NACDL's statement to the Presidential Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice regarding the need for more accountability and transparency in policing to effect meaningful, much-needed reforms.

Statement to members of the U.S. Senate regarding amendments addressing privacy concerns in the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 (H.R. 6172).

Coalition letter to California Assemblymember Ed Chau regarding disparities and discrimination, abuse, accuracy, information sharing, and other issues in the proposed bill AB 2261 on facial recognition technologies.

Letter to the Senate and House Judiciary Committees regarding the increased overcriminalization, enforcement, and surveillance of already-marginalized communities under pandemic protocols.

Over the past several years, the government has increasingly turned to hacking and malware as an investigative technique. The Federal Bureau of Investigation has begun deploying software designed to infiltrate and control, disable, or surveil a computer's use and activity. The ACLU created a guide, to which NACDL and EFF contributed, that sets out key legal arguments and strategies for challenging evidence seized by government-installed computer malware. [Released March 2017]

NACDL's Fourth Amendment Advocacy Committee carefully and comprehensively studied issues concerning the current United States Postal Service Mail Covers regime following the revelations in The New York Times investigative report in connection with the 2014 U.S. Postal Service audit of the program. The concerns raised by this program and its operation fall squarely within NACDL's long history of advocating for the vitality of Americans' privacy and Fourth Amendment rights -- in the courts, in the legislatures, in executive agencies, and in the public arena. [Released April 2015]

Presented by: Colin Fieman Assistant Federal Public Defender, Tacoma, WA; and Paul Ohm, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

This webinar was supported in part by Grant No. 2013-MU-BX-K014 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Coalition letter to members of the Senate urging more changes to the protection of American citizens before voting on the proposed USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 (H.R. 6172).

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to procedures in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of the Appellee.

Argument: The circuit court correctly concluded that the video recordings should have been suppressed because the State failed to follow minimization requirements. The Fourth Amendment prohibits the government from unreasonably intruding in citizens’ privacy. Here, the government recorded citizens over the course of several days in a day spa, where they had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The circuit court correctly found that the evidence should be suppressed here. Amici write to emphasize the unprecedented scope of the surveillance, as well as the importance of suppression here to protect the rights of both defendants and uncharged third parties. Traditionally, the remedy for an unconstitutional search would be suppression in a criminal trial. However, because some of the conduct surreptitiously recorded was perfectly legal, not everybody who was recorded has been charged with a crime. Furthermore, those third parties’ only recourse would be the possibility of a civil suit, which is costly. Indeed, suppression here is essentially the only way to deter the State from engaging in mass surveillance, knowing that many citizens would have little to no recourse. Any other result would encourage an “ends justify the means” approach that this Court has cautioned against.

Dozens of public and private entities – including police departments and small towns – have received authorization to fly drones domestically. Drones can do a lot more than take pictures. They can be outfitted with thermal devices, license plate readers, and laser radar. There is a need for legislation to protect the privacy rights of people.

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.

The Board of Directors adopts the model legislation