Car Searches and Fourth Amendment (Gant): NEW CASE
In July 2008 the ACLU of Arizona and the National Office joined on an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court in arguing that in a previous case the Court had effectively eliminated the warrant requirement for searches of a car. In U.S. v. Belton the Court allowed a search of the inside of a vehicle without a warrant despite the fact that the driver had been removed and was in the custody of the police and there was no indication of any danger to the police nor other emergency circumstance.

Racial Profiling and Unreasonable Seizures (Ortega Melendres v. Arpaio):
On July 16, 2008 the ACLU of Arizona and the Immigrants Rights Project, with MALDEF and the firm of Steptoe & Johnson, filed an amended Complaint with five individuals and Somos America as named plaintiffs seeking to end the widespread pattern and practice by  Sheriff Arpaio and the MCSO, and Maricopa County, of racially profiling Latino persons because of the color of their skin in an unconstitutional and counter productive policy of attempting to find persons who are not lawful residents. Class certification is being sought on behalf of all Latino persons in Maricopa County who are stopped, questioned or arrested by Sheriff’s officers while driving or sitting in a vehicle. Such persons are targeted regardless of their immigration status and without the requisite individualized suspicion or probable cause that they were involved in criminal activity.

Right to Vote and Felon Re-enfranchisement (Coronado):  
The ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU Voting Rights Project filed a lawsuit in February 2008 seeking to restore the voting rights of former felons in Arizona.  At issue is the state’s rights restoration process for former felons.  Under current state law, everyone who commits a felony is stripped of their civil rights, including the right to vote, serve on a jury and run for some public office.  They can’t restore those civil rights – even after being released from prison – unless they’ve paid all of their financial obligations to the state and their victims, including docket and filing fees, court costs, restitution, and costs of incarceration, as well as interest on these debts. The ACLU argues in its complaint that denying the right to vote based on one’s failure or inability to pay is the modern equivalent of a poll tax and violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The lawsuit asks that the right to vote not be limited by a person's financial ability, but does not seek to eliminate a defendants obligation to pay.

Death Penalty, Criminal Procedure & Due Process (Milke): UPDATE
In December 2007, the ACLU of Arizona filed an amicus brief (friend-of-the court) on behalf of Deborah Milke, who has been on death row for 18 years. The ACLU amicus brief focuses on questionable police practices, specifically the unreliability of confessions in the absence of a video record. Her case is currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on several trial-related issues and an argument is scheduled for August 20, 2008. In an unprecedented move, after argument the Court of Appeals stated that the case should now be “mediated” by the parties including the amici; it is difficult to predict what this will mean in a death penalty context.

Due Process & Expedited Removal (Uribe-Reyna):
At a hearing on August 16, 2007 before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, attorneys for the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project and the ACLU of Arizona asked the appeals court to overturn a lower court ruling allowing the deportation of Sylvia Haydee Uribe-Reyna, a Glendale woman with three U.S.-born children, who was deported to Mexico without a hearing.  Uribe-Reyna is married to a legal permanent resident and is eligible to apply for relief to stay in the United States. Uribe-Reyna has been living in the United States for 22 years.  Because of her long residency in the United States and her strong family ties, she is eligible to stay in the United States, but ICE removed her on an expedited basis with no opportunity to prove her 1eligibility. Without notifying Uribe-Reyna or her ACLU lawyers, ICE officials deported her in the middle of the night, just before her stay was issued, telling her that she “could call [her] attorney from Mexico.”  In April 2008, this case was settled on terms favorable to the plaintiff. As a result, in May the government rescinded the expedited removal order and agreed to provide a regular removal hearing and allow arguments for obtaining legal status based on plaintiff’s 20 years of residency in the United States with her citizen children and legal resident husband.   

First Amendment, Free Speech, & Anti War T-Shirt Ban (Frazier): UPDATE
On June 28, 2007, the ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dan Frazier.  Mr. Frazier is the operator of a website in Flagstaff that sells items with political messages including T-shirts that prominently state “BUSH LIED – THEY DIED” with the names of soldiers killed in Iraq in small print in the background. With Frazier clearly as the target the 2007 Arizona legislature had unanimously passed SB 1014.  This bill made it a crime for a person to use the names of deceased soldiers, without family permission, and allows family members of deceased soldiers a private right of action against the seller. A federal court judge issued a preliminary injunction on September 27, 2007, halting the enforcement of this statute. In a strongly worded opinion, the judge accepted the ACLU position that the anti-war message including the names of soldiers killed in Iraq, was clearly “political speech” on a matter of great public concern. In September. Judge Neil Wake granted Frazier’s motion for permanent relief in a successful end to the litigation.

