― Geofence Discovery Motion
― Motion to Seal Raw Data Returns Provided by Google
― Supplemental Brief on the Application of Brady and Rule 16 to a Suppression Hearing
― Defendant's Reply to Government's Supplemental Brief
Subpoena to Google
(OneZero) No matter how it is decided, United States v. Chatrie will likely spark other cases. If some succeed and are appealed, that would bump the issue up to the higher courts and maybe — especially if judges disagree — into a Supreme Court case that changes the law. A flurry of litigation might also convince lawmakers to pass federal legislation that either bans geofence warrants or spells out how they should be executed.
Defense challenges use of Google location data from everyone in vicinity of Hull Street Road bank robbery.
(Richmond Times-Dispatch) Chatrie’s lawyers with the federal public defender office and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argue in their suppression motion that Lauck 'should treat the geofence warrant here as any other general warrant: repugnant to the Constitution. Geofence warrants represent an unprecedented expansion of the government’s surveillance capabilities.'
(Lawfare) Unlike traditional warrants that identify a particular suspect in advance of a search, geofence warrants essentially allow the government to work backward. These warrants compel a technology company (so far, only Google) to disclose anonymized location records for any devices in a certain area during a specified time period.
(The Washington Post) Prosecutors called the case the first of its kind, though the issue has come up in other states, including New York, North Carolina, Florida and Minnesota. Experts expect that geofence warrants will be the next big Fourth Amendment battle in digital privacy.
(NBC News) As more police use such warrants, the method is raising concerns among privacy advocates, who say the government is gathering information from people in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches.
(International Business Times) Though geofencing warrants proved to be a powerful weapon for investigators, the practice has been criticised for its diluting effect on the Fourth Amendment right. That exactly is Chatrie’s defense.
An accused bank robber claims the police broke the law when they used Google location data to track him down. Privacy advocates agree.
(Insider) In theory, the geofence warrant attempts to take the idea of a physical crime scene and reimagine it for an internet-connected world. But that can lead to situations where innocent bystanders may have their personal information sucked up by police in wholesale ways that wouldn't have happened before the ubiquity of internet-connected smartphones.
Pre-Trial Suppression & Fourth Amendment Issues
This Trial Guide is a topical and practical handbook examining the nuts and bolts of the most current Fourth Amendment & Pre-Trial Suppression issues encountered in modern criminal cases.
Defense Counsel Playbook for Eyewitness ID Cases
This Trial Guide was written to help counsel use existing case law to its strongest advantage, and to create a framework for appellate challenges urging courts to adopt leading cases.
Ultimate Cross 2.0
This special CLE compilation program includes the highest-rated presentations on Cross-Examination techniques from NACDL's most recent seminars (2017-2019).
Forensic Sciences in Criminal Cases: A Multidiscipline Primer
In order to challenge forensic evidence, experts, reports and findings commonly encountered in the courtroom, an attorney must first have a basic understanding of the forensic issues that they will be confronting.
This is a sponsored ad
Manage Your Law Firm All in One Place