United States v. Lambus, et al.

Brief for Amici Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendants-Appellees. 

Brief filed: 11/08/2017


United States v. Lambus, et al.

2nd Circuit Court of Appeals; Case No. 16-4296

Prior Decision

Decisions below 221 F.Supp.3d 319 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 22, 2016) and 251 F.Supp.3d 470 (E.D.N.Y. May 4, 2017).


The GPS monitoring required a warrant. New York parolees have privacy rights. New York parolees' privacy rights are violated when they are subject to warrantless searches for general law enforcement and not parole purposes. The warrantless GPS tracking here violated Lambus' privacy rights. A reversal would have disastrous policy implications. The district court properly suppressed the wiretap evidence. Franks requires suppression of the wiretap evidence. Franks should be read to be consistent with Title III. Franks  requires suppression of the knowing violation found here. A district court has the inherent authority to suppress unlawfully gathered evidence in order to maintain the integrity of its own proceedings.

Featured Products


Michael C. Miller, Jeffrey Novack, Meghan Newcomer, and David Hirsch, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York, NY; Lindsay A. Lewis, NACDL, New York, NY.