Preemption, Due Process & Employer Sanctions (Valle Del Sol): UPDATE
After a Phoenix federal court issued a decision that would allow Arizona officials to begin enforcement of the “Legal Arizona Workers Act” on March 1, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) moved forward with an appeal to suspend the Act. The Arizona law requires employers to check the eligibility of all potential workers against E-Verify which is presently a voluntary, experimental and temporary federal database program with a high error rate.  The ACLU is asserting that the new law conflicts with and is preempted by federal law and violates the constitutional right to due process by failing to provide any meaningful opportunity to challenge its enforcement. The case was argued before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on June 12th, 2008 and in September the Circuit Court upheld the trial court; en banc review by the full Circuit Court is being sought.

Title IX & Violence Against Women (J.K. v. Arizona Board of Regents et al.)
This case was brought on behalf of a student at Arizona State University (“ASU”) who was raped in her dorm room by an ASU football player. ASU had previously expelled this student from its summer program because of his sexual harassment of other ASU female students and staff members.  The school arranged to re-admit him shortly thereafter for the fall semester, and failed to supervise him or take any other steps to protect women on campus from further harassment.  The defendants have argued to the court that ASU’s firsthand knowledge of this student athlete’s recent, repeated, egregious sexual harassment of women at ASU is irrelevant to a determination of ASU’s liability under Title IX, because this harassment did not involve the plaintiff.  The ACLU Women’s Rights Project and the ACLU of Arizona submitted an amicus brief to explain that a school can be liable for damages under Title IX if it was deliberately indifferent to harassment of which it was aware, including toward women other than the plaintiff.  The case is before Judge Murguia on summary judgment and a hearing is schedule on August 6, 2008.

Free Speech & Child Custody (Micnhimer)
In 2003, the Maricopa County Superior Court entered a Divorce Decree in a custody case that conditioned visits of the children with the father on his “not having an internet access account or any access to the internet in his home.”  There was no finding of child abuse of any type and the father is not a sex offender. On February 12, 2008, the ACLU of Arizona filed an amicus brief which focused on the First Amendment implications of the Decree. We argued that the Decree constitutes a broad prior restraint on the receipt of protected speech, and that it was unnecessarily broad given the limited governmental interest.  The brief noted that modern technology permits blocking objectionable internet sites for the times that the children are visiting. In May 2008, the trial judge agreed with our submission and amended the Decree to allow full access to the internet by the father and his partner, with some safeguards when the children visit.

Fourth Amendment & School Search -  (Redding v. Safford)
On August 10, 2008, an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the position of the ACLU of Arizona and the Drug Policy Project and by an 8-3 vote ruled that the intrusive strip search of a thirteen year old student violated her Fourth Amendment rights; by 6-5 the panel found that the school administrator should have known that this act was unconstitutional and is liable for money damages. Savanna Redding was strip searched by school officials as they looked for two Ibuprofen pills they suspected her of possessing. Their suspicion was based solely on the uncorroborated claim of another student who had been found with pills. There was no emergency or immediate need for such an intrusive search especially without informing the parents; nothing was found. As stated by Savanna, “I was embarrassed and scared”. This search was originally upheld in a 2-1 decision by a 9th Circuit panel.

First Amendment & Cave Creek Ordinance- (Lopez) UPDATE
On March 31, 2008, the ACLU of Arizona filed a federal court challenge to a Cave Creek anti-solicitation ordinance that prohibits communicating availability for work from public sidewalks to drivers, parked or traveling. The history of this ordinance demonstrates that it was specifically targeted at eliminating day laborers from the town and was based on a demonstrable anti-immigrant sentiment. At the town council meeting, Representative Russell Pearce (Mesa), Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Minutemen from San Diego amongst others spoke in favor. Similar ordinances have been found to be content based violations of First Amendment rights. Other localities in Arizona are contemplating passage of similar bills.  On June 2nd, 2008, federal judge Roslyn Silver granted our request for a Preliminary Injunction and enjoined enforcement of the Cave Creek anti-solicitation ordinance after finding that it is a content, based ban on protected expression. She noted that the concerns of the town were not legitimate and that Cave Creek was seeking to be made safe “from” any immigrant presence, citing the words of Rep. Russell Pearce before the Town Council as evidence. The result is an important victory for the rights of speech of all persons, and will deter other localities from adopting this tactic. In September upon stipulation a permanent injunction was entered and the ordinance was repealed by Cave Creek.

