Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
See separate instructions.| (i) Name of supported organization |
(ii) EIN |
(iii) Type of organization (described on lines 1- 9 above or IRC section (see instructions)) |
(iv) Is the organization in col. (i) listed in your governing document? |
(v) Did you notify the organization in col. (i) of your support? |
(vi) Is the organization in col. (i) organized in the U.S.? |
(vii) Amount of support? |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | ||||
| Total | |||||||||
| Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in) | (a) 2006 | (b) 2007 | (c) 2008 | (d) 2009 | (e) 2010 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") .... | 309,652 | 790,854 | 2,136,291 | 538,196 | 833,327 | 4,608,320 |
| 2 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf....... | ||||||
| 3 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 4 | Total. Add lines 1 through 3.. | 309,652 | 790,854 | 2,136,291 | 538,196 | 833,327 | 4,608,320 |
| 5 | The portion of total contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f).. | 874,491 | |||||
| 6 | Public Support. Subtract line 5 from line 4. | 3,733,829 | |||||
| Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in) | (a) 2006 | (b) 2007 | (c) 2008 | (d) 2009 | (e) 2010 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | Amounts from line 4.. | 309,652 | 790,854 | 2,136,291 | 538,196 | 833,327 | 4,608,320 |
| 8 | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | 269,015 | 272,259 | 246,789 | 172,920 | 227,316 | 1,188,299 |
| 9 | Net income from unrelated business activities, whether or not the business is regularly carried on.. | ||||||
| 10 | Other income. (Explain in Part IV.) Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets.. | 277,304 | 213,107 | 56,250 | 384,289 | 307,591 | 1,238,541 |
| 11 | Total support (Add lines 7 through 10). | 7,035,160 | |||||






| Calendar year(or fiscal year beginning in) | (a) 2006 | (b) 2007 | (c) 2008 | (d) 2009 | (e) 2010 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Gifts, grants, contributions, and membership fees received. (Do not include any "unusual grants.") . | ||||||
| 2 | Gross receipts from admissions, merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose...... | ||||||
| 3 | Gross receipts from activities that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513.. | ||||||
| 4 | Tax revenues levied for the organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf... | ||||||
| 5 | The value of services or facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge.. | ||||||
| 6 | Total. Add lines 1 through 5. | ||||||
| 7a | Amounts included on lines 1, 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons... | ||||||
| b | Amounts included on lines 2 and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 7a and 7b.. | ||||||
| 8 | Public Support (Subtract line 7c from line 6.) | ||||||
| Calendar year (or fiscal year beginning in) | (a) 2006 | (b) 2007 | (c) 2008 | (d) 2009 | (e) 2010 | (f) Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | Amounts from line 6... | ||||||
| 10a | Gross income from interest, dividends, payments received on securities loans, rents, royalties and income from similar sources.. | ||||||
| b | Unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 taxes) from businesses acquired after June 30, 1975. | ||||||
| c | Add lines 10a and 10b. | ||||||
| 11 | Net income from unrelated business activities not included in line 10b, whether or not the business is regularly carried on. | ||||||
| 12 | Other income. Do not include gain or loss from the sale of capital assets (Explain in Part IV.) | ||||||
| 13 | Total support (Add lines 9, 10c, 11 and 12.). | ||||||




| Facts And Circumstances Test |
|---|
| Explanation |
|---|
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |
