Log In | Contact Us| View Cart (0)
Browse: Collections Digital Content Subjects Creators Record Groups

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Records (WUA00355)

Overview

Scope and Contents

Administrative Information

Detailed Description

St. Louis Civil Liberties Committee Files

ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files

ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files

ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files

ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files

ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files

ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files

ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files

ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files



Contact us about this collection

American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Records (WUA00355), 1930-2015 | WUA University Archives

Printer-friendly Printer-friendly | Email Us Contact Us About This Collection

Collection Overview

Title: American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Records (WUA00355), 1930-2015Add to your cart.

Predominant Dates:1950-2000

ID: WUA/06/wua00355

Primary Creator: American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri (ACLU-EM)

Extent: 123.0 Linear Feet

Arrangement:

This collection is divided into series, further broken down into subseries, as described below:

Series 1: St. Louis Civil Liberties Committee Files, 1935 – 1967

Subseries 1: Office Files, 1953-1959.

Subseries 2: Office Files and Cases, 1947-1957

Subseries 3: General Files of the Chairman, 1960-1961 (circa), and 1963-1965.

Subseries 4: Miscellaneous.

Series 2: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1953 – 1981

Subseries 1: Office Files, 1953-1980

Subseries 2: Executive Director files

Subseries 3: ACLU/EM Privacy Project, 1976

Subseries 4: News clippings, 1967-1985.

Subseries 5: Membership and recruitment, 1967-1980

Subseries 6: Publications and pamphlets

Series 3: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1940 – 1991

[not split into subseries] Case files and Subject files, arranged alphabetically.

Series 4: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1959 – 1995

Subseries 1: Administrative and Subject Files (arranged alphabetically)

Subseries 2: Cases Files and Master Dockets (arranged alphabetically)

Series 5: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1960 – 2003

Subseries 01: Legal Cases (arranged alphabetically)

Subseries 02: Subject Files  (arranged alphabetically)

Subseries 03: Board of Director Files (arranged alphabetically)

Series 6: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1985 – 2005

Subseries 1: Subject Files (arranged alphabetically)

Subseries 2: Case files (arranged alphabetically)

Series 7: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1984 – 2008

Subseries 1: Legal Cases (arranged alphabetically)

Subseries 2: Subject Files (arranged alphabetically)

Series 8: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1994-2012

Subseries 1: Legal Cases (arranged alphabetically)

Series 9: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 2000-2015

Subseries 1: Legal Cases (arranged alphabetically)

Subseries 2: Subject Files (arranged alphabetically)

Subseries 3: Websites (all digital content)

Languages: English

Scope and Contents of the Materials

This collection contains the records of the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri (ACLU-MO).  Items in the collection include office files, promotional materials, memos, reports, financial documents, articles, conference materials, and other materials that document the history and operations of the organization, previously known as the St. Louis Civil Liberties Commitee (SLCLC) 1920 - 1968, and American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri (ACLU/EM), 1968 – 2013.

Each series in this collection corresponds to an accession (or transfer) of records. Significant overlap in topics and dates is found in each series.

Collection Historical Note

The national American Civil Liberties Union was formed in January 1920 largely through the efforts of Roger Baldwin, who began his career in St. Louis. 

Baldwin moved to St. Louis from Boston in the fall of 1906 to be the first director of Self Culture Hall, a neighborhood settlement house founded by the Ethical Culture Society.  In addition to this position, Baldwin gave the first course in sociology at Washington University.  Along with his involvement in urban reform; he served as secretary of the St. Louis Civic League, an organization of urban progressives, Baldwin counseled pacifism at the outbreak of the First World War in Europe.  "When I read of the British conscientious objectors in the war", he recalled, "I knew I was one of them."  In 1916 he joined the St. Louis affiliate of the American Union Against Militarism (AUAM) and in the spring of 1917 Baldwin resigned his position with the Civic League and moved to New York in order to donate his services to the AUAM national directing committee.

In May, 1917 Baldwin organized the Bureau for Conscientious Objectors as a sub-agency of the AUAM to advise objectors about legal technicalities and in other ways provide legal or economic assistance.  Due to ideological differences, Baldwin's organization broke away from the AUAM and became the National Civil Liberties Bureau (NCLB) an independent association, in 1917.  In the fall of 1918, just as the war was about to end, Baldwin went to prison for eight months for violating the draft law.  Following his release from prison in late 1919, Baldwin began a reorganization of the NCLB.  Taking a broader scope than before, he sought to serve those directly involved in the labor struggle and those  who stood on general principles for freedom of expression. Baldwin's efforts resulted in the organization of the American Civil Liberties Union in January, 1920.

The St. Louis Civil Liberties Committee (SLCLC) was formed May 7, 1920  when Roger Baldwin visited St. Louis and  oganized a “branch of the American Civil Liberties Union” with a small group of St. Louisans.  The SLCLC's 1936 constitution lists its purposes as: the furtherance of the cause of freedom of speech, writing, publication, assembly and thought by all legitimate means; the protection of the legal rights of individuals in respect to such instances as may be deemed worthy; the promotion or opposition of legislation and other official action bearing upon civil liberties; and cooperation to the fullest extent possible with the American Civil Liberties Union in such of its activities as meet with the approval of the SLCLC.

The StLCLC changed its name to the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri (ACLU/EM) in 1968.  In 1971 the position of Executive Director was created to head up the workings of the ACLU/EM.  The Board of Trustees conducts the affairs of the affiliate, and officers of the affiliate consisted of a President, Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer. 

On Oct. 1, 2013, the ACLU-EM became the ACLU of Missouri and has responsibility for the entire state.

Background material from:

Johnson, Donald.  The Challenge to American Freedoms (University of Kentucky Press, 1963)

Donohue, William A. The Politics of the American Civil Liberties Union.  (Transaction Books, 1985)

Lamson, Peggy. Roger Baldwin: Founder of the American Civil Liberties Union.  (Houghton Mifflin, 1976)

Administrative Information

Repository: WUA University Archives

Accruals: Accruals are filed at the end as additional series.

Access Restrictions:

Series 1, 2, and 3 are open to researchers without restriction.

*Series 4 and beyond have additional restrictions.

*Files are closed to use for 25 years (after their creation), except with written permission of the Executive Director, ACLU of Eastern Missouri. Researchers should contact the Archives staff for further information regarding this process.

Use Restrictions:

Users of the collection must read and agree to abide by the rules and procedures set forth in the Materials Use Policies.

Providing access to materials does not constitute permission to publish or otherwise authorize use. All publication not covered by fair use or other exceptions is restricted to those who have permission of the copyright holder, which may or may not be Washington University.

If you wish to publish or license Special Collections materials, please contact Special Collections to inquire about copyright status at (314) 935-5495 or spec@wumail.wustl.edu. (Publish means quotation in whole or in part in seminar or term papers, theses or dissertations, journal articles, monographs, books, digital forms, photographs, images, dramatic presentations, transcriptions, or any other form prepared for a limited or general public.)

Acquisition Method: This material was donated to the University Archives at various times.

Preferred Citation: [Item description]. From the [collection title, series, box, folder]. University Archives, Washington University in St. Louis.

Processing Information: Processed by Archives Staff; Updated by Miranda Rectenwald in 2007 and 2010. Series 7 processed by Lesley Zavediuk in Spring 2011. Finding aid updated by Meg Tuomala in November 2012. Series 8 processed by ACLU/EM staff in Summer 2013.

Finding Aid Revision History: This finding aid was entered into Archon by Hannah Barg in June 2012. Updated by Miranda Rectenwald in 2017. Updated by Sarah Schnuriger in February 2019.


Box and Folder Listing


Browse by Series:

[Series 1: St. Louis Civil Liberties Committee Files, 1935 - 1968],
[Series 2: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1953 - 1985],
[Series 3: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1940 - 1991],
[Series 4: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1959 - 1995],
[Series 5: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1960 - 2003],
[Series 6: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1985 - 2005],
[Series 7: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1984 - 2008],
[Series 8: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1994 - 2012],
[Series 9: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 2000 - 2015],
[All]

Series 9: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 2000 - 2015Add to your cart.
Arrangement: Arranged alphabetically
Use Restrictions: Series 9, Subseries 1 and 2 files closed for 25 years (after their creation), except with written permission of the Executive Director,
Sub-Series 1: Legal CasesAdd to your cart.
Box 1Add to your cart.
Folder 1: ADAM APPEL v CITY OF ST. LOUIS et al., 2005 - 2007Add to your cart.