Due Process, Right to Counsel & Proposition 100 - (Lopez-Valenzuela)
On April 4, 2008, the ACLU of Arizona filed a federal court challenge to Proposition 100 and related state laws. These laws mark an unprecedented departure from bail provisions throughout the country by making state criminal defendants categorically ineligible for bail based solely on their alleged immigration status.  The law deprives thousands of persons of their freedom without an individualized determination as to whether pretrial detention is necessary to guard against flight risk or danger to the community. The lawsuit does not seek the release of any plaintiff, but calls for the same treatment as all other criminal defendants including the opportunity to appear before a state judge for a fair hearing with legal representation. A hearing on defendants' motions to dismiss and plaintiffs' request for class certification was held on July 23rd before federal Judge Susan Bolton.

Criminal Appeal & First Amendment – (Schipke)
The ACLU of Arizona filed an amicus brief before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that focused on the First Amendment implications of a federal court conviction (and four year sentence) for uttering words to the effect: “I promise that a bomb will fall on this post office.” It was known to the federal prosecutor and the court that the defendant was a troubled person, and there was no evidence of an ability to actually cause harm to the post office.

Racial Profiling & Criminal Appeal – (Sushone Calmese)
The ACLU of Arizona filed an amicus brief to the Arizona Supreme Court that focused on the racial aspects of a traffic stop and later canine search of an African-American woman.  This was done despite the absence of any indication that she had been involved in criminal activity. The brief utilized the data collected by DPS pursuant to the settlement of our racial profiling lawsuit. The conclusions of statistically significant differential treatment on the basis of race were reported in our study: Driving While Black or Brown, and echoed in the analyses done for DPS, and were submitted to sensitize the Supreme Court to these continuing behaviors by law enforcement.

Access to the Courts & Reverse Attorneys’ Fees – (Meyer Turken, et al.)
The ACLU of Arizona joined with other public interest organizations including the Center for Arizona Policy, the Institute for Justice and the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest, as amicus before the Arizona Superior Court in opposition to the attempt by the City of Phoenix to collect costs and attorneys’ fees from the losing party in a constitutional challenge to governmental action. Our concern was with this attempt at fee shifting and the resulting deterrence on public interest litigation if successful.  On June 9, 2008 a Maricopa County judge agreed and denied the claim.

Employment Retaliation & First Amendment – (Curbelo)
In May 2008, the ACLU of Arizona joined the ACLU of New Mexico as co-counsel in a federal lawsuit in Tucson against officials of the Border Patrol. The two plaintiffs are Border Patrol agents who were taken off enforcement duty and assigned to latrine duty and similar tasks shortly after they spoke out against the Border Patrol’s unlawful practice of  “shotgunning “ vehicles by stopping them without probable cause or individual suspicion.

Voting Rights (Friendly House):UPDATE
On August 29, 2007, Federal District Judge Silver granted the defendant's request for summary judgment on several of our claims in the voting rights case brought by the ACLU of Arizona and MALDEF seeking to overturn Prop 200's voting barriers.  We are going to trial on two of the most significant aspects of the case: the claim that these requirements impose an undue burden on the right of citizens to register and vote, and the claim that these requirements violate section two of the National Voting Rights Act, prohibiting any voting practice or procedure that has a discriminatory result. The trial on these claims was held in July 2008, resulting in a decision upholding the Prop 200 provisions.

Establishment of Religion and School Vouchers (Virgel Cain, et al.):
The ACLU of Arizona joined a coalition of parents and educators, including the Arizona Education Association and the Arizona School Boards Association, in filing the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the voucher programs, arguing they funnel much-need tax dollars away from public schools and to sectarian institutions.  On June 13, 2007, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the defendants. The ACLU and the education groups filed an appeal with the Arizona Court of Appeals and on May 15, 2008, in a landmark decision, the trial court was reversed. The Court of Appeals found that the voucher scheme violated the prohibition in the Arizona Constitution against appropriating public funds for private or sectarian schools. An petition for review by the Arizona Supreme Court has been submitted by the defendants.

