Which of the following is not a case for which the aclu filed an amicus brief?

RAPIDES PARISH, La. (ACLU/KALB) - The ACLU of Louisiana, Cato Institute, and Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression have filed an amicus brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit against the Rapides Parish Sheriff’s Office for violating Waylon Bailey’s free speech rights after he made a joke on Facebook comparing the COVID-19 pandemic to a zombie apocalypse.

Following the Facebook post, the sheriff’s office assigned a detective to the case who showed up to Bailey’s home with a SWAT team to arrest him for his joke.

“It is absurd that a law enforcement agency believes it has the power to show up to someone’s doorstep and arrest them for a joke they made on the internet,” said ACLU of Louisiana Legal Director Nora Ahmed. “It’s not a crime to make a joke on the internet. And it can’t be, because the First Amendment protects speech in cyberspace just as much as in physical spaces. But overzealous local officials don’t always honor that constitutional guarantee, rendering the grant of qualified immunity by the lower court here erroneous.”

During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Bailey saw a friend make a coronavirus joke on Facebook, and then posted one himself. He compared the COVID-19 situation to a zombie apocalypse, joking that the local sheriff’s office would soon be shooting “the infected.”

RPSO later came to Bailey’s home and arrested him, claiming his joke violated a state anti-terrorism law. However, when presented with the allegations, the district attorney dropped the case.

When Bailey brought a civil rights lawsuit, the sheriff and detective responsible for Bailey’s arrest were granted qualified immunity. The court also said that Bailey didn’t have any free speech rights to make a joke in the first place, relying on World War I-era cases about opposing the draft during wartime.

The appeal and amicus brief in support, filed in Bailey v. Iles, seek to overturn the lower court’s ruling.

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Technology Law & Policy Clinic Partners with ACLU on Amicus Brief That Maps the Limits of Law Enforcement’s Ability To Search Digital Devices

This post is part of a series exploring the Clinic's work during the 2020-21 year

Student attorneys in NYU’s Technology Law & Policy (TLP) Clinic partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to prepare an amicus brief filed in March 2021 in the Illinois Supreme Court in the case Illinois v. McCavitt. The brief addresses novel Fourth Amendment questions and demarcates the limits of government law enforcement officials to search someone’s digital devices.

In July 2013, Illinois State Police obtained a search warrant to search the home and computer of John McCavitt, an officer in the Peoria Police Department. The warrant permitted police to search McCavitt’s computer for evidence of three specific crimes. Following the search, prosecutors took those charges to trial, and the jury found McCavitt not guilty of all charges. Just one day after McCavitt’s acquittal, a different state law enforcement agency, the Peoria Police Department, initiated an internal investigation into McCavitt. Without any new warrant, the Peoria P.D. obtained and searched through a complete copy of McCavitt’s entire hard drive. That search uncovered evidence that led to McCavitt being charged for crimes unrelated to those specified in the original search warrant.
 
Under the supervision of Brett Max Kaufman, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU and Adjunct Professor in the TLP Clinic, and working with Jennifer Granick, Surveillance & Cybersecurity Counsel for the ACLU, student attorneys in the Technology Law & Policy clinic worked in the Fall 2020 semester to draft an amicus brief on behalf of the ACLU and its local affiliate in Illinois in support of McCavitt. Santana Jackson (’21) was among the student attorneys who contributed to the brief.

The brief argued that the evidence used to charge McCavitt in his pending prosecution was gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment and should be suppressed. The brief explains that people hold a protected privacy interest not only in their devices but also in the data on their devices—including any copies of those devices’ hard drives—and that the government cannot legally “fish” through an already-searched digital device for new evidence of new crimes without properly obtaining a new warrant, when the new crimes were not described in the original search warrant.

The case is Illinois v. McCavitt, No. 125550. The Illinois Supreme Court held oral argument on May 11, 2021. The case has not yet been decided, as of writing. For more information, see the ACLU’s webpage.

“Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.”

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo in Palko v. Connecticut

Freedom of speech, the press, association, assembly, and petition: This set of guarantees, protected by the First Amendment, comprises what we refer to as freedom of expression. It is the foundation of a vibrant democracy, and without it, other fundamental rights, like the right to vote, would wither away.

The fight for freedom of speech has been a bedrock of the ACLU’s mission since the organization was founded in 1920, driven by the need to protect the constitutional rights of conscientious objectors and anti-war protesters. The organization’s work quickly spread to combating censorship, securing the right to assembly, and promoting free speech in schools.

Almost a century later, these battles have taken on new forms, but they persist. The ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project continues to champion freedom of expression in its myriad forms — whether through protest, media, online speech, or the arts — in the face of new threats. For example, new avenues for censorship have arisen alongside the wealth of opportunities for speech afforded by the Internet. The threat of mass government surveillance chills the free expression of ordinary citizens, legislators routinely attempt to place new restrictions on online activity, and journalism is criminalized in the name of national security. The ACLU is always on guard to ensure that the First Amendment’s protections remain robust — in times of war or peace, for bloggers or the institutional press, online or off.

Over the years, the ACLU has represented or defended individuals engaged in some truly offensive speech. We have defended the speech rights of communists, Nazis, Ku Klux Klan members, accused terrorists, pornographers, anti-LGBT activists, and flag burners. That’s because the defense of freedom of speech is most necessary when the message is one most people find repulsive. Constitutional rights must apply to even the most unpopular groups if they’re going to be preserved for everyone.

Which of the following statements is true of the due process model of criminal procedure quizlet?

Who selects the final nominee for the Supreme Court quizlet?