Appel, et al. v. City of St. Louis, et al. Case No. 07-3110, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Case No. 4:05-cv-00772, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri.

Summary:  The ACLU filed a civil rights lawsuit in federal court on May 13, 2005, on behalf of protesters who were targeted by police just prior to their scheduled protest of the World Agricultural Forum meetings in May 2003.  In the week leading up to the protest, police had the home shared by a number of the protesters under overt surveillance and trailed individuals as they left the house.  Two days before the planned protest, police conducted a warrantless raid of the house on the guise of pursuing housing ordinance violations.  Police arrested those in the house on the housing violations, inappropriately searched the female residents, and conducted an extensive search of the home, including downloading information from files on computers in the house.  Police also confiscated numerous items of personal property, including personal address books, diaries, and journals, as well as bicycles (the only mode of transportation for many protesters), signs and items the individuals had made for the protest.  It was the belief that the scheduled raids were intended to chill the free speech activities of the protesters.  In December 2005, the court denied most of the Defendants' motion to dismiss.  On August 15, 2007, the district court ruled on the last major motion for summary judgment that, if granted, would have denied the clients relief without the benefit of a jury trial.  The court largely denied the motion, and the case proceeded on the most important issues raised by the complaint, including the claim that the Defendants violated the First Amendment. The case was appealed and the USCA issued an Opinion on May 12, 2008, affirming in part and reversing in part the district court order dated August 15, 2007.  The case was ultimately settled.  The components of the settlement included a payment to Plaintiffs, a letter from the Board of Police Commissioners to each Plaintiff, and payment of an amount of attorneys' fees and costs.  The case was dismissed on October 20, 2009 in accordance with the Stipulation of Prejudicial Dismissal by Plaintiffs.  Attorneys for Plaintiff Appel:  Anthony Rothert, Rory Ellinger, Sheila Greenbaum, Bill Quick and Gary Sarachan; Attorneys for Defendants:  Carl W. Yates, III and Denise L. Thomas.

Folder 2: ASHER V CARNAHAN - Docket and pleadings ( No. WD69256), 2008Add to your cart.

Timothy Asher, et al. v. Robin Carnahan. Cole County Circuit Court, Case No. 08AC-CC01047, Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Case No. WD69256.

Summary:    Tim Asher submitted a proposed Initiative Petition to amend Article I of the Missouri Constitution.  Three Plaintiffs filed Circuit Court Petitions for Declaratory Judgment and Permanent Injunction to amend the Missouri Constitution by adding Article I, Section 34, is unconstitutional, or, in the alternative, that the ballot summary for said Initiative Petition that was certified by the Missouri Secretary of State is unfair or insufficient.  Missouri statutes establish that the responsibility for preparing a summary statement of a proposed initiative petition lies solely with the Secretary of State, who must provide a "concise statement" that frames the question "using language neither intentionally argumentative nor likely to create prejudice either for or against the proposed measure."  section 116.334, RSMo.  In order to preserve and advance democratic values, the Secretary of State must ensure that the electorate is provided with a clear understanding of what it is asked to consider.  The purpose of a ballot title and summary statement "is to give interested persons notice of the subject of a proposed [law] to prevent deception through use of misleading titles."  The test is not whether the language utilized by the Secretary of State is the best language.  Instead, a court must judge whether the language fairly and impartially summarizes the purposes of the initiative.  The ACLU stated in its brief that the revision of the ballot summary by the Circuit Court in the present case was the first instance of such a revision occurring in Missouri.  The ACLU brief stated that the Circuit Court failed to reach the correct legal conclusion by modifying the Secretary of State's ballot language.  It further stated that the Circuit Court's language inaccurately characterized all affirmative action programs that stand to be affected by the initiative as preferential treatment.  It asked the court to find that the Circuit Court erroneously applied the law in modifying the ballot language as it was not "insufficient or unfair," and, accordingly, the Circuit Court should be reversed.  On August 8, 2008, the Missouri Court of Appeals issued its Opinion dismissing the appeal because, during the pendency of the appeal, the signature submission deadline for inclusion on the November 2008 ballot passed without the proponents of the initiative submitting any signatures to the Secretary.  Consequently, the initiative will not be on the November 2008 ballot and the issue is, therefore, moot. Attorney for Respondent Asher:  David Wasinger, James Cole, Jr.; Attorney for Respondent Isrealite:  Anthony Rothert and Arlene Zarembka; Attorney for Respondent Jones:  Anthony Rothert and Arlene Zarembka; Attorney for Appellant:  Heidi Vollet, John McManus.

Folder 3: ASHER V CARNAHAN -  ACLU Amici Curiae Brief (No. WD69256)Add to your cart.
Folder 4: ASHER V CARNAHAN -  Numberg Deposition and Crenshaw DepositionAdd to your cart.
Folder 5: ASHER V CARNAHAN - Docket and pleadings (No. 08AC-CC1012)Add to your cart.
Folder 6: ANDREA BECHTEL v STATE OF MISSOURI - Legal File (1 of 2), 2008 - 2009Add to your cart.

ANDREA BECHTEL v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES. STATE OF MISSOURI. Case No. 07-CC-02460 (St. Louis County Circuit Court); ED91260 (8th Circuit Court) and SC89416 (Missouri Supreme Court).

Summary:    Petitioner appealed from a 1/3/2008 judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, as amended April 16, 2008, finding that the Department of Social Services, State of Missouri, Respondent, properly denied Petitioner the benefit of personal care assistance because her mother was appointed as her guardian.  The Circuit Court found that section 208.900.1 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (Supp. 2005) does not violate the American with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the federal Medicaid Act.  The appeal challenges the validity of that statute.  Respondent stated that the Court should uphold Section 3-208.900, RSMo. as constitutional and affirm the decision of the Department of Health and Senior Services, Division of Senior and Disability.  Pursuant to the Missouri Supreme Court's Remand and Mandate of 2/2/2009, in favor of Petitioner, Respondent to reinstate Petitioner to the consumer-directed services level of care she was previously receiving, with benefits to begin immediately and to be retroactive to the date of termination. Amicus Curiae

Folder 7: ANDREA BECHTEL v STATE OF MISSOURI - Legal File (2 of 2)Add to your cart.
Folder 8: ANDREA BECHTEL v STATE OF MISSOURI - BriefsAdd to your cart.
Folder 9: CARTER v SHRIVER - Circuit Court Pleadings in 2006 case, 2004 - 2009Add to your cart.

Danny Carter v. Shivers, et al. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:07-cv-01258

Summary:    On July 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against former St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Ernest Shivers, II, and current St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department Officer Robert Lammert ("Officers"), as well as current and former members of the St. Louis Board of Police Commissioners ("Board").  Plaintiff named the Officers in their individual capacities and sued the Board members in their official capacities.  Plaintiff alleged that on September 12, 2004, he called 911 to report "harassment and damage to his personal property at the hands of the Officers".  Plaintiff obtained a video camera upon noticing the Officers "behind or in Plaintiff's detached garage."  As Plaintiff approached to investigate, Officers Shivers "who was lying in wait behind the garage," sprayed Plaintiff's face with mace or pepper spray without provocation.  The Officers then left the scene.  Plaintiff also alleged that Officer Shivers falsely reported the events of September 12, 2004 in his police report, resulting in the issuance of criminal charges and Plaintiff's subsequent arrest.  In addition, plaintiff claims that the Officers continued to engage in unspecified harassment of plaintiff for some period after September 12, 2004.  Plaintiff maintained that Officer Shivers' use of pepper spray constituted excessive force and that his arrest as a result of Officer Shivers' allegedly false police report violated rights guaranteed to plaintiff by the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Plaintiff maintained that the Board was vicariously liable for the allegedly unconstitutional actions of its "employees, agents or servants," the Officers.  The Officers claimed that they were trying to arrest plaintiff, but were unable to do so.  The City of St. Louis Circuit Attorney's Office issued charges against plaintiff for resisting arrest.  In 2005, plaintiff was arrested on an outstanding warrant for the resisting arrest charges stemming from the events of September 12, 2004.  Plaintiff posted bond and was released.  The parties advised the Court that the lawsuit had been settled, and the case was dismissed on December 7, 2009.  Attorney for Plaintiff: Anthony Rothert and Rodney Holmes. Attorneys for Defendants:  Christopher Quinn, Joshua Worthington and Maureen Beekley.

