We support Mr. Meippen’s case, which argues that this ruling should apply retroactively to allow him and other juveniles given very long adult prison sentences without consideration of youth as a mitigating factor to argue for reduced sentences now.
We argue that this misuse of obstruction charges has a chilling effect on the exercise of individual rights in interactions with the police. We asked the court to limit interpretation of the statute in order to protect constitutional rights.
We explain that police departments that engage in this type of immigration enforcement violate both the federal Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and the Washington Constitution’s prohibition on warrantless arrests.
We argue that requirement of this specific form of analysis, when a State Constitutional right to privacy is asserted and claims have been supported, poses a substantial risk to privacy protections in Washington State
We argue that the police have a duty of care owed to the citizens they serve, including those with disabilities and those who speak languages other than English. Disallowing negligence claims against the police removes a key tool of deterrenc
In this case, the ACLU urged the Washington Supreme Court to allow juveniles and young adults to challenge the draconian adult sentences imposed on them, because youth has been recognized as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
In this case, the ACLU urged the Washington Supreme Court to allow juveniles and young adults to challenge the draconian adult sentences imposed on them, because youth has been recognized as a mitigating factor in sentencing.
The ACLU of Washington filed an amicus brief in this case arguing that Mr. Belcher’s continued indefinite civil commitment for sex offenses committed as a juvenile violate his due process rights.
We argue however, that in this case, the violent incident recorded falls within a bodily threat exception to the Act and that the recording could be used as evidence.

Pages