Showing 1 - 2 of 2 results
Birt v. United States
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: Certiorari is warranted because the Third Circuit’s decision prohibits a whole class of crack-cocaine offenders from being eligible for resentencing under the First Step Act while identically situated defendants in other circuits may be resentenced. The Third Circuit’s rule is inconsistent with Congress’s goal of providing relief to low-level drug offenders because it excludes the lowest-level offenders and those with uncertain drug amounts from resentencing while allowing those who possessed greater amounts of crack cocaine to obtain relief. Defendants convicted for possessing lower-quantities of crack cocaine could receive substantial sentence reductions even though they remain eligible for the same sentence. The Third Circuit’s rule frustrates Congress’s goal of providing relief to the disproportionate number of Black Americans incarcerated for crack-cocaine offenses.
Kansas v. Glover
Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondent.
Argument: Kansas's bright-line rule is incompatible with the flexible reasonable-suspicion standard. Automated license-plate reader technology highlights the constitutional problems with Kansas's rule. Kansas's rule lets computers, not case-by-case judgments, control the constitutional analysis. The proposed cure for "mistaken stops"--that they will be brief--is no substitute for the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable seizures. Adopting Kansas's rule would create an incentive against investigation. The erosion of privacy would disproportionately affect the poor. A suspended or revoked license indicates economic status, not unsafe driving. ALPR technology unduly affects the poor.