This case in the Iowa Supreme Court asks whether a city ordinance that mandates rental inspections every five years, irrespective of whether a tenant consents to the inspection and in the absence of individualized probable cause, violates the state constitution. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative assisted the ACLU of Iowa in filing an amicus brief to argue that tenants have a right under the Iowa Constitution to be free from non-consensual searches of their rented homes, absent a showing of individualized probable cause. The case remains pending.

In this case, the Virginia Supreme Court is considering whether the U.S. Constitution and/or the Virginia Constitution require the exclusionary rule—which protects people from unconstitutional searches and seizures—to apply in civil zoning enforcement actions. The Institute for Justice, along with The ACLU of Virginia and the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project and the State Supreme Court Initiative at the ACLU, submitted an amicus brief arguing that the exclusionary rule should apply in civil actions to protect Virginians’ search and seizure rights.

This case at the Georgia Supreme Court involves the “independent source” doctrine, an exception to the exclusionary rule providing that evidence that is acquired through means genuinely independent of a prior unlawful search or seizure may be accepted by the court. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that the independent source doctrine does not apply in this case because the police relied on information acquired from a prior, illegal search when they applied for a warrant to search the defendant’s cell phone. The Court’s opinion vacated Tatum’s conviction and remanded to allow the trial court to determine whether the state’s decision to seek the search warrant was “prompted” by the prior unlawful search.

This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers’ reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.

In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court is considering the scope of a crucial doctrine that protects criminal defendants from being convicted based on evidence obtained in violation of their constitutional rights. Under both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions, courts apply an “exclusionary rule” that allows criminal defendants to seek the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of their rights. For nearly 40 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has chipped away at the exclusionary rule by adopting and expanding the “good faith exception,” a doctrine providing that in some situations courts need not exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. In this case, officers acquired evidence after arresting someone based on a warrant that was listed as valid due to a recordkeeping error, but which in fact should have been recalled. In July 2023, together with other ACLU attorneys and partners, the SSCI submitted an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court asking it to hold as a matter of state constitutional law that the exclusionary rule applies to this situation, and that the good-faith exception does not apply. In March 2024, the Court ruled in the ACLU's favor, stating that the district court did not err in finding that the defendant's arrest warrant had been quashed before her arrest and the good-faith exception did not apply.