Attach to Form 990 or 990-EZ.| Identifier | Return Reference | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11 | THE 990 IS REVIEWED BY THE ORGANIZATION'S AUDIT COMMITTEE, AFTER WHICH IT IS DISTRIBUTED TO THE ORGANIZATION'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALL BEFORE IT IS FILED WITH THE IRS. THE FORM IS PREPARED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ORGANIZATION'S ACCOUNTING FIRM, AND IS REVIEWED IN DETAIL BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BEFORE SUBMISSION TO THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AND THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. | |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C | THE ORGANIZATION DELIVERS EITHER ELECTRONICALLY OR IN HARD COPY A COPY OF THE POLICY TO EACH BOARD MEMBER, OFFICER, VOLUNTEER BOARD COMMITTEE MEMBER AND EMPLOYEE OF THAT ENTITY AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS OR HER SERVICE. ALL COVERED PERSONS WILL BE REMINDED ANNUALLY AND IN WRITING OF THE POLICY ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 15TH OF EACH YEAR AND A COPY WILL BE FURNISHED TO EACH PERSON EITHER ELECTRONICALLY OR IN HARD COPY. EACH RECIPIENT MUST ACKNOWLEDGE HAVING RECEIVED, READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE POLICY. IF A RECIPIENT HAS A MATTER REQUIRING DISCLOSURE UNDER THIS POLICY AT THAT TIME, THE RECIPIENT SHALL DISCLOSE THAT MATTER. EACH COVERED PERSON IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE TO THE ORGANIZATION ANY PERSONAL INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO A TRANSACTION OR ACTION AS SOON AS S/HE BECOMES AWARE OF THE CONFLICT PREFERABLY PRIOR TO THE CONSIDERATION OF THE TRANSACTION OR ACTION. A FORM IS ALSO DISTRIBUTED TO EACH BOARD MEMBER ANNUALLY TO FACILITATE DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. | |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 | COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS AND KEY EMPLOYEES IS REVIEWED PERIODICALLY BY THE ORGANIZATION'S EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. THEY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LOCAL JOB MARKET AS WELL AS SALARY SURVEYS COMPILED BY THE NATIONAL ACLU OFFICE WHICH COMPARE COMPENSATION OF ALL ACLU AFFILIATE STAFF POSITIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AS WELL AS SURVEYS PREPARED BY OHIO NON-PROFIT ASSOCIATIONS. SALARY CHANGES FOR THESE EMPLOYEES ARE DOCUMENTED IN MEETING MINUTES AND/OR IN THE EMPLOYEE'S PERSONNEL FILE. | |
| FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 | THE ORGANIZATION'S BY-LAWS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND ANNUAL AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE MADE AVAILABLE ON THE ORGANIZATION'S WEBSITE, WWW.ACLUOHIO.ORG. PRINT COPIES ARE MADE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. | |
| CHANGES IN NET ASSETS OR FUND BALANCES: | FORM 990, PART XI, LINE 5: | NET UNREALIZED GAINS ON INVESTMENTS: 430,124. |
| FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C | THE AUDIT COMMITTEE'S DUTIES INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ORGANIZATION'S YEAR-END FINANCIAL STATEMENTS WITH THE INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT PRIOR TO PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND FINAL ISSUANCE, AND REVIEW OF THE DRAFT 990 PRIOR TO DISTRIBUTION TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND FILING WITH THE IRS. SELECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTING FIRM IS ALSO A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE. THE PROCESS HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE PRIOR YEAR. | |
| LIST OF CASES | FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4A | ACLU VS DEWEESE MATTER IN DISPUTE: CONTROVERSY EXISTS OVER THE DISPLAY OF A POSTER INSIDE A COURTROOM THAT ENDORSES A SPECIFIC RELIGION. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THIS IS A VIOLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SEPARATING CHURCH AND STATE. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. ADAM WALSH ACT (SB 10) SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION AND NOTIFICATION CASES PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: CHALLENGE TO OHIO'S SEX OFFENDER CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM, WHICH DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OFFENDERS' LIKELIHOOD TO RE-OFFEND AND APPLIES EVEN TO OFFENDERS WHOSE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ENDED BEFORE PASSAGE OF THE NEW LAW. WE ARE LITIGATING A NUMBER OF CASES ARISING UNDER THE ACT: STATE V. BODYKE MATTER IN DISPUTE: THIS COMPREHENSIVE CHALLENGE TO OHIO'S ADAM WALSH ACT IS DIRECT APPEAL IN THE SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS OF THREE CASES, CONSOLIDATED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. STATE V. NELSON -- AMICUS MATTER IN DISPUTE: THE COMMON PLEAS COURT IN STARK COUNTY CONSOLIDATED A LARGE NUMBER OF CASES RAISING AMONG THEM COMPREHENSIVE CHALLENGES TO THE ADAM WALSH ACT. