Showing 1 - 3 of 3 results
Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle v. Baltimore Police Department
Brief Of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brennan Center For Justice, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Freedomworks Foundation, National Association Of Criminal Defense Lawyers, And Rutherford Institute In Support Of Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Petition For Rehearing En Banc.
Argument: Rehearing en banc is necessary because the panel’s opinion contradicts two controlling Fourth Amendment principles. First, surveillance technologies that collect detailed records about people’s movements, like Baltimore’s Aerial Investigative Research (AIR) program, infringe on individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy. Second, the “special needs” exception to the warrant requirement does not apply where, as here, a police surveillance program serves only as a law enforcement investigatory tool. Rehearing is also warranted by the important technological and social aspects of this case. Baltimore’s AIR program comprehensively tracks the movements of a half-million people as they travel throughout the city, and it is integrated into the city’s vast surveillance camera and automated license plate reader (ALPR) networks. Other vendors are following AIR’s maker, Persistent Surveillance Systems (PSS), into this new market for advanced police aerial surveillance technologies. These police “eyes in the sky” chill free speech and assembly in public places, raising serious First Amendment concerns. This case also exemplifies the disparate burden of government surveillance borne by communities of color—a problem described as “the color of surveillance.” Police experiment with, and eventually deploy, intrusive technologies like the AIR program in cities with large communities of color. Before Baltimore, PSS operated surveillance flights above Compton, California; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dayton, Ohio. The company also seeks to conduct surveillance of St. Louis, Missouri. Further, authorities have routinely deployed aerial surveillance technologies against individuals participating in racial justice movements, like those protesting against the police killings of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Michael Brown in Ferguson, and Freddie Gray in Baltimore. The combination of these racial disparities and the novel surveillance technique at issue here thus justifies rehearing this case en banc. And the legal errors in the panel’s opinion require it.
State of Ohio v. Batista
Brief of Amici Curiae The Center for HIV Law and Policy, The American Academy of HIV Medicine, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality, Human Rights Campaign, The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, The National Center for Lesbian Rights, The Office of the Ohio Public Defender, and Treatment Action Group on Behalf of Appellant Orlando Batista.
Argument: R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) ("The Act") violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Equal protection forbids arbitrary, irrational classifications. The Act singles out people living with HIV for differential treatment. The Act cannot survive rational basis review. The Act's classification is arbitrary because it is over-inclusive. HIV-specific criminal laws are empirically proven to have no effect on the spread of HIV. Criminalization of nondisclosure is counterproductive. The absence of any rational basis for the Act suggests unlawful animus. The Act violates prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of disability.
State of Ohio v. Batista
Memorandum in Support of Jurisdiction of ACLU of Ohio Foundation, Inc., Center for HIV Law and Policy, Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Ohio Public Defender, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Center for Constitutional Rights, National Center for Lesbian Rights, Human Rights Campaign, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD), National LGBTQ Task Force, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, American Academy of HIUV Medicine, Treatment Action Group, Nueva Luz Urban Resource Center as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellant.
Argument: R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) violates the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Ohio Constitutions. R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) violates the Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment and of Section 11, Article I, Ohio Constitution. R.C. 2903.11(B)(1) violates prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of disability.