Amicus Briefs

Harris v. City of Newark is a New Jersey Civil Rights Act (NJCRA) case that asks whether a defendant is entitled to pursue an interlocutory appeal on a qualified immunity denial in civil rights cases brought under the NJCRA.

Dundon et al v. Kirchmeier et al is a case challenging law enforcement's violent response to the 2016 Dakota Access Pipeline protests. The brief focuses on how the use of less than lethal force against protesters can constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

NPAP members Rachel Lederman, Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, and Janine Hoft are representing plaintiffs-appellants in the case.

In AB v. County of San Diego the decedent was handcuffed, hog-tied, hooded in a bloody spit mask, and subjected to 7 minutes of forceful prone restraint by several officers who pressed their knees and fists down on his back. San Diego county's designee admitted at deposition that officers received no training on asphyxia, and were in fact affirmatively encouraged to use substantial body weight on a prone subject to achieve compliance with verbal commands. 

Vega v. Tekoh presents the question of whether Section 1983 remedies are available when a police officer takes an un-Mirandized statement and causes it to be used in the suspect's criminal trial. NPAP members John Burton and Paul Hoffman are representing Mr. Tekoh.

This brief urges the Court to require disclosure of the social media monitoring policies requested by appellants in the case. A huge thank you to the Thomas Merton Center and NPAP Board Vice President Jon Feinberg of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing, Feinberg & Lin.

Daniels v. City of Pittsburgh et. al. addresses the case of Mark Daniels, who was running away when he was shot in the back and killed by a Pittsburgh police officer. Mr. Daniels was not armed but the officer believed that Mr. Daniels had shot at him earlier the same day. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants relying in large part on the officer's unsworn statements in his use of force report even though there was evidence in the record contradicting these statements.

B.W. v. City of New Orleans et. al. is the case brought by the parents of B.W., a minor who was killed during an interaction with New Orleans police officers who failed to activate their body-worn cameras (BWCs) at the time of the fatal incident.

In Irizarry v. Yehia the plaintiff is Abade Irizarry, a journalist/blogger who attempted to film a DUI stop until a police officer obstructed his ability to film first by standing in front of him and then by shining a light into his camera.

Our brief in Gonzalez v. Trevino et. al. explains that illegal arrest for disfavored speech is a serious and systemic problem, and provides concrete illustrations of this phenomenon with a particular focus on how law enforcement targets communities of color.

Reed v. Goertz deals with the case of Rodney Reed, who was convicted of murder after police declined to test key pieces of evidence for DNA and investigate other suspects (including the victim's police officer fiancé). There were numerous investigation failures and testi-lying about those failures by the law enforcement officers involved in the case. You can read more about Mr. Reed's fight for exoneration here.