Right to Privacy and Reproductive Freedom (Doe v. Arpaio): UPDATE
The ACLU of Arizona and the ACLU reproductive rights project challenged the policy of Sheriff Arpaio that denied women detainees the ability to obtain timely and safe abortions. At issue was an unwritten rule – set by the Sheriff – requiring pregnant inmates to first receive a court order before they can exercise their constitutional right to an abortion.    In August 2005, the state trial court ruled in our favor, citing the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which prohibits the government from placing an "undue burden" on a woman's right to an abortion.  Sheriff Arpaio appealed this decision and on January 23, 2007, a state appeals court upheld the decision of the trial judge.  The Arizona State Supreme Court declined to review.  The Sheriff then sought review by the United States Supreme Court.  We submitted a brief asking the court to deny this petition and in May 2008 the Supreme Court declined to hear this matter. A motion for contempt of the trial court judgment was filed in September after the Sheriff’s representatives failed to comply and unnecessarily delayed a needed abortion of a detainee.

Equal Protection and Racial Profiling (Arnold v. DPS):  UPDATE
The ACLU of Arizona joined with cooperating attorney Lee Phillips in pursuing a class action law suit challenging racial profiling by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). A federal magistrate approved a settlement of this lawsuit on July 28, 2007.  This settlement required the collection of data for every vehicle stop made by DPS.  A study based on this data, conducted by NAU faculty members, proved that a disproportionate number of motorists stopped and searched for "traffic infractions" on I-40 were racial minorities. In May 2008, the ACLU of AZ published the results of the NAU study in a report entitled Driving While Black or Brown.  The ACLU is now monitoring the implementation of the settlement by working with the Governor’s Traffic Stop Advisory Board and by continuing to review data collected from traffic stops. The ACLU of Arizona published a comprehensive report, with recommendations, analyzing the first year of data collected and concluding that there were significant racial disparities when the length of stops and the search rate after a stop were compared.

Due Process and Jail Conditions (Hart v. Arpaio): UPDATE
In 1977, the ACLU of Arizona began litigation to improve conditions of confinement and medical treatment for the class of all pre-trial detainees in the Maricopa County jail system.  A settlement was agreed to and judgment entered requiring significant changes in the operation of the jails in order to provide humane and constitutional treatment.  In 2001, the Sheriff’s Department sought to eliminate the previous judgment and end federal court oversight.  Trial has been set on the Sheriff’s request by Judge Neil Wake for August 12th, 2008 in federal court in Phoenix. Osborn Maledon and the ACLU National Prison Project are preparing expert witness testimony and detainee witnesses.  The ACLU of Arizona is analyzing hundreds of pages of received documents in preparation for the hearing.  After three weeks of hearings, with four expert witnesses and twenty-five detainee class members testifying for plaintiffs, Judge Wake stated that a decision would be made by the end of September. 

Establishment of Religion through Corporate Tax Credit (Christie A. Green, et al.): UPDATE
On September 18, 2006, The ACLU of Arizona filed a lawsuit on behalf of four parents whose children are enrolled in public schools challenging a state-run corporate tax credit program that gives businesses tax breaks for donating money to private, sectarian schools. At issue is the Corporate Tuition Tax Credit Act, which was enacted by the Arizona Legislature to allow businesses to “offset their taxes” by making cash donations to private “school tuition organizations.” During fiscal year 2006-2007, the Department of Revenue allocated $10 million in corporate tax credits primarily to support religiously-affiliated schools. Our concern is that this program diverts limited resources away from the public school system, exposes students to discrimination on the basis of religion and constitutes state sponsorship of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The denial of our claims by the trial court was argued before the state appellate court on September 17th by cooperating attorney Marvin Cohen.

Establishment of Religion through Individual Tax Credit (Winn):
The ACLU of Arizona filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s individual tax credit program, arguing that it unconstitutionally transfers public funds from state coffers to private, sectarian organizations. The Arizona Supreme Court upheld an individual tax credit in 1999 in Kotterman v. Killian.  The court’s decision was based primarily on the conclusion that the state was not “appropriating” public funds. After the above tax credit law was implemented and it was apparent that the primary beneficiaries were religious schools, the ACLU then filed the present lawsuit in federal court, arguing the individual tax credit program violates the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause by allowing state funds to support religious education. The federal case is currently before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which recently held oral arguments.