Reforming Police
Daves v. Mosley
Section 131 of the newly enacted Enhance Law Enforcement Integrity Act gives Coloradans a cause of action to seek damages or equitable relief when state or local police officers violate the Colorado Constitution. In 2022, Christopher Mosley sued Officer Brendan Daves for conducting a warrantless search of his car, which Daves argued was lawful under the federal protective sweep doctrine. After Mosley prevailed at trial and the court of appeals affirmed, Daves appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ACLU of Colorado filed an amicus brief agreeing with Mosley's argument that Daves has misapprehended the federal doctrine whilst focusing on a separate point: the Court’s interpretation of Section 131 is not bound by federal law.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Reforming Police
Featured
Oregon
Feb 2024
Reforming Police
Disability Rights
Disability Rights Oregon v. Washington County, Oregon
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.
All Cases
36 Reforming Police Cases
Minnesota Supreme Court
Jun 2026
Reforming Police
State v. Weisen
This case asks whether law enforcement may permissibly use trickery and deception to obtain consent for a search and/or induce a confession. This case has important implications for Minnesotans’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and compelled self-incrimination. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative represents the ACLU of Minnesota and the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Jun 2026
Reforming Police
State v. Weisen
This case asks whether law enforcement may permissibly use trickery and deception to obtain consent for a search and/or induce a confession. This case has important implications for Minnesotans’ constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and compelled self-incrimination. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative represents the ACLU of Minnesota and the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in an amicus brief to the Minnesota Supreme Court.
Tennessee Supreme Court
Sep 2025
Reforming Police
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Bishop
This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ACLU’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.
Explore case
Tennessee Supreme Court
Sep 2025
Reforming Police
Prisoners' Rights
State v. Bishop
This case presents two questions: first, whether, under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, Union City Police Department officers possessed probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the defendant’s vehicle based exclusively on the alleged odor of cannabis, and second, whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction. The ACLU’s Criminal Reform Legal Project and State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Tennessee filed an amicus brief arguing first, that after Tennessee’s legalization of hemp in 2019, an officer’s alleged detection of the odor of cannabis is insufficient to establish probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle in Tennessee, and second, that the court of appeals improperly held that it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the defendant’s conviction.
Oregon Supreme Court
Sep 2025
Reforming Police
Privacy & Technology
State v. Kern
This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.
Explore case
Oregon Supreme Court
Sep 2025
Reforming Police
Privacy & Technology
State v. Kern
This case presents the question whether Oregonians retain a state constitutional privacy interest in their medical records, even when those records are held by health care providers. It could have important implications for patients who obtain abortions, gender-affirming care, and other health care that might be targeted by local or out-of-state law enforcement.
California
Jun 2025
Reforming Police
Racial Justice
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco’s efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public.
Explore case
California
Jun 2025
Reforming Police
Racial Justice
Coalition on Homelessness v. City and County of San Francisco
Coalition on Homelessness is a challenge to the City and County of San Francisco’s efforts to criminalize homelessness through an array of unconstitutional practices, including confiscating and destroying the personal property of unhoused people without adequate notice or due process, and citing and arresting unhoused people for sleeping in public.
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court
Apr 2025
Reforming Police
State v. Zuffante
In 1994, the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court’s supervisory authority over lower courts.
Explore case
Hawaiʻi Supreme Court
Apr 2025
Reforming Police
State v. Zuffante
In 1994, the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held in State v. Kekona that the due process clause of the Hawai‘i Constitution does not require custodial interrogations to be recorded. More than 30 years later, with advances in technology that have made recording far easier, this case asks whether this decision should be reconsidered. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi should now hold that custodial interrogations must be recorded in order to be admissible in court, either as a matter of due process or as an exercise of the Court’s supervisory authority over lower courts.