Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioner (on petition for writ of certiorari).
Argument: The decision below merits review because, given the expansion of lawful public carrying, it opens the door to unchecked racial profiling. Over the past two decades, and especially in recent years, states have been expanding the rights of their citizens to carry firearms in public. The per se rule endorsed below allows for unchecked racial profiling, as officers encounter more citizens who are—or may be—legally armed. The decision below merits review because it sets the Fourth Amendment against state policy judgments, the common law, and this Court’s precedent. The per se assumption endorsed by the Fourth Circuit undermines the considered policy judgments of state legislatures. A per se assumption is inconsistent with the common law and rests on a faulty reading of precedent.
- News Release
Federal Court Findings and Repudiation of Unconstitutional “Stop-and-Frisk” Practice Underscores Extent of Racial Profiling in America’s Criminal Justice System -- Washington, DC (August 12, 2013) – In a nearly 200-page opinion and order, U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York ruled today in the closely-followed, class action case of Floyd v. City of New York that the City of New York “is liable for violating plaintiffs’ Fourth and Fourteenth amendment rights.”