Folder 10: CARTER v SHRIVER -  Pleadings (1 of 2)Add to your cart.
Folder 11: CARTER v SHRIVER -  Pleadings (2 of 2)Add to your cart.
Folder 12: CARTER v SHRIVER -  DiscoveryAdd to your cart.
Folder 13: CARTER v SHRIVER -  Defendants' Exhibit ListAdd to your cart.
Folder 14: CARTER v SHRIVER -  DepositionsAdd to your cart.
Folder 15: CARTER v SHRIVER - Circuit Court Pleadings 2009Add to your cart.
Folder 16: CARTER v SHRIVER -  Settlement AgreementAdd to your cart.
Folder 17: CITY OF MOLINE ACRES v CHARLIE BRENNAN - Opinion and Mandate, 2012Add to your cart.

CITY OF MOLINE ACRES V. CHARLES W. BRENNAN, Case No. SC94085.

Summary:  On June 21, 2012, the City of Moline Acres, Missouri, enacted Ordinance 1084, which authorizes the installation and use of speed cameras in various locations on its streets "for the purpose of detecting violations of public safety on roadways." The Ordinance creates a duty for owners or lessees "to ensure that their motor vehicle at all times complies with the prescribed speed limit." The Ordinance deems it a violation of traffic laws if owners permit their motor vehicles "to be operated at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit where the violation is captured by a speed camera." Thus, the Ordinance imposes strict liability on the owner or lessee of the vehicle "without regard to whether the Owner was operating the motor vehicle at the time of the infraction."  After a vehicle has been photographed driving in excess of the posted speed limit, City police officers review the photographic and ownership records, and determine whether a notice of violation should issue. City's prosecutor will also review information that may be submitted by the vehicle's owner to determine whether specific circumstances excuse or justify a recorded violation of the Ordinance. The only sanction for an Ordinance violation is identified as a civil fine of $130. The Ordinance expressly provides that incarceration is not a permitted sanction, however, it is silent both as to whether City interprets a speed camera offense as a moving violation, and whether the offense is to be reported to the Missouri Department of Revenue for the assessment of points against a driver's record.  Those who wish to contest their violations, rather than pay the fine, receive a notice to appear in court which specifies a court date. The municipal court, or the circuit court in cases of de novo appeals, determines liability if a violation is contested. Those who do not pay the civil fine or fail to appear in court after receiving a notice to appear in court are sent a summons to appear in court.  The Ordinance provides that if an individual does not appear after being summoned, he or she shall be subject to prosecution for failing to appear in court.  Brennan received a Notice of Violation ("Notice") dated August 10, 2012. Thereafter, Brennan chose to contest the matter and filed in the circuit court a motion to certify his case for a jury trial.  On December 6, 2012, Brennan filed a motion to dismiss "the prosecution." In his motion, Brennan challenged the validity of the Ordinance and the Notice, arguing both were invalid. Specifically, Brennan asserted in his motion to dismiss that the Ordinance conflicts with State law because it "eschews" the State's mandatory laws concerning the assessment of points for speeding, and the Ordinance as well as the Notice violate Brennan's due process rights. After a hearing, the court found that the Ordinance conflicts with state law because it seeks to regulate speeding

Folder 18: CITY OF MOLINE ACRES v CHARLIE BRENNAN - Appellant's Brief and Amici Curiae BriefsAdd to your cart.
Folder 19: CITY OF MOLINE ACRES v CHARLIE BRENNAN - Attorney Notes, Research, ExhibitsAdd to your cart.
Folder 20: CITY OF PINE LAWN v BRAIN VALLEY- Deposition, 2007 - 2008Add to your cart.

CITY OF PINE LAWN, MISSOURI V. BRIAN VALLEY. Case No:  43373 in Municipal Court of City of Pine Lawn, Missouri.

Summary:  The City of Pine Lawn issued an ordinance with regard to "sagging" pants apparel.  On May 5, 2009, Attorney Rothert issued a Sunshine Law request for all documents relating to the above.  On November 12, 2007, the City passed Ordinance No. 2007-29 "An Ordinance Making it Unlawful to Wear Pants Below the Waist in Public." The arresting officer, Officer Matthew Meinen, was deposed on September 17, 2008.  The case was ultimately dismissed by Plaintiff. Attorneys for Plaintiff:  Anthony Gray, Attorneys for Defendant:  Anthony E. Rothert.

Folder 21: CITY OF PINE LAWN v BRAIN VALLEY- Discovery, 2007 - 2008Add to your cart.
Folder 22: JANE DOES et al v NIXON  - Appellant's Appendix  Legal File Volume 1 (1 of 3)Add to your cart.
JANE DOES I
Folder 23: JANE DOES et al v NIXON  - Appellant's Appendix  Legal File Volume 2 (2 of 3)Add to your cart.
Folder 24: JANE DOES et al v NIXON  - Appellant's Appendix  Legal File Volume 3 (3 of 3)Add to your cart.
Box 2Add to your cart.
Folder 1: JANE DOES et al v NIXON - Attorney NotesAdd to your cart.
Folder 2: JANE DOES et al v NIXON - Preliminary Injunction Hearing of 10/27/08Add to your cart.
Folder 3: JANE DOES et al v NIXON - Appellant's Separate Appendix - Volume 1Add to your cart.
Folder 4: JANE DOES et al v NIXON - Appellant's Separate Appendix - Volume 2Add to your cart.
Folder 5: JANE DOES et al v NIXON - Appellees' BriefsAdd to your cart.
Folder 6: JANE DOES et al v NIXON - Appellants' BriefsAdd to your cart.
Folder 7: JANE DOES v NIXON - Pleadings, US District CourtAdd to your cart.
Folder 8: JANE DOES v NIXON - CorrespondenceAdd to your cart.
Folder 9: JANE DOES v NIXON - PleadingsAdd to your cart.
Folder 10: JOHN DOE v NEER et al- U.S. District Court Pleadings - Case No. 4:07-cv-00101 (1 of 2), 2006 - 2009Add to your cart.

John Doe v. Tom Neer, et al. U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Case No. 05-4333-CV.

Summary:    Plaintiff, a resident of St. Charles County, Missouri, was convicted of sexual assault in New Jersey on December 11, 1981. Missouri law had required him to affirmatively register with the Sheriff of his county of residence every three months (Mo. Rev. Statute. section 589.400-589.425).  On June 30, 2006, the Supreme Court of Missouri unequivocally invalidated the registration requirements as applied to persons convicted prior to January 1, 1995.  Plaintiff's conviction was more than 13 years prior to January 1, 1995.  Plaintiff sought entry of a declaratory judgment finding the enforcement of, and threatened prosecution, as applied to Plaintiff, violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United Sates.  Plaintiff sought a temporary restraining order and a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting efforts to enforce the statute that was invalid as to him against him.  Defendant Keathley filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 29, 2008.  The case was dismissed on August 20, 2009. Attorney for Plaintiff: Anthony Rothert; Attorneys for Defendants:  Joann Leykam, Robert Hoeynck, Jr., Christopher Quinn and Michael Pritchett

Folder 11: JOHN DOE v NEER et al- U.S. District Court Pleadings - Case No. 4:03-cr-00310 (2 of 2), 2006 - 2009Add to your cart.
Folder 12: JOHN DOE v NEER et al- Correspondence, 2006 - 2009Add to your cart.
Folder 13: JOHN DOE v NEER et al -  Exhibits under Seal for Case No. 4:07-cv-00101, 2006 - 2009Add to your cart.
Folder 14: JOHN DOE v NEER et al - Research and Media articles, 2006 - 2009Add to your cart.
Folder 15: JOHN DOE v NEER et al - Missouri Revised Statute Section 589.400, 2006 - 2009Add to your cart.
Folder 16: Evans, Tyrone v. St. Louis Metropolitian Police Department - Correspondence, 2006Add to your cart.
Summary:  Sunshine Law Request.  On  June 26, 2006, Police Officer Carl Dotson, who was off duty, was sleeping at his residence and was awakened when the motion sensors installed at his home alerted him to movement in his rear yard and observed an unknown subject, later identified as Tyrone Evans, near the garage.  He dressed, retrieved his off-duty handgun, and responded to his rear yard to investigate.  He observed Tyrone Evans with three sections of copper guttering removed from his residence.  Dotson identified himself as a police officer, ordered Evan to the ground, and advised him he was under arrest.  Evans refused to comply and stated he would not be arrested.  He approached Officer Dotson, grabbed him by his shirt and attempted to gain control of the officer's weapon.  Officer Dotson fired a single shot striking Evans in the left leg.  He was admitted to the hospital in serious yet stable condition.  The ACLU made a Sunshine Request for copies of all documents involving the arrest.
Folder 17: Evans, Tyrone v. St. Louis Metropolitian Police Department - Discovery, 2006Add to your cart.
Folder 18: Evans, Tyrone v. St. Louis Metropolitian Police Department - Research, 2006Add to your cart.
Folder 19: Evans, Tyrone v. St. Louis Metropolitian Police Department - Legal Administrative, 2006Add to your cart.
Folder 20: GRIER v GRIER - Correspondence, 1984 - 1987Add to your cart.

