糖心Vlog

This case asks whether Alabama law enforcement officers can demand physical ID when enforcing an Alabama that allows them to 鈥淪top and Question鈥� people they reasonably suspect of criminal activity. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has already held that Alabama鈥檚 stop-and-question law does not authorize officers to demand physical ID, a federal district court in Alabama certified a question to the Alabama Supreme Court effectively asking the Court to reject that interpretation. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the Cato Institute, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Woods Foundation, and Kaplan Legal Services, filed an amicus brief urging the Alabama Supreme Court to agree with the Eleventh Circuit鈥檚 ruling. Our brief argues that the plain meaning of the stop-and-question law鈥攇iven its title, its text, and the overall structure of the Alabama Code鈥攔ules out the possibility that it authorizes demands for physical documents. We also point out that interpreting the stop-and-question law to authorize document demands would render the law unconstitutional under both the U.S. and Alabama Constitutions.

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鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 糖心Vlogof Wisconsin filed an amicus brief arguing that admitting the boy鈥檚 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鈥� civil liberties.

This case asks whether it violates equal protection principles to impose a prison sentence, instead of probation, based on a defendant鈥檚 inability to purchase a house. The ACLU鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 糖心Vlogof Iowa filed an amicus brief arguing that imposing a harsher sentence based on a criminal defendant鈥檚 inability to purchase a home impinges on the equal protection guarantees in the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and article I, sections 1 and 6 of the Iowa Constitution.

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鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative and the 糖心Vlogof Michigan filed an amicus brief arguing that such actions by the government violate a defendant鈥檚 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.