Reforming Police
Featured
Arizona
Oct 2023
Reforming Police
Racial Justice
Fund for Empowerment v. Phoenix, City of
Fund for Empowerment is a challenge to the City of Phoenix’s practice of conducting sweeps of encampments without notice, issuing citations to unsheltered people for camping and sleeping on public property when they have no place else to go, and confiscating and destroying their property without notice or process.
Stay informed about our latest work in the courts.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU's privacy statement.
All Cases
28 Reforming Police Cases
Arizona
Aug 2017
Reforming Police
Cox v. Voyles, et. al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Perkins Coie filed the case in 2015 against the Sheriff, the County Attorney, and other Pinal County, Arizona officials, for their enforcement of Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
The defendants filed three motions to dismiss, but a federal court ruled on August 18, 2017, that the claims at the heart of the case can move forward. The judge found that the lawsuit establishes a plausible claim that the state’s asset forfeiture laws violate due process rights “because Defendants have a financial incentive to zealously enforce the forfeiture laws.”
Explore case
Arizona
Aug 2017
Reforming Police
Cox v. Voyles, et. al.
The ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, and the law firm Perkins Coie filed the case in 2015 against the Sheriff, the County Attorney, and other Pinal County, Arizona officials, for their enforcement of Arizona’s civil asset forfeiture laws.
The defendants filed three motions to dismiss, but a federal court ruled on August 18, 2017, that the claims at the heart of the case can move forward. The judge found that the lawsuit establishes a plausible claim that the state’s asset forfeiture laws violate due process rights “because Defendants have a financial incentive to zealously enforce the forfeiture laws.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2017
Reforming Police
County of Los Angeles v. Angel Mendez
Whether the Ninth Circuit’s “provocation rule” that police officers may be held liable for using force when they provoked a threatening reaction with a Fourth Amendment violation is consistent with the Supreme Court’s use of force analysis in Graham v. Connor and subsequent cases?
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Mar 2017
Reforming Police
County of Los Angeles v. Angel Mendez
Whether the Ninth Circuit’s “provocation rule” that police officers may be held liable for using force when they provoked a threatening reaction with a Fourth Amendment violation is consistent with the Supreme Court’s use of force analysis in Graham v. Connor and subsequent cases?
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2014
Reforming Police
Criminal Law Reform
Heien v. North Carolina
Whether a traffic stop based on a police officer’s mistaken understanding of the traffic laws violates the Fourth Amendment.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2014
Reforming Police
Criminal Law Reform
Heien v. North Carolina
Whether a traffic stop based on a police officer’s mistaken understanding of the traffic laws violates the Fourth Amendment.
Sep 2013
Reforming Police
John Doe, Jane Doe, and James Doe v. Todd Entrekin
The Etowah County Sheriff’s Department has subjected a family in Alabama to an ongoing series of unannounced, random, and suspicionless inspections of their home, threatening the family with arrest if they fail to cooperate.
Explore case
Sep 2013
Reforming Police
John Doe, Jane Doe, and James Doe v. Todd Entrekin
The Etowah County Sheriff’s Department has subjected a family in Alabama to an ongoing series of unannounced, random, and suspicionless inspections of their home, threatening the family with arrest if they fail to cooperate.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Reforming Police
+2 Issues
Maryland v. King
Whether collecting and analyzing DNA samples from arrestees without a warrant or consent violates the Fourth Amendment.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jun 2013
Reforming Police
+2 Issues
Maryland v. King
Whether collecting and analyzing DNA samples from arrestees without a warrant or consent violates the Fourth Amendment.