Ending Abusive and Biased Police Encounters
State v. K.R.C.
This case asks whether a 12-year-old boy was in custody and entitled to Miranda warnings during a closed-door police interrogation by a school resource officer in the school building. The court of appeals held that he was not in custody, not entitled to Miranda warnings, and voluntarily incriminated himself. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy’s statements into evidence not only violated the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution but Article I, Section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution, and urging the Wisconsin Supreme Court to rest its decision on the state charter to better protect Wisconsinites’ civil liberties.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn About Ending Abusive and Biased Police Encounters
All Cases
3 Ending Abusive and Biased Police Encounters Cases
Michigan Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Ending Abusive and Biased Police Encounters
State v. Fenderson
This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Jun 2025
Ending Abusive and Biased Police Encounters
State v. Fenderson
This case asks whether the government can elicit inculpatory statements from a defendant by giving him misleading information about his rights and applying coercive pressure, then using the statements against him in a criminal case. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative and the ÌÇÐÄVlogof Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, independently, Article 1, Section 17 of the Michigan Constitution, which affords even broader protections against self-incrimination than the Fifth Amendment.
Hawaii Supreme Court
Apr 2025
Ending Abusive and Biased Police Encounters
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante
In 1994, the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i 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 ÌÇÐÄVlogof Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i 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
Hawaii Supreme Court
Apr 2025
Ending Abusive and Biased Police Encounters
State of Hawaiʻi v. Zuffante
In 1994, the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i 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 ÌÇÐÄVlogof Hawai‘i filed an amicus brief arguing that the Supreme Court of HawaiÊ»i 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.