S.E.G v. R.A.G (Grier v. Grier) Case No:  50751, in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

Summary:  Appellant (Wife) and Respondent (Husband) were married in 1973 and there were four children born of the marriage.  The parties separated June 1984.  Wife filed her original Petition for Dissolution on July 31, 1984, stating Husband was an admitted alcoholic, was physically abusive to Wife and committed adultery during the court of the marriage on a frequent basis.  Wife began a relationship with another woman in February 1985.  Both women claimed that they were lesbians.  On April 19, 1985, the Court entered a decree of dissolution, incorporating the terms of the Separation and Property Settlement Agreement.  In significant part, said Agreement gave Wife custody of the four minor children and title to the family residence.  On May 3, 1985, Husband moved the Court to grant an Order for a new trial, or in the alternative, to amend the Judgment of April 19, 1985.  At the conclusion of the new trial on July 19, 1986, a formal Judgment was entered awarding primary custody of the four minor children, the marital residence and the contents of the residence to the Husband.  Wife was awarded only the 1979 Datsun and her personal effects, but no maintenance, attorney's fees or costs.  Wife was granted restricted visitation rights.  Wife filed an appeal stating that the trial court failed to give proper weight to the respective financial circumstances of the parties, failed to consider the conduct of the parties during the marriage in making a division of the marital property, failed to award any maintenance or attorney's fees to Wife, and that the restrictions that were placed on Wife's visitation rights had no evidentiary basis.  After briefing, an Opinion was handed down on July 21, 1987, which affirmed the trial court's judgment. Attorney for Petitioner-Appellant:  Gale L. Toko;  Attorney for Respondent:  Prudence L. Fink; Amicus Curiae Brief filed by Thomas M. Blumenthal, Cooperating Attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (with assistance of Dr. Ann Dell Duncan, Ph.D., J.D.).

Biographical/Historical Note: Topics: child custody
Folder 21: GRIER v GRIER - Attorney NotesAdd to your cart.
Folder 22: GRIER v GRIER - Pleadings #CV184-547DRAdd to your cart.
Folder 23: GRIER v GRIER - PleadingsAdd to your cart.
Folder 24: GRIER v GRIER - BriefsAdd to your cart.
Folder 25: GRIER v GRIER - ResearchAdd to your cart.
Box 3Add to your cart.
Folder 1: IN THE INTEREST OF CW - Correspondence, 2003 - 2007Add to your cart.

IN THE INTEREST OF C.W., MALE, AGE 2 YEARS. Missouri Court of Appeals, District, Eastern Case No. ED87800. Supreme Court of Missouri, Case NO. SC88049.

Summary:  A parent's right to raise her child is one of the oldest fundamental liberty interests recognized by the United States Supreme Court.  Permanent termination of a parent/child relationship is an awesome exercise of power by the state, and strict and literal compliance with the applicable statutes is required.  Section 211.447 of the Missouri Revised Statutes allows a circuit court to terminate parental rights because, without assistance, a parent lacks the ability to care for the child.  The ACLU and Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law filed its Amici Curiae's brief to address the severe societal biases persons with mental disabilities historically face regarding their fitness to serve as parents and the widespread lack of understanding about what types of parenting services are effective of individuals with mental disabilities.  Appellant, appealed the trial courts termination of her parental rights to C.W.  C.W. was born June 19, 2003 with a cleft palate and micrognathia.  The Children's Division took custody of C.W. due to the medical complications and because his mother had significant clinical psychiatric diagnoses which would impair her ability to care for him, with the careful feedings that he needed and follow-ups with constant medical attention.  On February 3, 2006, the trial court terminated her parental rights to C.W.  The Eastern District Court of Appeals transferred this case to the Supreme Court because of the general interest and importance of the issue in regards to the preparation and  submission of the Investigation and Social Study prior to the filing of the petition in regards to the procedure set out in section 211.453.3.  The Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc, entered its decision on January 9, 2007, which stated that the circuit court erred in not ordering the investigation and social study after the filing of the petition as required by section 211.455.  The court further erred in finding that the juvenile officer satisfied its burden of establishing a ground for termination and that termination was in the best interest of C.W.  The Judgment was reversed, and the cause was remanded. Attorneys for Appellant:  Geoffrey L. Pratte; Attorney for Respondent:  Rebecca Shelton.

Biographical/Historical Note: Topics: child custody, disability rights, mental health
Folder 2: IN THE INTEREST OF CW - Missouri Court of Appeals Briefs, 2003 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 3: IN THE INTEREST OF CW - Record Transcript on Appeal, 2003 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 4: IN THE INTEREST OF CW - Supreme Court of Missouri Briefs and Opinion, 2003 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 5: IN THE INTEREST OF CW - Research, 2003 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 6: IN THE INTEREST OF S.C. - Amicus Brief, Research, Attorney Notes, Appellant's BriefAdd to your cart.

In the Interest of S.C. v. Juvenile Officer and Missouri Attorney General. Missouri Supreme Court, Case NO. SC95049.

Summary:  A juvenile adjudicated as guilty of first-degree attempted rape challenged the constitutional validity of a statute requiring registration as a sex offender for life.  S.C. was found guilty of one count of attempted rape in the first degree.  S.C. was ordered into the custody of the Division of Youth Services and ordered to register as a sex offender pursuant to section 211.425 RSMo.  In a unanimous decision written by Judge George W Draper III, the Supreme Court of Missouri dismissed the juvenile's claims without prejudice (so he is not precluded from refiling them later).  The Supreme Court stated that because the juvenile has not been required to register for his lifetime or register on the adult sex offender registry, his challenge was premature. Attorneys for S.C.:  Patricia Harrison, St. Louis University Law Clinic, and Jeffrey Estes;  Of the Public defender's Office in St. Louis; Attorney for the Juvenile Officer:  Laura Harrold.  Attorney General:  Deputy Solicitor General Jeremiah J. Morgan and Matthew J. Laudano; Amicus Brief:  American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri Foundation and Children's Law Center; attorneys Anthony E. Rothert, Andrew McNulty and Gillian R. Wilcox.

Folder 7: IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF CTP,  A MINOR - Pleadings and BriefAdd to your cart.

