We argue that racial bias has no place in our jury system and the Colorado Supreme Court must remand this case for a new trial after a judge refused to excuse for cause a potential juror who made openly racist statements during jury selection.
See the full brief below:
In United States v. Hay, federal agents installed a utility pole–mounted video camera directly in front of Mr. Hay’s home, without a warrant, and surveilled Mr. Hay’s porch, front yard, and driveway for nearly ten weeks. Mr. Hay challenged this warrantless surveillance, arguing that this type of long-term constant video surveillance of a person’s home reveals highly sensitive information and constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. We agree.
Along with the National ACLU, ACLU of Kansas, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Brennan Center for Justice, and Center for Democracy and Technology, we filed an amicus brief urging the Tenth Circuit to hold that long-term, continuous pole camera surveillance of a person’s home and curtilage, when conducted without a warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment right to be secure in our homes against unreasonable searches. Our brief also argues that authorizing warrantless, prolonged pole camera surveillance of a home would disadvantage those who lack the resources to put up expensive fencing or otherwise block their homes from public view.
Unfortunately, the Tenth Circuit sided with the government, reasoning (incorrectly) that pole camera surveillance is not a Fourth Amendment search if the camera can only capture activity in public view.
See the full brief below:
In March of 2020, Deputy U.S. Marshals were executing an arrest warrant on a charge of assault with a dangerous weapon. As alleged in the lawsuit, the officers snuck up on Mr. Logsdon, kicked him in the face, and then stomped on him for two minutes. Mr. Logsdon sued to hold the officers liable, and the Eastern District of Oklahoma initially held that the case was similar to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which allowed plaintiffs to bring damages suits against federal officers for violations of constitutional rights. But Defendants moved the trial court to reconsider its decision, and the court reversed course, holding that that Mr. Logsdon’s claims arose in a “new context” that was distinct enough from the Bivens case to make a damages claim unavailable.
The ACLU of Colorado, along with the National ACLU, the ACLU of Oklahoma, the ACLU of Kansas, the ACLU of Wyoming, and the ACLU of New Mexico, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Tenth Circuit arguing that the district court got it right the first time--Mr. Logsdon should have been able to bring a claim against the federal officers who violated his Fourth Amendment rights. His complaint alleges facts that were not meaningfully different from the circumstances in Bivens itself, and a contrary ruling would undermine fundamental Fourth Amendment protections against the grossest abuses by federal officers.
On February 5, 2024, the Tenth Circuit held that Mr. Logsdon could not bring a claim against the officers who brutalized him. The court decided that this case arose in a "new context" from Bivens because the defendants here were U.S. Marshals (rather than the Federal Bureau of Narcotics as in Bivens), and that the U.S. Marshals Service’s grievance procedure and the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General’s investigation procedure were adequate alternative remedies. The Tenth Circuit’s decision will undoubtedly make it more difficult to hold federal officers liable when they violate constitutional rights in the future. But we will continue to fight.
See the full brief below:
