Police body-worn camera footage can be inconclusive at best and misleading at worst, and thus it is imperative that the defense community understand the key technical features of body-worn camera systems. For example, police body-worn cameras automatically save the 30 seconds of footage prior to the officer activating the camera. Moreover, other available data kept by camera systems could reveal which officers reviewed the footage and when, and who marked the video for deletion.

NACDL applauds the PCLOB for its premiere report on the telephone records program conducted under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). NACDL recognizes that the 702 surveillance program remains subject to more classification authorities than the 215 program, and understands that the PCLOB‘s report on the 702 program may be more limited in its public analysis than the 215 report. However, NACDL encourages the PCLOB, to the maximum extent consistent with national security, to make its report public, with limited redactions.

In the post-Dobbs landscape, states are criminalizing reproductive health in a variety of ways. Law enforcement will likely reach for digital surveillance tools in these cases and defenders will need to know how to counter that evidence. NACDL's Criminalization of Reproductive Health Taskforce and 4th Amendment Center researched categories of pregnancy criminalization, connected them to types of surveillance that law enforcement might use, and connected those to resources. Some tools show up several times on this page, which speaks to the omnipresence of these types of surveillance. 

Law enforcement agencies use facial recognition technology (FRT) to assist in identifying unknown people—suspects, victims, witnesses, and others—captured on video or in photos. It has become a widespread investigative tool, despite issues with reliability and inconsistencies in how it is used by law enforcement. The below document explains the technology in more detail and walks through some potential arguments for attorneys challenging facial recognition evidence in their cases. If you are looking for more information, or assistance with FRT in a case, contact us at 4ac@nacdl.org. 

Facial recognition technology, an identification tool that is widely used by law enforcement, is also sometimes promoted as a tool to exonerate the innocent or otherwise support criminal defense. This advisory provides a brief overview of the issues arising from law enforcement use of facial recognition and identifies various concerns that defense attorneys should take into consideration before using facial recognition tools.

This redacted motion is a useful example for attorneys working to suppress evidence from a facial recognition identification. As an alternative to suppression, the motion also requests a reliability hearing. 

This document provides a brief explaination of facial recognition and a list of things to request in disovery on facial recognition. If you file a motion using this information, please reach out to Clare Garvie (cgarvie@nacdl.org) for tracking purposes. 

This redacted affidavit from Clare Garvie, the Center's Training and Resource Counsel, describes due process and brady concerns with law enforcement use of facial recognition. 

ACLU, ACLU Flordia, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Georgetown Law's Center on Privacy and Technology and Innocence Project's Amicus on the facial recognition in Willie Allen Lynch v. State of Flordia (2019). 

Important Appellate Decision: Defense Entitled to Face Recognition Information

Attached is the testimony of Clare Garvie, Fourth Amendment Center Training and Resource Counsel, for the U.S. Commission on Human Rights' hearing on Civil Rights Implications of the Federal Use of Facial Recognition Technology. Her testimony highlights how the use of facial recognition technology in the criminal legal system intersects with the Commission’s mandate to inform civil rights policy, enhance enforcement of federal civil rights laws, and investigate discrimination in the administration of justice. 

Police departments across the country are increasing using predictive algorithms to decide where to patrol and who to investigate. These tools are also being used to create databases that label people as threats and feed them into the criminal legal system.

20^th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 18-20, 2021 | Held Virtually

State and local law enforcement agencies are employing dystopian technology like face recognition, drone cameras and predictive policing programs to investigate, charge and prosecute people. These powerful tools are criminalizing communities, often with little transparency of how they were acquired and how they are used. Learn how to uncover and confront these technologies at the state and local level.

NACDL's 19th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 17-19, 2020 | Held Virtually

Subject matter experts and litigators from NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center explain and discuss some of the important digital technology issues that defense counsel will very likely encounter in these cases. The faculty focus on reverse searches, facial recognition, and device searches.

Police departments across the country are starting to use facial recognition technology to identify suspects, and body camera manufacturers are working to incorporate the technology into their products. This emerging technology has many flaws, which render its results unreliable. Defenders need to understand the technology and its limitations, be aware of how it is being deployed, and know how to challenge its use in their cases.