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF C.T.P., MINOR. Missouri Court of Appeals, No. wd77435.  K.L., Appellant vs. A.M. and R.M., Jr.,

Summary:  This case addressed whether section 452.375.5(5) RSMo permits a person asserting third-party custody rights to intervene as a matter of right in an adoption proceeding.  KL appealed the trial court's order and judgment which, based on standing, (I) dismissed KL's petition seeking a determination of third-party child custody rights, and (ii) denied KL's motion to intervene as a matter of right in a separate adoption proceeding.  KL and AP were a same-sex couple in a long-term relationship who decided to have a child together through donor insemination.  After AP gave birth to the child, KL left her job to care for the child, who was born with severe disabilities, and did so for over four years until the parties ended their relationship.  After the parties separated, AP married RM, who then sought to adopt the child as a stepfather.  KL sought to intervene in the stepparent adoption and filed a separate action seeking custody and visitation, which were consolidated and dismissed by the trial court.  The ACLU urged the Court to recognize the need to protect same-sex parents and their children, to reverse the trial court's order denying KL standing, and to remand the case for further litigation.  The ACLU stated that many children in Missouri are being raised by parents who have no biological or adoptive connections to them but who nevertheless function as their parents in every relevant way.  In its Opinion, the Court stated that the trial court's Judgment dismissed KL's child custody petition and denied KL's Motion to Intervene in the adoption proceeding.  However, the Judgment did not resolve the claims asserted by AM and RM in the Adoption Petition.  And, the Judgment did not resolve all issues as to all parties in the consolidated action.  Nor did the Judgment include a Rule 74.01(b) certification, the essential precursor to the Court's authority to entertain an interlocutory appeal.  Barring the applicability of another exception to the final judgment rule, the appeal was dismissed for want of a final judgment, and the trial court's denial of KL's Motion to Intervene as a matter of right in the adoption proceeding was affirmed. Respondents  - Amicus brief; Attorney for Appellant:  Gregory J. Minana; Attorney for Respondents:  Jonathan Sternberg; Amici Curiae Attorneys:  Anthony E. Rothert and Grant R. Doty.

Biographical/Historical Note: Topics: child custody, Lesbian rights
Folder 8: JONES v CARNAHAN - docket and pleadings (2-18-09)Add to your cart.
See also Timothy Asher, et al. v. Robin Carnahan. Cole County Circuit Court, Case No. 08AC-CC01047, Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Case No. WD69256.
Folder 9: JONES v CARNAHAN - docket and pleadings (2-15-10)Add to your cart.
See also Timothy Asher, et al. v. Robin Carnahan. Cole County Circuit Court, Case No. 08AC-CC01047, Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Case No. WD69256.
Folder 10: MCGRAW v MCGRAW - Pleadings, BriefAdd to your cart.

MELISSA MCGAW V. ANGELA MCGAW. Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, Case No:  WD77799.

Summary:  Melissa, Appellant, filed a motion in the circuit court "to determine parent-child relationship, custody, and visitation" with respect to two children to whom she is not biologically related.  The children were born at a time when Melissa was involved in a romantic relationship with the children's biological mother, Angela, Respondent.  Her motion alleged that she had participated in Angelia's decision to become pregnant with the children, and that Melissa had acted as a parent to the children, both before and after her relationship with Angela terminated.  The circuit court dismissed Melissa's motion without prejudice for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  Melissa appeals.  The Appeals Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the case. Attorneys for Appellant:  Elizabeth Ann Hodges-Williams, Rochelle Ann Kaskowitz; Attorneys for Respondent:  Kimberly Sue Humphrey;  Amicus Curiae

Biographical/Historical Note: Topics: child custody, Lesbian rights
Folder 11: State Of Missouri v. Covington, Dawson, Santoyo, Woldridge - Correspondence, 2002 - 2004Add to your cart.

STATE OF MISSOURI v. GEORGE COVINGTON, BRIAN DAWSON, MONICA DAWSON, JOSEPH SANTOYO, AND JEFFREY WOOLDRIDGE. Case Nos. CR302-0888MA12 (Covington); CR302-0900MA12 (Dawson); CR302-0878MA12 (Santoyo); CR302-0904-MA12 Woolridge).

Summary:  On March 13, 2002, undercover detectives visited Award Video store, located in Fenton, Missouri, as part of an investigation of sexual activities taking place there.  In 2002, the Prosecuting Attorney of Jefferson County filed an Information with the Associate Circuit Court in Jefferson County charging the defendants with Sexual Misconduct in the First Degree.  The charging document made no allegation that any of the sexual contact was without the consent of the participants.  On 11/29/2004, there was a stipulation with the prosecutor of certain facts contained in the police report to dispose of Count II of the information which charged defendants with sexual misconduct, second degree.  The Court found Dawson, Covington and Santoyo guilty based upon a filed stipulation, suspended the imposition of any sentence, and placed them on unsupervised probation for a period of two years.  Attorney Sindel reserved the right to challenge that probationary status, depending upon the decisions in the Monika Dawson Appeal (#ED85039).  Appellant's Application for Transfer to the Missouri Supreme Court was denied. Attorneys:  Richard H. Sindel (all Defendants); Denise Lieberman for ACLU/EM; Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Jefferson County, Missouri.

Folder 12: State Of Missouri v. Covington, Dawson, Santoyo, Woldridge - Research, 2002 - 2004Add to your cart.
Folder 13: State Of Missouri v. Covington, Dawson, Santoyo, Woldridge - Pleadings (various cases), 2002 - 2004Add to your cart.
Folder 14: State Of Missouri v. Covington, Dawson, Santoyo, Woldridge - Discovery Documents, 2002 - 2004Add to your cart.
Folder 15: State Of Missouri v. Covington, Dawson, Santoyo, Woldridge - Pleadings in Monika Dawson (ED85039), 2002 - 2004Add to your cart.
Folder 16: MOORE v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - pleadings, 2009 - 2010Add to your cart.

Michael Moore, et al. vs. City of St. Louis, Missouri. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:09-cv-02053.

Summary:    Plaintiffs filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief on December 16, 2009, against the City of St. Louis, Missouri.  Plaintiffs, on November 10, 2009, were involved in an effort to gather sufficient signatures on petitions to force a referendum of a St. Louis City ordinance providing about $400 million in tax-backed financing for a particular redevelopment plan.  Plaintiffs aimed to spread their message widely to persons who lived in or were found in certain areas by distributing handbills on the windshields of vehicles parked on city streets.  St. Louis City Revised Code section 11.18.180 ("the Code"), purported to make it illegal to "deposit any commercial or noncommercial handbill in or upon any vehicle without the owners' consent."  Plaintiffs contended that the Code impermissibly infringes upon their free speech rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and incorporated to the states and their municipalities by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that they feared being arrested and prosecuted for violations of the Code.  The parties entered into a Consent Judgment on February 4, 2010, stipulating to the following: (A) Enforcement of the Code could be interpreted as an infringement upon the First Amendment speech rights of Plaintiffs and other non-parties to this litigation, (B) Defendants will not enforce or threaten to enforce the Code, and (C) Defendants will take all necessary steps to ensure that the Code is removed from all individuals charged with enforcement of the Code. Attorney for Plaintiffs:  Anthony E. Rothert and Nathan Howard, Attorneys for Defendants:  Christine Hodzic and Daniel Emerson.

Folder 17: MOORE v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - CONFIDENTIAL, 2009 - 2010Add to your cart.
Folder 18: MOSLEY v CITY OF FRONTENAC, MO - Pleadings (District Court), 2006 - 2007Add to your cart.

Daniel J. Mosley v. City of Frontenac, Missouri. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Case No. 4:06-cv-01604. 

Summary:    On or about October 3, 2006, Daniel Mosley posted a political sign measuring three feet in height by five feet in length on his front lawn.  The sign read, "Claire McCaskill for U. S. Senate, A senator on our Side.  Paid for by McCaskill for Missouri."  On or about October 10, 2006, a representative from Defendant's Public Works department dropped off information advising residents of the content of defendant's former section 525.080 relating to political campaign signs, one of the reasons being that the sign exceeded the allowed size for political signs, two feet in height by three feet in length.  Mosley ultimately filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on November 2, 2006, and also an Application for temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction.  The court granted a Temporary Restraining Order on November 2, 2006.  A Stipulation for Dismissal was filed, the parties having reached a settlement, and the lawsuit was dismissed, with prejudice, on February 20, 2007. Attorney for Plaintiff:  Anthony E. Rothert, Attorneys for Defendants:  Paul Martin.

Biographical/Historical Note: Topics: political speech, free speech
Folder 19: MOSLEY v CITY OF FRONTENAC, MO - Correspondence and Ordinances, 2006 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 20: MOSLEY v CITY OF FRONTENAC, MO - Research, 2006 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 21: ORCHARD v CITY OF MINER, MO - Correspondence, Pleadings, Settlements, 2013Add to your cart.

Orchard, et al.  v. City of Miner, Missouri, et al. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern Division, No. 1:13-CV-185.

