ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ

This case in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court asks whether flight from the police in a high-crime area, without more, can justify an investigative stop. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Pennsylvania, filed an amicus brief arguing that it does not. The brief argues that the Pennsylvania Constitution supports broader protections against investigative stops than those recognized under the U.S. Constitution, and that flight in high-crime areas is not inherently more suspicious than flight elsewhere.

On February 21, 2017, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵ, the ÌÒ×ÓÊÓƵof Wisconsin, and the law firm of Covington & Burling LLP filed a class-action lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. This lawsuit challenged the Milwaukee Police Department’s unconstitutional stop-and-frisk program that targeted tens of thousands of people without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, primarily driven by racial profiling.

This case concerns the First Step Act of 2018, in which Congress made major reductions to the mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. These changes result in sentences many decades shorter than were required under the previous laws. The question in this case was whether people who were initially sentenced prior to enactment of the First Step Act, but whose sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing after enactment of the law, can benefit from its major reductions in applicable mandatory minimums. For defendants like Mr. Carpenter, who was originally sentenced to a draconian 116 years in prison as a result of the pre-First Step Act mandatory minimums, applying the First Step Act can mean the difference between dying in prison and having the opportunity to eventually go free. Unfortunately, although there is a split among federal courts of appeals on this question, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case in February 2024.

Abdullahi Khalif Noor is a Somali refugee, who was a cab driver living in Seattle when convicted of rape and assault, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He has always maintained his innocence. He challenged his convictions in Washington state courts, arguing that prosecutors had suppressed evidence of his innocence in violation of due process and Brady v. Maryland.   Unsuccessful in the Washington state courts, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. He was again unsuccessful, and sought to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Ordinarily, when a party loses in federal district court they can immediately appeal the decision. But Mr. Noor was barred from doing so because he had not obtained a document Congress has required habeas petitioners receive from federal courts before they can appeal since 1908 — then called a certificate of probable cause, but now called a certificate of appealability (COA).