Showing 1 - 8 of 8 results
United States v. Martinez-Figueroa
The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones.
Argument: I am CJA counsel appointed by the Court to represent my client, Defendant Eddie MartinezFigueroa, who has been charged in a multi-defendant Indictment alleging a conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. I submit this Memorandum in support of the Defendant’s request for a Protective Order to compel the Government to provide discovery and particularization of those electronically recorded intercepts which allegedly involve him directly.
My client is 26 years old and by virtue of a prior drug conviction is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.
The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones. Through a seven month investigation involving the DEA, the New York State Police, the United States Attorney’s Office, and other law enforcement agencies, the Government employed video and personal surveillance, GPS tracking, monitoring of pen registers, and four separate Title III eavesdropping warrants, targeting four different cell phones and capturing both oral and texting communications.
Letter to Congress Outlining 6 Principles for Cybersecurity Legislation (April 2012)
... NACDL urges you to oppose any legislation that attempts to enhance our security by rendering our Fourth Amendment rights less secure. There are real cybersecurity threats before us, but they do not pose risks so great that we should cross all boundaries of constitutional restraint to seek protection from them. NACDL supports six principles that cybersecurity legislation should embrace to successfully enhance our security interests and protect the Fourth Amendment, and encourages you to amend or oppose any legislation that does not abide by these principles.
New Jersey v. Terres
Brief of Amici Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers—New Jersey.
Argument: Terres improperly extends precedent to permit a search inside a home upon a showing of an articulable suspicion that a third party inside of it poses a danger to those at the arrest scene outside of the home.
- Champion Article
From The President: Third-Party Doctrine in the Age of COVID-19
Although businesses and individuals were sharing information and data with third-party vendors long before the COVID-19 outbreak, use of remote work tools is sure to endure long after the outbreak passes, making privacy concerns even more important.
Carpenter v. United States
Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, The Constitution Project, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and National Association of Federal Defenders in Support of Petitioner.
Argument: There has been a dramatic increase in location data generated by cell phones, collected by third parties, and routinely obtained by law enforcement without a warrant. Cell Site Location Information (CSLI) paints a revealing portrait of a person's movements, presenting even greater privacy concerns than the GPS tracker at issue in Jones. The Third-Party Doctrine is "ill-suited to the digital age" and should not apply to CSLI.
United States v. Moalin
Brief of Amici Curiae Brennan Center for Justice, American Library Association, Electronic Privacy Information Center, Freedom to Read Foundation, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Ninth Circuit Federal and Community Defenders, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal.
Argument: The government is systematically collecting records of phone calls, text messages, e-mails, and other digital communications. Communications metadata is Fourth Amendment "Papers." Communications metadata is revealing, even in limited quantities. Metadata is especially revealing in aggregate. The third-party doctrine is ill-suited to the digital age. The "assumption of risk" equation has changes. The distinction between content and metadata is not sound.
Mohamud v. United States
Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Ninth Circuit Federal Public and Community Defenders, and Professor Erwin Chemerinsky in Support of Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.
Argument: The Court should grant the writ to clarify the appropriate standard for a sua sponte harmless error analysis. To safeguard the Sixth Amendment jury trial right, harmless error review must be carefully limited. The Court of Appeals' harmless error analysis ignored tis Court's limits and violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment jury trial right. The Court of Appeals' deeply flawed conclusion demonstrates the dangers of sua sponte harmless error review. The Ninth Circuit's affirmance of warrantless surveillance under § 702 contravenes this Court's jurisprudence and, left uncorrected, will eliminate vast swaths of core Fourth Amendment protection. The reach of the Fourth Amendment exception adopted by the Ninth Circuit is too great to survive constitutional scrutiny and conflicts with this Court's precedent. The Court of Appeals erroneously expanded the third-party doctrine. Review should be granted because § 702 implicates linked constitutional concerns involving the Fourth Amendment, First Amendment, and separation of powers. This is the correct—and perhaps only—vehicle to resolve these constitutional questions.
United States v. Ackerman
Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, Center for Democracy and Technology, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal
Argument: The district court’s opinion undermines widely recognized Fourth Amendment protections for email. The expectation of privacy in email is reasonable and well established. The ability of a third party service provider to access emails does not defeat the user’s reasonable expectation of privacy. An email provider’s terms of service should not defeat a user’s reasonable expectation of privacy in email. The district court’s holding that AOLs TOS extinguished defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy is inconsistent with established Fourth Amendment protections for email. Fourth Amendment protection should not depend on private agreements between email service providers and their users. Finding that contractual terms impact a user’s expectation of privacy against the government would lead to absurd results. A reasonable expectation of privacy does not end just because an account is terminated. Upholding the district court would reinstate the third-party doctrine for email and create a split of authority with the Sixth Circuit.