Press Releases
about Criminal Law Reform

In 2023, public reporting revealed that a group of sheriff’s deputies in Rankin County, Mississippi, had been terrorizing the County’s residents for nearly two decades. The deputies, who called themselves the “Goon Squad,” used torture, violence, and other abusive practices to coerce confessions and extract or manufacture evidence. The Rankin County District Attorney’s Office (RCDAO), in turn, used the Goon Squad to prosecute people. Seeking to understand whether the RCDAO has taken any actions to address the Goon Squad’s misconduct since it became public, the ACLU of Mississippi and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a public records request with the RCDAO. But the RCDAO refused to produce any documents other than a self-serving press statement. Accordingly, the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Mississippi and the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed suit arguing that the RCDAO’s failure to produce responsive records violates the Mississippi Public Records Act.

This case asks whether the stop, search, and arrest of an individual after a traffic stop was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. The case arises from a remarkable set of facts: although motivated by a desire to search Mr. Arias’s car for drugs, the police initiated the stop based on a day-old alleged traffic infraction and then arrested Mr. Arias for allegedly neglecting to stop his car immediately when the police initiated the stop. The ACLU joined an amicus brief authored by the ACLU of Massachusetts and the law firm Proskauer Rose, which argues that the police actions in this case were unconstitutional for three reasons. First, pretextual traffic stops, such as this one, violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Second, arrests for misdemeanors not involving breaches of the peace also violate the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights. Third, the statute prohibiting drivers from neglecting to stop is unconstitutionally vague as applied to this case.

Equally important, but less revered than voting; jury service is a powerful tool for holding the government accountable. ACLU experts answer your questions about jury service.

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.