Summary:  In late September 2013, Brandalyn Orchard and Edward Gillespie, who are Missouri residents, were approached by a police officer and told they must leave the City of Miner, Missouri ("Town"). They were homeless and holding a sign reading "Traveling.  Anything helps. God Bless."  They were threatened with arrest under unconstitutional ordinances that prohibit vagrancy, loitering, begging, and even talking to the public upon any subject on the streets or sidewalks of the Town without written permission from the Board of the Trustees of the Town of Miner.  They respectfully asked if they were breaking any laws. The officer left and returned with highlighted copies of three purported ordinances against vagrancy, begging and loitering. He was later joined by another policeman who told the couple they would be arrested for violating the ordinances if they didn't leave Town in five minutes, so, fearing arrest, they complied, left Town, and didn't returned.  The ACLU of Missouri later learned that the southeast Missouri city has no such ordinances.  U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. entered a consent judgment in the American Civil Liberties Union of Missouri's challenge to the City of Miner's unconstitutional ordinances banning loitering, vagrancy and begging on October 14, 2014.  Plaintiffs were awarded damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Attorneys for Plaintiff:  Anthony E. Rothert, Grant R. Doty and Gillian R. Wilcox; Attorneys for Defendants:  Jacob D. Curtis, Robert J. Krehbiel.

Folder 22: PENCE et al v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - Ordinances, 2013Add to your cart.

Pence and Walker v. City of Saint Louis, Missouri. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri; Cause No. 4:13-cv-00871.

Summary:  This is a civil rights action filed by Nick Pence and Frederick Walker, both musicians who perform on public sidewalks, challenging the single-speaker pre-registration and approval scheme set forth in Chapter 20.55 of the City of St. Louis Revised Code and related policies and customs, including the restriction placed upon and fees charged to pre-approved speakers.  The ordinance required that a permit be obtained and displayed before any person may act, sign, mime, juggle, do magic, dance, or play a musical instrument or radio at public places within the City of St. Louis.  To secure a permit, an individual had to pay $100.00 for each calendar year, or portion of a calendar year, and survive an audition before an administrative assistant in the Street Department.  An Order was entered on May 28, 2013, granting the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.  On October 11, 2013, St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay signed a repeal of the regulations and the lawsuit was dismissed by all parties on December 13, 2013. Attorneys for Plaintiff:  Anthony E. Rothert and Grant R. Doty; Attorneys for Defendant:  Daniel J. Emerson and Timothy M. Sandefur.

Biographical/Historical Note: Topics: statute against street performers, also called busking
Folder 23: PENCE et al v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - research, 2013Add to your cart.
Folder 24: PENCE et al v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - Pleadings, 2013Add to your cart.
Box 4Add to your cart.
Folder 1: PENCE et al v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - Exhibits (1 of 2), 2013Add to your cart.
Folder 2: PENCE et al v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - Exhibits (2 of 2), 2013Add to your cart.
Folder 3: PENCE et al v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - Attorney Notes, 2013Add to your cart.
Folder 4: PENCE et al v CITY OF ST. LOUIS - Retainer agreements, Application for permit, Affidavits, 2013Add to your cart.
Folder 5: PHELPS-ROPER v HUMPREYS, et al - pleadings, 2006Add to your cart.
Shirley Phelps-Roper v. Humphreys, Jordan and Swingle. Case No.: 1:065-cv-00130
Folder 6: PHELPS-ROPER v HUMPREYS, et al - research, 2006Add to your cart.
Folder 7: JAMES PITTMAN v COOK PAPER RECYCLING CORP - Amicus Brief, Pleadings, 2014Add to your cart.

James Pittman  v. Cook Paper Recycling Corporation. Supreme Court of Missouri en banc, Case No. SC95403, Mo. Court of Appeals, Western District, Case No. WD77973, Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, Case No. 1316-CV2839.

Summary:  This is an appeal from the June 18, 2014 final Judgment/Order of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.  It involved review of the trial court's dismissal of Appellant James Pittman's sexual orientation discrimination / harassment claim arising under Missouri law.  Appellant filed his lawsuit against Respondent Cook Paper Recycling Corp. alleging sexual orientation discrimination and retaliation.  Cook Paper Filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On June 18, 2014, the trial court granted Cook Paper's Motion to Dismiss as to Appellant's sexual orientation discrimination/harassment claim (Count I) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  Plaintiff thereafter voluntarily dismissed the remaining (retaliation) claim in his Petition.  The appeal concerned the trial court's dismissal with prejudice of Appellant's sexual orientation discrimination/harassment claim.  The Supreme Court of Missouri stated that because the Missouri Human Rights Act does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, it affirmed the circuit court's judgment dismissing Pittman's petition for failure to state a claim.  Appellant's application to transfer the cause was denied by the Supreme Court of Missouri en banc. Attorneys for Appellant:  Lynne Jaben Bratcher, Marie L. Gockel; Attorneys for Respondent:  Patricia A. Konopka, Marc D. Goldstein; Attorneys for Amici Curiae:  Anthony E. Rothert, Grant R. Doty, Andrew McNulty, Gillian R. Wilcox.

Biographical/Historical Note: Topics: employment discrimination, gay rights, lesbian rights
Folder 8: JAMES PITTMAN v COOK PAPER RECYCLING CORP - ResearchAdd to your cart.
Folder 9: PUE-RUIZ v HOLDER - PleadingsAdd to your cart.

Jorge Angel Pue Ruiz v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., U.S. Attorney General. U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit Case No:  09-1296; 09-3629

Summary:  This case implicates the constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments that are afforded to immigrants in the context of civil removal proceedings.  Appellant Puc Ruiz was arrested by Saint Charles police officers without probable cause or a warrant.  The police officers refused to tell Appellant why he was being arrested and took Appellant to the local police station.  The police officers subsequently contacted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Appellant was interrogated by ICE agents over the phone.  Following Appellant's interrogation, he was transferred into ICE custody and was issued a Notice to Appear for a removal proceeding.  Appellant moved to suppress all information obtained by ICE during its investigation following Appellant's arrest because such information was obtained in violation of Appellant's due process rights.  The Immigration Judge denied Appellant's Motion to Suppress, holding Appellant was not entitled to suppression of the evidence as a result of the Saint Charles police department's misconduct.  This decision ignored ICE's reliance on flagrant due process violations, which violated Appellant's constitutional rights.  The case raised complex issues of first impression for the Court of Appeals regarding the constitutional protections afforded to immigrants.  On December 23, 2010, the Court dismissed the Petition for Review from the Denial of Voluntary Departure and denied the Petition for Review in all other respects in accordance with the opinion of this Court. Attorneys for Petitioner:  Anthony E. Rothert, Omar C. Jadwat, Lee Gelernt, Harini Raghupathi, Amany Regab Hacking, John J. Ammann and Laura Spencer, Rule 13 Law Student, St. Louis University School of Law Legal Clinic; Attorneys for Respondent:  Tony West, Melissa Neiman-Kelting and M. Jocelyn Lopez Wright.

Folder 10: PUE-RUIZ v HOLDER - BriefsAdd to your cart.
Folder 11: PUE-RUIZ v HOLDER - Certified Administrative Record (1 of 2)Add to your cart.
Folder 12: PUE-RUIZ v HOLDER - Certified Administrative Record (2 of 2)Add to your cart.
Folder 13: PUE-RUIZ v HOLDER - Certified Administrative Record (1 of 2)Add to your cart.
Folder 14: PUE-RUIZ v HOLDER - Certified Administrative Record (2 of 2)Add to your cart.
Folder 15: QANDAH v LOMBARDI - Correspondence, 2012Add to your cart.
Qandah v. Lombardi Case No:  2:12-cv-04213 (Western District Missouri).  Summary:  A class action Complaint for Prospective Relief was filed by Allaeddin Qandah and Samuel J. Howard against George Lombardi, Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections.  Both Plaintiffs were prisoners in the custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections at the time of filing.  On August 7, 2012, the State of Missouri amended Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution of 1945.  If enforced, the amendment will take from all prisoners the additional protection of religious liberty that Missouri's constitutions had provided to all persons.  Plaintiff's pled that Amendment 2 violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss stating Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies, and because there was no current case or controversy.  If not dismissed for failure to exhaust or for lack of standing, then Plaintiffs fail to state a claim for which relief can be granted under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  The Court granted Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the complaint for mootness or lack of ripeness and the complaint was dismissed. Attorneys:  Anthony E. Rothert and Grant Doty for Plaintiff. Attorneys:  Joanna L.W. Trachtenberg, Missouri Attorney General, for Defendant.
Folder 16: QANDAH v LOMBARDI - Pleadings, 2012Add to your cart.
Folder 17: QANDAH v LOMBARDI - Research, 2012Add to your cart.
Folder 18: QANDAH v LOMBARDI - Attorney Notes, 2012Add to your cart.
Folder 19: JANE ROE v CRAWFORD - Supreme Court of the United States Briefs and Docket Sheet, 2006-2008Add to your cart.

