett v. Eighmy elucidates why Section 1983 suits are an important remedy for plaintiffs whose constitutional rights have been violated, and why it is especially important in cases where plaintiffs have suffered harms due to a judge's unconstitutional conduct.
Egbert v. Boule
In Egbert v. Boule the Court is deciding whether a Bivens action exists for First Amendment retaliation and Fourth Amendment violations committed by federal officers carrying out immigration functions.
Fenty et al v. Penzone et al
In Fenty et al v. Penzone et al, the defendant failed to fully comply with the magistrate judge's order to deduplicate their email production. When the plaintiffs raised the issue, the magistrate ordered the defendant to perform threading of responsive emails and ordered the parties to split the $1400 cost to complete the process. The district court affirmed the magistrate's order.