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. IN RE D.S. -- AMICUS MATTER IN DISPUTE: IN JANUARY 2005, D.S. WAS ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT FOR THREE COUNTS OF RAPE AND COMMITTED TO THE OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES. IN AUGUST 2007, D.S. WAS CLASSIFIED AS A TIER III JUVENILE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRANT. HE APPEALED HIS CLASSIFICATION TO THE THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH AFFIRMED D.S.'S CLASSIFICATION. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. AMERICAN BOOKSELLERS FOUNDATION ET AL V. STRICKLAND MATTER IN DISPUTE: THE OHIO COMPUTER DECENCY ACT AND THE ONLINE CHILD PROTECTION ACT ARE VAGUE AND OVERBROAD. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS WOULD BE RESTRICTED, AS THIS LAW COULD AFFECT THE DISTRIBUTION OF MUCH OF WHAT IS CONSIDERED POP CULTURE. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. CHOJNACKI VS. CORDRAY MATTER IN DISPUTE: QUESTIONS EXIST ABOUT AN INDIGENT OFFENDER'S RIGHTS TO APPOINTED COUNSEL DURING A RECLASSIFICATION HEARING UNDER ADAM WALSH ACT. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THERE IS THE POTENTIAL FOR AN UNDUE BURDEN OF RETAINING COUNSEL ON INDIGENT OFFENDERS. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. CITY OF CLEVELAND V. ALVIN WILLIAMS MATTER IN DISPUTE: MR. WILLIAMS CONTENDS THAT CLEVELAND POLICE ARE ENGAGED IN A RACIALLY BIASED POLICING EFFORT IN THE WAREHOUSE DISTRICT. MR. WILLIAMS, AN AFRICAN-AMERICAN HAD BEEN ASKED TO LEAVE A CLUB BECAUSE HE DID NOT FIT THE DRESS CODE, THOUGH THERE WERE OTHER CAUCASIAN CUSTOMERS WITH THE SAME ATTIRE. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: AT ISSUE ARE QUESTIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE PROCESS. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. CITY OF COLUMBUS V. PHIL LETTEN (VIDEOTAPING POLICE) MATTER IN DISPUTE: MR. LETTEN CONTENDS THAT WHILE HE WAS FILMING AN ARREST WITH HIS CELL PHONE, POLICE APPROACHED HIM AND KNOCKED HIS CELL PHONE TO THE GROUND. POLICE THEN THREW HIM TO THE GROUND, ARRESTED HIM, AND HELD HIM FOR 17 HOURS. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS AND FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. CITY OF LYNDHURST V. SCOTT SILVER MATTER IN DISPUTE: A CITIZEN FACED FALSE CHARGES FOR OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, DUE TO RUDE GESTURES MADE TOWARD POLICE AT A CRIME SCENE. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTS COMMENTS AND GESTURES MADE AT POLICE, AS LONG AS THEY DON'T ACTUALLY PREVENT THE POLICE FROM DOING THEIR JOB. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. CITY OF TOLEDO V. ROST MATTER IN DISPUTE: PERSONS ADJUDICATED SEXUALLY ORIENTED OFFENDERS, HABITUAL SEXUAL OFFENDERS, AND SEXUAL PREDATORS ARE FORBIDDEN FROM RESIDING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL. THEY ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO REGISTER THEIR ADDRESS WITH THE COUNTY SHERIFF. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE CASE RAISES ISSUES OF SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. CLEVELAND TAXPAYERS FOR THE OHIO CONSTITUTION V. CITY OF CLEVELAND -- AMICUS MATTER IN DISPUTE: CLEVELAND'S DOMESTIC PARTNER REGISTRY WAS ARGUED TO BE A VIOLATION OF OHIO'S MARRIAGE AMENDMENT AND HOME RULE PROVISION. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE REGISTRY DOES NOT CONFER ANY SPECIAL OR ADDITIONAL RIGHTS TO THE REGISTRANTS AND AS SUCH IS NOT A VIOLATION OF OHIO LAW. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. DARRYL DURR V RICHARD CORDRAY, ET AL. (DURR II) MATTER IN DISPUTE: DEATH ROW INMATES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO APPEAL A DENIAL OF POST CONVICTION DNA TESTING WHILE NON-DEATH ROW INMATES ARE ALLOWED AN APPEAL OF RIGHT. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: LACK OF DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. DETERS V. SCHIFRIN MATTER IN DISPUTE: A GOSSIP COLUMNIST WHO TARGETS ATTORNEYS AND POLITICAL OFFICIALS FACES A LIBEL SUIT FOR COMMENTS MADE ABOUT AN ATTORNEY'S PERSONAL LIFE. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THIS SUIT DISCOURAGES PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF ALTERNATIVES VIEWS AND VIOLATES FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. IN RE CP (AMICUS) MATTER IN DISPUTE: THE PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF THE ADAM WALSH ACT TO JUVENILE OFFENDERS. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO APPLY THIS ACT TO CHILDREN, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO PLACING THEIR PHOTO AND INFORMATION ON A NATIONAL OFFENDER REGISTRY. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. IN RE: LUCY KATHLEEN MULLEN (AMICUS) MATTER IN DISPUTE: AT ISSUE IS WHETHER A SHARED CUSTODY AGREEMENT EXISTS DUE TO THE PARTIES' ACTIONS, THOUGH NOT FORMALLY MADE IN WRITING. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: TO ENCOURAGE A DECISION IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, AND TO PROTECT THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. JOHN DOE V. RONAN & OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION -- AMICUS MATTER IN DISPUTE: A PUBLIC SCHOOL EMPLOYEE IN GOOD STANDING WAS IMMEDIATELY FIRED AFTER A RETROACTIVE LAW REQUIRING A BACKGROUND CHECK WAS APPLIED TO HIM; IT PRODUCED ONE DRUG CHARGE HE HAD ON HIS RECORD FROM YEARS PRIOR. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS WAS VIOLATED BY THE IMMEDIATE TERMINATION THAT RESULTED FROM APPLYING THE RETROACTIVE LAW. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. FOUST V. HAUK MATTER IN DISPUTE: FOUST IS ON DEATH ROW IN OHIO AFTER BEING FOUND GUILTY IN 2002 OF COMMITTING AGGRAVATED MURDER, ATTEMPTED MURDER, RAPE, AGGRAVATED ARSON, AND OTHER OFFENSES. HIS CASE WENT THROUGH THE AVAILABLE PATHS IN OHIO COURTS TO NO AVAIL. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: FOUST IS ENTITLED TO A FULL ROUND OF REVIEW IN THE FEDERAL COURTS OF ALL FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES PROPERLY RAISED IN THE OHIO COURTS. THE PROCESS IS BY PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. HASSAN V. ISHEE -- AMICUS MATTER IN DISPUTE: SIDDIQUE HASAN WAS CONVICTED FOR HIS ALLEGED ROLE IN THE MURDER OF PRISON GUARD WILLIAM VALLANDINGHAM DURING THE LUCASVILLE PRISON RIOT IN 1993. IN APRIL 2003, HASAN FILED FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT. AS PART OF THAT LITIGATION, HIS ATTORNEYS FILED A MOTION TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY AND A MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON JANUARY 8, 2004. ON JUNE 14, 2004, U.S. DISTRICT COURT MAGISTRATE MERZ ISSUED A DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE MOTION FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: HASAN, IN FACT, WAS NOT THE KILLER, A CONTENTION SUPPORTED BY TESTIMONY IN TRIALS OF OTHER LUCASVILLE DEFENDANTS, BY AT LEAST EIGHT WITNESSES, AND VARIOUS AFFIDAVITS. IN ADDITION, THE SOLE EVIDENCE LINKING HASAN TO THE MURDER IS TESTIMONY BY ANOTHER INMATE WHO HAS SINCE RECANTED. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. KINDHEARTS FOR CHARITABLE HUMANITARIAN DEVELOPMENT, INC. V. PAULSON MATTER IN DISPUTE: THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROZE A CHARITY'S ASSETS WHILE IT INVESTIGATED WHETHER TO CHARGE IT WITH SUPPORT OF TERRORISTS. THE CHARITY HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CHARGES AGAINST IT ARE BOGUS. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: VIOLATION OF RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. MILLER V. WILKINSON MATTER IN DISPUTE: A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO WORSHIP THE ASATRU RELIGION. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: PRISONERS HAVE A RIGHT TO INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP WORSHIP UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. |
| PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF CINCINNATI V. TAFT MATTER IN DISPUTE: REGULATION OF MIFEPRISTONE, AN ABORTION-INDUCING MEDICATION. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE; VIOLATES WOMEN'S RIGHT TO BODILY INTEGRITY; IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT LACKS AN EXCEPTION TO PROTECT WOMEN'S LIFE OR HEALTH; AND IMPOSES AN UNDUE BURDEN ON WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE ABORTION. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. RAHMAN V. CHERTOFF MATTER IN DISPUTE: UNWARRANTED, PROTRACTED, AND HIGHLY PUNITIVE CITIZEN DETENTIONS WHEN RE-ENTERING THE UNITED STATES FROM OTHER COUNTRIES. THE BORDER DETENTIONS INCLUDE BODY SEARCHES, HANDCUFFING, SEIZURE OF PERSONAL AND BUSINESS RECORDS, BRANDISHED HANDGUNS BY AUTHORITIES AND OTHER EXCESSES. THE VICTIMS ARE PREDOMINANTLY MUSLIM AND/OR OF MIDDLE EASTERN OR SOUTH ASIAN DESCENT. THEY ARE ERRONEOUSLY FOUND ON THE GOVERNMENT'S TERRORIST SCREENING DATABASE, AND HAVE NO WAY OF DETERMINING THEIR STATUS OR CHALLENGING IT. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THESE DETENTIONS VIOLATE DUE PROCESS AND THE RIGHT TO BE FREE FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. SKATZES V. SMITH MATTER IN DISPUTE: THE UNRELIABILITY OF UNCORROBORATED INFORMANT TESTIMONY IS AT ISSUE, ESPECIALLY AS IT CONCERNS AN INFORMANT'S INCENTIVE OR SEPARATE AGENDA THAT PROMPTS THE TESTIMONY. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: ENSURING A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL TRIAL. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. STATE EX REL. BRIAN BARDWELL V. CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MATTER IN DISPUTE: THE DIRECTOR OF A LOCAL NON-PROFIT WAS SANCTIONED BY THE COURT FOR REQUESTING TOO MANY PUBLIC RECORDS. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST AND RECEIVE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ANY PUBLIC MEETINGS. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. STATE OF OHIO VS. DARRYL DURR MATTER IN DISPUTE: A DEATH ROW INMATE WAS DENIED THE RIGHT TO AUTOMATIC APPEAL FOR POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE PRISONER'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION ARE AT STAKE. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. STATE OF OHIO VS. ANTWAUN SMITH -- AMICUS MATTER IN DISPUTE: POLICE EXECUTED SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF A CELL PHONE'S CALL HISTORIES WITHOUT A WARRANT. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THIS IS A VIOLATION OF FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS AGAINST WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF PERSONAL INFORMATION. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. STATE V. GEORGE WILLIAMS (AMICUS) MATTER IN DISPUTE: THE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE ADAM WALSH ACT SHOULD BE PROHIBITED BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENSE, MEGAN'S LAW WAS IN EFFECT. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: APPLICATION OF THE ADAM WALSH ACT WOULD VIOLATE THE RETROACTIVITY CLAUSE OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE US CONSTITUTION. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. STATE V. DALEY MATTER IN DISPUTE: AT ISSUE IS WHETHER A DEFENDANT'S COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL CAN BE BASED SOLEY ON HIS EXTREME RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE DEFENDANT'S BELIEF IN HIS RELIGION ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. STATE OF OHIO VS. MAXWELL WHITE -- AMICUS MATTER IN DISPUTE: A CONVICTED CRIMINAL WAS RESENTENCED TO A HIGHER PUNISHMENT UNDER A RETROACTIVE LAW. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: A RETROACTIVE INCREASE IN PUNISHMENT IS A VIOLATION OF THE EX POST FACTO CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. STATE OF OHIO EX REL. TOLEDO BLADE V. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF HENRY COUNTY ET AL MATTER IN DISPUTE: A COUNTY COMMON PLEAS JUDGE ISSUED A GAG ORDER DURING A CRIMINAL TRIAL, OVER CONCERNS THAT MEDIA COVERAGE WOULD TAINT THE JURY. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE PUBLIC HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ACCESS AND ATTEND CRIMINAL TRIALS; A GAG ORDER CAN BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF LESS RESTRICTIVE MEANS ARE AVAILABLE. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. SUSAN B. ANTHONY LIST V. REP. DRIEHAUS, ET AL. MATTER IN DISPUTE: A PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATION MADE STATEMENTS ABOUT A POLITICAL CANDIDATE'S POSITION, WHICH WERE PROSECUTED BY THE OHIO ELECTIONS COMMISSION AS FALSE STATEMENTS. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE STATUTE AND PROCEDURE USED TO PROSECUTE FALSE STATEMENTS MADE AGAINST CANDIDATES FOR ELECTED OFFICE ARE VAGUE, OVERLY BROAD AND PROHIBIT PROTECTED FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. WARSHAK V. UNITED STATES MATTER IN DISPUTE: ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF EMAILS. PUBLIC/CIVIL LIBERTIES BENEFIT: THE STORED COMMUNICATIONS ACT VIOLATES THE FOURTH AMENDMENT BY ALLOWING SEIZURE OF CERTAIN E-MAILS WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE AND A WARRANT AND THE SCA WAS APPLIED WRONGLY. FEES SOUGHT AND RECOVERED: NONE AT THIS TIME. |
| Software ID: | |
| Software Version: |