Brief of Amici Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers—New Jersey.

Argument: Terres improperly extends precedent to permit a search inside a home upon a showing of an articulable suspicion that a third party inside of it poses a danger to those at the arrest scene outside of the home.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari).

Argument: The Fourth Circuit’s holding in this matter warrants review for the additional and important reason that that it allows officers to conduct searches for weapons despite the fact that the officers’ reasonable suspicion went only to drug use. Blanket rules of reasonable suspicion based upon drug use alone violate this Court’s precedent and the Fourth Amendment, which require greater respect for individual liberty from search and seizure. Moreover, as this Court articulated in Richards v. Wisconsin, stereotypical inferences about drug use and firearm risk create both “over-generalization” and bootstrapping concerns that would allow the reasonable suspicion requirement to expand so broadly that it would provide no meaningful check on potential Fourth Amendment violations. Finally, the Fourth Circuit’s holding denies Petitioner independent appellate review (i.e., without deference to the trial court determination) of ultimate determinations of reasonable suspicion, as this Court requires pursuant to Ornelas v. United States.

Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers the Cato Institute, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: The North Carolina Supreme Court’s rule condoning traffic stops based on suspicion of perfectly lawful conduct ignores fundamental differences between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. Treating mistakes of fact and law ‘the same’ under the Fourth Amendment contravenes well-established legal doctrine. There are important practical distinctions between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law. The North Carolina rule would have negative consequences for both individual citizens and law enforcement. The North Carolina Supreme Court’s rule will have negative consequences for individual liberty and will undermine law enforcement.

Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Certiorari is warranted here based upon the entrenched, irreconcilable division among the federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort on the question of whether a law enforcement officer’s reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify an investigatory stop. The North Carolina Supreme Court’s rule is flatly inconsistent with the principles underlying this Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. It has always been the province of the courts, not law enforcement, to determine and apply the law governing an investigatory stop. There is no basis under the Fourth Amendment for officers to conduct seizures based on nothing more than suspicion of conduct that violates no law. Second, the North Carolina Supreme Court’s rule, if left undisturbed, will have substantial negative effects, including condoning a broad swath of searches unrelated to suspicion of any violation of any actual law, and reducing or removing important incentives for police officers to understand thoroughly the laws they are charged with enforcing.

Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Opposition to Government’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Argument: The government ignores the public interest in transparency about police misconduct. The government makes no attempt to meet the stringent standard for hiding from the public information illuminating one of the most fraught issues of our day: the role of racial prejudice and false testimony in the criminal justice system. Hiding this Court’s conclusions about Trooper Fleischer would not change the government’s Giglio obligations, but it would make enforcement of those obligations more difficult for defendants. The government wants this Court to whitewash its conclusions about racial motivation and false testimony in order to shield Trooper Fleisher from future cross examination about them. The government’s position threatens the due administration of justice. Law enforcement witnesses are entitled to no special treatment in our court system. Courts make credibility findings every day that may devastate the careers, relationships, and futures of thousands of people.

Joint Amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the ACLU Foundation of Pennsylvania, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of affirmance of the district court. 

Argument: Tracking a car by physically attaching a GPS device to it requires a warrant based on probable cause, without exception. The District Court correctly applied the exclusionary rule because the FBI agents did not rely on binding appellate precedent.

Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of defendant-appellant’s petition for rehearing en banc and reversal of the district court’s judgment.

Argument: The Panel’s exclusive focus on “consent” and its assumptions about the imposition of probation conditions are wrong. Consent is merely a factor to consider when deciding whether a search is “reasonable.” Probationers do not necessarily “accept” probation terms. The reasonable suspicion standard should apply to all searches of a probationer’s home.

Brief of Amicus Curiae Filed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant.

Argument:  When the basis for a motor vehicle stop is a stand-alone anonymous 911 telephone call, the Aguilar-Spinelli test should apply to the reasonable suspicion determination. Anonymous 911 calls are not inherently self-verifying and evolving technology requires the modernization of how the reliability is determined.