Summary:    This was a civil rights action challenging Defendants' denial of access to medical care to Plaintiff Jane Roe, a prisoner at the Women's Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center, and other similarly situated within the penal system, pursuant to a newly enacted Department regulation.  Plaintiff was at the beginning of the second trimester of her pregnancy.  She sought access to a local medical facility where she could obtain medical services to terminate her pregnancy.  Defendants refused to release and transport Plaintiff for this procedure even though Defendants provide access to outside health care providers for other prisoners in need of outpatient medical care.  As a result, Plaintiff could not obtain the medical services she needed to terminate her pregnancy.  Defendants violated Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment right to reproductive choice.  Moreover, by forcing Plaintiff to carry her unwanted pregnancy to term, Defendants evince deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth and fourteenth Amendments' proscription of cruel and unusual punishment.  The Court, on July 28, 2006, entered an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.  In conclusion, the Court said that Defendants' Policy violates both the Fourteenth and Eighth Amendments of the United States Constitution.  The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit entered Judgment on January 22, 2008, which concluded that although the district court erred in finding the policy was invalid under the Eighth Amendment, the policy could not be maintained under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of Turner (Turner v. Safely, 483 U.S. 78, 89091 [1987]) and the judgment of the district court was affirmed.  On May 27, 2008, attorneys for Petitioner filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.  The Petition was denied on October 6, 2008. Jane Roe v. Larry Crawford, et al. Supreme Court of the United States, Case No. 07-1491. Attorney for Petitioners: Thomas Blumenthal, Anthony Rothert, Diana Kasdan, Jennifer Nevins, Talcott Camp and Chaksul Patel. Attorneys for Respondents:  Michael Pritchett, Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Case No. 06-3108, Attorney for Appellee: Thomas Blumenthal, James Felakos, Diana Kasdan, Jennifer Nevins, Talcott Camp and Chaksul Patel. Attorneys for Appellants:  Michael Pritchett, Assistant Attorney General.

U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, Case No. 05-4333-CV, Attorney for Plaintiffs: Thomas Blumenthal, James Felakos, Diana Kasdan, Jennifer Nevins, Talcott Camp and Chaksul Patel. Attorneys for Defendants:  Michael Pritchett, Assistant Attorney General.

Folder 20: JANE ROE v CRAWFORD - Pleadings (1 of 2), 2006-2008Add to your cart.
Folder 21: JANE ROE v CRAWFORD - Pleadings (2 of 2), 2006-2008Add to your cart.
Folder 22: JANE ROE v CRAWFORD - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Partial Appendix, Part 1 (of 2), 2006-2008Add to your cart.
Folder 23: JANE ROE v CRAWFORD - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Partial Appendix, Part 2 (of 2), 2006-2008Add to your cart.
Folder 24: JANE ROE v CRAWFORD - Pleadings and briefs, 2006-2008Add to your cart.
Folder 25: JANE ROE v CRAWFORD - Pleadings, 2006-2008Add to your cart.
Folder 26: SHEAFFER v ADVENTURE OASIS WATER PARK - Pleadings , Picture, Attorney Notes, 2015Add to your cart.
MADELYN SHEAFFER V. ADVENTURE OASIS WATER PARK INDEPENDENCE, MISSOURI
Folder 27: SHEAFFER v ADVENTURE OASIS WATER PARK - Correspondence, 2015Add to your cart.
Box 5Add to your cart.
Folder 1: SHELTON v SUPERVISOR OF LIQUOR CONTROL - Pleadings, 2000 - 2001Add to your cart.

Daniel Shelton v. Supervisor of Liquor Control. Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, Case No. 00CV352459.

Summary:  Daniel Shelton was an importer and distributor of gourmet foreign beers.  This involved the state of Missouri's denial of three of his products on the grounds that the beers' labels were indecent, profane or obscene because they each contained some degree of nudity.  Petitioner filed a Complaint on October 19, 1999, challenging the letter of Respondent dated September 21, 1999, which denied label approvals for Gueuze, Gambrinus and Culottes wine stating that it violated 11 CSR 70-2.130(13)(A). Petitioner stated that the labels contained valid artistic, historical, literary and mythical value, and because they were not sexual in nature, they could not be allowed without putting the state in the position where it would have to accept any nudity or labels.  Simply because a valid work of art contains incidental nudity does not render it indecent, profane or obscene.  The Administrative Hearing Commission ("ACH") entered its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on October 10, 2000, stating that Shelton's application to distribute Gueuze, Gambrinus and Culottes wine did not violate 11 CSR 70-2.130(13)(A), as that regulation applied only to retailers.  Since Sheldon was not a retailer, the Court ordered the Supervisor to grant Shelton's application.  The Supervisor of Liquor Control filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the Circuit Court of Cole County, on November 9, 2000.  After briefs were filed, the Court, on May 2, 2001, entered an Order and Judgment affirming the AHC decision. Attorneys for Petitioner:  David Nelson and Denise Lieberman; Attorney for Respondent:  Da-Neil Cunningham, Assistant Attorney General (Missouri).

Folder 2: SHELTON v SUPERVISOR OF LIQUOR CONTROL - Correspondence, 2000 - 2001Add to your cart.
Folder 3: SHELTON v SUPERVISOR OF LIQUOR CONTROL - Media, 2000 - 2001Add to your cart.
Folder 4: SHELTON v SUPERVISOR OF LIQUOR CONTROL - Attorney File Notes, 2000 - 2001Add to your cart.
Folder 5: SHELTON v SUPERVISOR OF LIQUOR CONTROL - Research, 2000 - 2001Add to your cart.
Folder 6: SMITH v HON. WITT - Pleadings, Briefs and correspondence, 2008Add to your cart.

STATE, EX REL. CARL SMITH V. THE HONORABLE GARY WITT . Supreme Court of Missouri, Case No. SC90425 (Amici Curiae) No. SC90425 in the Supreme Court of Missouri

Summary:  The Petitioner, Carl Smith, an attorney who practiced law throughout Southwestern Missouri, was convicted of criminal contempt based on statements (consisting of two paragraphs) that he made in a brief in support of a Writ of Prohibition filed with the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District.  Smith represented a client in connection with numerous sex offense charges brought by the Wright County prosecutor.  Smith was served with a grand jury Subpoena directing his secretary to produce certain records.  Smith filed a Motion to Quash Subpoena and a Motion for Continuance.  The Motion to Quash was overruled, but Petitioner was granted 7 days to file a writ with the Court of Appeals, Southern District.  In accordance with Missouri procedural rules, Petitioner filed and served a copy of the writ upon Circuit Judge Carter, who was the Respondent in that Writ Petition.  On April 16, 2008, Judge Carter ordered Smith to show cause why he should not be held in contempt based upon the statements in the Writ Petition.  After the contempt proceeding before Platte County Circuit Judge Gary Witt, the state charged Petitioner with criminal contempt based solely on the two paragraphs of the Writ Petition.  Courts have consistently held that the First Amendment right to freedom of speech limits the rights of courts to exercise their contempt powers over lawyers.  Moreover, because of the critical First Amendment issues involved in this case and because direct appellate review is not available from a conviction of criminal contempt, it was critical that the Supreme Court take up and grant the writ of habeas corpus.  After a hearing, the jury found the Petitioner guilty of the charges, and the circuit court sentenced Petitioner to 120 days in jail on those charges. 

