This case concerns the constitutionality of a highly intrusive law enforcement practice: the use of geofence warrants. Geofence warrants compel tech companies like Google to provide to law enforcement location data from every cell phone likely to have been within a certain area during a given time window. Then, law enforcement officers decide for themselves which users to focus on, and demand additional location information—and eventually identifying information—for the users they select. Geofence warrants raise grave constitutional concerns, including that (1) they authorize dragnet searches that sweep up the private data of many people without probable cause to believe that all or any of them were involved in any crime, and (2) they allow law enforcement officers to decide which users to focus on for additional data collection without judicial oversight. This case therefore has significant implications for Texans’ ability to secure their digital privacy and property against unjustified government intrusion.

This consolidated case arises from two warrantless searches of closed containers belonging to criminal defendants. It raises two key questions: (1) whether the New Mexico Supreme Court should adopt an approach to interpreting the New Mexico Constitution that does not require reference to federal law, and (2) whether the New Mexico Constitution’s prohibition on unreasonable searches provides greater protections against inventory searches by police than does the federal Fourth Amendment standard. 

This case asks whether Michigan should adopt an approach to state constitutional interpretation that prioritizes Michigan sources and does not automatically require reference to parallel federal provisions or interpretations. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the constitutional rights of Michiganders because an interpretation of the Michigan Constitution untethered from federal precedent provides an independent, and potentially more expansive, layer of security for individual rights.

The ACLU, NYCLU, Family Justice Law Center, Brooklyn Defender Services, Center for Family Representation, NYU School of Law Family Defense Clinic, and Sullivan & Cromwell have filed a federal class action lawsuit on behalf of three New York parents challenging unconstitutional delays in the appeals process for reports on the Statewide Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment (SCR). Parents who challenge their placement on the registry often wait months—sometimes more than a year—for a final decision. While they wait, they can be shut out of jobs in childcare, education, healthcare, and other fields involving children, and barred from adopting or fostering. Low-income parents, parents of color, and disabled parents are disproportionately policed by the family regulation system—also known as the child welfare system—and more likely to end up on the registry. This lawsuit seeks to ensure that parents have a way to clear their names in a timely manner.