At the core of this case is the question of whether the government can extract and test our DNA without a warrant. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and Project on Speech, Privacy, and Technology, together with the ACLU of Michigan, filed an amicus brief arguing that, since our DNA contains vast amounts of highly sensitive information about us, DNA testing and extraction constitute a search and therefore require a warrant under both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution. If there were no warrant requirement, as the State urges, police would be able to arrest someone for one offense, even pretextually, and limitlessly test their DNA to investigate unrelated crimes. This would especially impact people from marginalized populations who are most likely to be subject to these police practices.

For more than two decades, criminal defendants in Massachusetts have experienced a recurring counsel crisis, with defendants periodically going unrepresented due to low attorney compensation rates. Despite many opportunities, the Legislature has failed to raise rates high enough to remedy the constitutional violation. At present, the compensation rate for district court cases is $75 per hour. Consequently, in a case brought by the Committee for Public Counsel Services—the Massachusetts public defender agency—the ACLU of Massachusetts and the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative filed an amicus brief urging the Court to hold that the statute setting attorney compensation rates is unconstitutional. This case has important implications for the right to counsel and access to justice in Massachusetts.

The Minnesota Supreme Court is poised to decide whether there are any circumstances in which someone subjected to an unconstitutional traffic stop can suppress evidence that he temporarily avoided the police when they initiated the unconstitutional stop. The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that evidence of even temporary “flight” can never be suppressed—even when someone simply delays acquiescing to an unconstitutional traffic stop—on the theory that fleeing from the police is a crime. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Minnesota and the law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, filed an amicus brief arguing that Article I, Sections 8 and 10 of the Minnesota Constitution—which guarantee Minnesotans remedies for constitutional violations and protect them from unreasonable searches and seizures—require a broad application of the exclusionary rule. Accordingly, we argue that the Court should use a flexible, multi-factor test that can allow for suppression of evidence where a suspect, as in this case, responds to an illegal stop or seizure with nonviolent attempts to keep himself safe.

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.