Home : Drug Policy : Search and Seizure

Doe v. Bridgeport, Court Decision (01/18/2001)

Doe v. Bridgeport, ACLU Reply for Preliminary Injunction (12/11/2000)

Doe v. Bridgeport, ACLU Memorandum of Support (11/09/2000)

Doe v. Bridgeport, ACLU Complaint (11/09/2000)

Conant v. McCaffrey, District Court Decision (09/07/2000)

Marchwinski v. Howard, Court Decision (09/01/2000)

Earls v. Board of Education, Appellate Court Amicus Brief from American Academy of Pediatrics (08/04/2000)

Conant v. McCaffrey, ACLU District Court Brief (08/03/2000)

Earls v. Board of Education, ACLU Appellate Court Brief (07/28/2000)

Tannahill v. Lockney, ACLU Brief (03/14/2000)

Dodd v. State of Oklahoma (01/06/2000)
This case imposes particular discovery requirements on the government when it uses jailhouse informant testimony. Presiding Judge Strubhar, joined by Judge Johnson, concurs and argues that a Daubert-like reliability hearing is necessary.

Turner v. DC Board of Elections, Court Decision (09/17/1999)

Earls v. Board of Education, ACLU District Court Brief (08/18/1999)

U.S. v. Sudikoff (03/02/1999)
In this case, after a defendant moved to compel the release of information relating to proffer agreements between a prosecution witness and the government, the district court discussed what standard a defendant had to meet in order to compel information material to his or her defense.

U.S. v. Singleton (01/08/1999)
A unanimous panel of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the government violated 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(2), which punishes “[w]hoever . . . gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person for or because of” that person’s testimony, by entering into a nonprosecution and leniency agreement with a cooperating coconspirator. The court en banc reversed the panel, holding that the panel’s interpretation rendered the statute absurd on its face.

Turner v. DC Board of Elections, ACLU Complaint (10/30/1998)

In re Maternowski (12/18/1996)
The Indiana Supreme Court suspends for 30 days two lawyers who had a policy of not representing clients who cooperated with the government. It found that they had placed themselves in “an impermissible conflict situation” by advising a “vacillating” client against cooperation.