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.
When government employees of two different agencies share documents, they cannot shield the documents from public disclosure unless the narrow and strict requirements for “common interest” work product privilege are met
Racial biases in jury deliberations violate a defendant’s right to a fair trial and undermine the fair and impartial administration of the criminal justice system.
We argue that the Washington cyberstalking statute, RCW 9.61.260(1)(b), is unconstitutional. The brief explains how the statute is overbroad and chills protected speech.
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.

Pages