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.”
This brief argues for the importance of disclosing the identities of the Seattle Police Department officers involved in the insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021.
This brief argues that the text and legislative history of the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) doesn't require incarcerated plaintiffs to plead a severe injury to sue for excessive force or denial of medical care.
A huge thank you to NPAP members Jim Davy of All Rise Trial & Appellate, Danielle Hamiliton of Northwestern Federal Appellate Litigation Clinic, and Sam Weiss of RightsBehindBars for their work.
An out of uniform detective in an unmarked car decided DeJuan Hopson was planning to commit an armed robbery of a gas station after watching him sit in a car talking with his friend in the parking lot. The detective was baselessly convinced that Mr. Hopson was preparing to the rob the store even though he had watched Mr. Hopson and his friend for over 15 minutes and did not see them engage in any conduct that would suggest they were preparing to commit a robbery. Following his lengthy observation, the detective and several other officers violently extracted Mr.
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco et al challenges San Francisco's policy of towing safely parked cars solely because the owner has 5+ parking tickets. The policy disproportionately harms unhoused people who live in their vehicles. Our brief argues that allowing police to initiate these tows without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment and elevates the risk of police violence by unnecessarily increasing police contact with the public.
Vega v. Tekoh presents the question of whether Section 1983 remedies are available when a police officer takes an un-Mirandized statement and causes it to be used in the suspect's criminal trial. NPAP members John Burton and Paul Hoffman are representing Mr. Tekoh.
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.