TCP filed an amicus brief in support of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Anderson v. United States, challenging the admission of illegally obtained evidence in the prosecution of a third party (in this case, the third party was the husband of the person upon whom a flagrantly unconstitutional body cavity search was conducted). The brief was authored with the assistance of Schnader law firm. Without a reversal of the Second Circuit’s opinion, the brief argues, defendants will be left “without recourse when government officials intentionally use egregious means to obtain evidence against them, simply because those egregious, indeed unconstitutional, methods are focused on other individuals (often, as here, those closely related to the actual target). More fundamentally, it sanctions the intentional subversion of constitutional protections in furtherance of law enforcement. This result is inconsistent with a long line of this Court’s decisions reaffirming the importance of constitutional protections to the entire judicial process.” The case is currently being reviewed by the Court.

TCP filed an amicus brief in support of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Anderson v. United States, challenging the admission of illegally obtained evidence in the prosecution of a third party (in this case, the third party was the husband of the person upon whom a flagrantly unconstitutional body cavity search was conducted). The brief was authored with the assistance of Schnader law firm. Without a reversal of the Second Circuit’s opinion, the brief argues, defendants will be left “without recourse when government officials intentionally use egregious means to obtain evidence against them, simply because those egregious, indeed unconstitutional, methods are focused on other individuals (often, as here, those closely related to the actual target). More fundamentally, it sanctions the intentional subversion of constitutional protections in furtherance of law enforcement. This result is inconsistent with a long line of this Court’s decisions reaffirming the importance of constitutional protections to the entire judicial process.” The case is currently being reviewed by the Court.