Amici Curiae, in its brief, stated that (1) the Trial Court erred in failing to apply the proper First Amendment Standards to Smith's Advocacy on behalf of a client, and (2) the Trial Court erred by imposing a punishment in the case that was excessive and an abuse of discretion.  The Missouri Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers also filed an Amicus Curiae Brief concluding that the Court should find that Section 476.110 RSMo. does not apply to Petitioner's speech as it was made in the form of a pleading to a higher court.  Petitioner was, in good faith, advocating his client's case.  Petitioner did not publish his client's allegations to a media source or to the public.  While, perhaps in artfully stated, the speech did not disrupt a judicial proceeding or present a clear and present danger to the authority of the court.  The Supreme Court, on May 11, 2010, concurred that Smith should be discharged because neither the judgment on contempt nor the order of commitment contained the necessary factual findings as to the essential elements required for prosecution for indirect criminal contempt of court.  Smith served approximately three weeks of his sentence before he was released pending the Writ. Attorneys:  Anthony E. Rothert, American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri; Attorneys:  Stephen Douglas Bonney, American Civil Liberties Union of Western Missouri

Folder 7: STEPHENS v PETERS - Appellate Court Docket Sheets and Opinion, 2005-2007Add to your cart.

Sydney Stephens, et al. v. Brandy M. Peters. St. Charles County Circuit Court, Case No. 07-FC00063. Supreme Court of Missouri, Case No. SC89933. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, Case No. ED 93765.

Summary:    Petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Paternity and Order of Custody and Visitation with the Circuit Court on January 5, 2007.  Respondent filed a cross-petition for declaration of paternity in which she stated that Petitioner was the child's father.  Both parties signed an Acknowledgement of Paternity with the Missouri Bureau of Vital Statistics on February 28, 2005.  During the pendency of the action, the parties submitted to DNA testing by order of the Court to determine whether Petitioner is the biological father of the child.  The results of the test showed there was 0% probability that Petitioner was the biological father of the child.  Following the results of the DNA test, Respondent amended her pleadings and filed a First Amended Cross-Petition for Declaration of Non-Paternity.  The exclusive vehicle for paternity adjudication in Missouri is the Uniform Parentage Act found in section210.817 through section 21l0.852 of the Revised Missouri Statutes. On May 1, 2008, Petitioner filed his Motion Challenging Chain of Custody, challenging the test results.  The man identified as the biological father of the child, Travis Noble, appeared as a third party respondent  acknowledging Petitioner's involvement with the child and declared that the only father she knew all of her life was not in fact her father, could be psychologically harmful to the child.  Judgment was entered December 29, 2008, as follows:  (1) Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment was denied, (2) Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment was sustained and the cause was dismissed as to Petitioner, (3) the Acknowledgement of Paternity should be rescinded and Petitioner's name should be removed as father from the birth record of child.  Petitioner/Appellant requested a declaration of non-paternity regarding Noble, but the trial court's Judgment did not rule with respect to the request for a declaration of non-paternity.  Noble filed a request for amended judgment, but said motion was never ruled upon and therefore was deemed to have been denied pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 78.06. The ACLU entered the matter when Petitioner appealed the Court's Judgment.  The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Circuit Court erred by failing to correctly interpret the Missouri Uniform Parentage Act to further the legislature's intent to protect the interest of children by encouraging the development and preservation of parental relationships with both of a child's parents as well as the stability that comes from an early and definitive legal determination of parenthood.  Amici agreed with Petitioner/Appellant that a mother who names a father in an acknowledgement of paternity should not be allowed to rescind that acknowledgement based on the results of genetic testing after several years had passed and a parental relationship between the man named and their child has developed.  Petitioner/Respondent argued that the acknowledgement of paternity made him a legal parent, because it was not withdrawn within 60 days and because Respondent had not shown fraud, duress or a material mistake of fact.  Respondent argued that the results of genetic testing showed that the Petitioner was not the biological father of the child, so his petition should be dismissed pursuant to section 210.834 RSMo.

The Supreme Court, on October 20, 2009, disposed of the matter without opinion, stating that the cause would be transferred to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, wherein jurisdiction was vested.  On April 6, 2010, the Eighth Circuit Opinion reversed and remanded the case stating that there was an insufficient record for review to entitle Mother to summary judgment as a matter of law.  The Court also concluded that Father's constitutional challenge to section 210.834 was not properly preserved for appellate review. Attorneys for Petitioners:  Charles Schroeder; Benicia Baker-Livorsi; Attorney for Respondent/Appellee:  Deborah Tomich, Jane Tomich; Attorney for Third Party Respondent:  Charles D. Sindell; Attorneys for ACLU:  John Knight and Anthony Rothert.

Biographical/Historical Note: Topics: child custody
Folder 8: STEPHENS v PETERS - Supreme Court Docket and two Briefs, 2005-2007Add to your cart.
Folder 9: STEPHENS v PETERS - ACLU Amici Curiae Brief, 2005-2007Add to your cart.
Folder 10: STEPHENS v PETERS - Legal File Vol 1, 2005-2007Add to your cart.
Folder 11: STEPHENS v PETERS - Legal File Vol 2, 2005-2007Add to your cart.
Folder 12: STEPHENS v PETERS - Legal File Vol 3, 2005-2007Add to your cart.
Folder 13: SUSMAN and ACLU v STATE OF MISSOURI - Pleadings, 1982-1992Add to your cart.

SUSMAN AND ACLU V. STATE OF MISSOURI and William L. Webster. Case No:  91-4429-CV-C-5, U.S. District Court, Western District of Missouri.

Summary:  Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment holding that section 484.150 RSMo. and Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4 (Missouri Supreme Court Rule 4) violate Article 6, Clause 2 of the Constitution and 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and 1988.  Plaintiffs also sought a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Missouri, Webster and their agents from enforcing the Rules.  In 1982 Susman was appointed to a case in the Eastern District of Missouri.  He acted as a volunteer cooperating attorney on behalf of ACLU clients in pursuit of their civil rights and liberties.  Upon commencing the appointment, Susman agreed with ACLU to divide equally all section 1988 fees remaining after repayment to ACLU of litigation expenses.  Plaintiffs stated that the Rules on their face expressly violated the prior decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  Plaintiffs ask the Court to act as they had no adequate remedy at law.  On June 1, 1992, Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment was granted. Attorneys Frank Susman and Donald L. Wolff for Plaintiff, William L. Webster for Defendants.

Folder 14: SUSMAN and ACLU v STATE OF MISSOURI - Correspondence, 1982-1992Add to your cart.
Folder 15: SUSMAN and ACLU v STATE OF MISSOURI - research ACLU v Miller (1 of 2), 1982-1992Add to your cart.
Folder 16: SUSMAN and ACLU v STATE OF MISSOURI - research ACLU v Miller (2 of 2), 1982-1992Add to your cart.
Sub-Series 2: Subject FilesAdd to your cart.
Box 5Add to your cart.
Folder 1: Clemency research and spy files project - FBI responses B. Garrett, 2006 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 2: Clemency research and spy files project - FBI responses C. Sheets, 2006 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 3: Clemency research and spy files project - FBI responses H. Epstein (1 of 2), 2006 - 2007Add to your cart.
Folder 4: Clemency research and spy files project - FBI responses H. Epstein (2 of 2), 2006 - 2007Add to your cart.
Sub-Series 3: Websites, 2000 - CurrentAdd to your cart.
Consists two ACLU-MO websites crawled in full and preserved with Archive-it. The archived website was crawled in early 2018 and is no longer active. The current website was first crawled in February 2018 and is being crawled on a regular bi-monthly schedule. Access to both sites is available online with full text searching through Archive-it.
Access Restriction: No restrictions to access
Physical Description: All digital content.
Use Restrictions: No restrictions on website content.
Folder 1: ACLU of Missouri legacy website, 2000 - 2017Add to your cart.
https://archive-it.org/collections/9933
Physical Description: Digital content only
Folder 2: ACLU of Missouri website, 2018 - currentAdd to your cart.
https://archive-it.org/collections/9933
Physical Description: Digital content only

Browse by Series:

[Series 1: St. Louis Civil Liberties Committee Files, 1935 - 1968],
[Series 2: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1953 - 1985],
[Series 3: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1940 - 1991],
[Series 4: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1959 - 1995],
[Series 5: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1960 - 2003],
[Series 6: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1985 - 2005],
[Series 7: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1984 - 2008],
[Series 8: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 1994 - 2012],
[Series 9: ACLU of Eastern Missouri Files, 2000 - 2015],
[All]


Page Generated in: 0.687 seconds (using 231 queries).
Using 11.48MB of memory. (Peak of 11.82MB.)

Powered by Archon Version 3.21 rev-3
Copyright ©2017 The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign