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.

(Pre-Search Instructions and Post-Search Reasonableness)

A Report by NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Advocacy Committee Reporter, Steven R. Morrison

The Fourth Amendment has entered the digital age. New surveillance technologies and programs — from GPS tracking devices to automated license plate readers to bulk data collection — have upended traditional law enforcement practices and created new challenges for defense lawyers. This report offers an overview of this symposium and the substantive areas of concern related to new technological and legal changes that impact Fourth Amendment protections in criminal cases.

In response to a series of high-profile police killings of unarmed people of color, law enforcement agencies across the country began adopting body cameras as a solution to requests for more transparency and accountability. In order to study the impact of body cameras on the rights of the accused, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers established a Body Camera Task Force comprised of defense attorneys from across the country.

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.

If an image of a perpetrator exists on a cellphone camera, video surveillance, body camera footage or social media, law enforcement can use facial recognition software to attempt to identify the person in the photo. Defense attorney Kaitlin Jackson discusses the limitations of facial recognition, and she explains how to determine if police used facial recognition in a defendant’s case. Facial recognition software is difficult to challenge, but ways exist to attack its reliability.

Courts have long made it clear that agents can search the bags of people entering the country. For the past decade or so, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has applied that logic to digital devices. NACDL members are uniquely exposed to abuse in this context: digita

“Liberty’s Last Champion” 1660 L Street, NW, 12th Floor, Washington, DC 20036 Phone 202-872-8600 x223 Fax 202-872-8690 E-mail norman@nacdl.org www.nacdl.org Norman L. Reimer Executive Director National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers April 23, 2012 Dear Member of Congress, This week, Congress will vote on p

January 30, 2006 The Honorable Arlen Specter Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 The Honorable Patrick Leahy Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Senators Specter and Leahy: We represent organizations from across the politic

nsa_tps-DMS doc's summary

nsa_myths-DMS doc's summary

January 30, 2006 The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Member Committee on the Judiciary United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner a

RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 07a0253p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _________________ AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross-Appellants, v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, et al., Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Appellees

September 25, 2007 Senator Harry Reid Majority Leader United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dear Majority Leader: We, the undersigned privacy, civil liberties, government openness and faith-based organizations, write to ask you to insist on public hearings on any proposed legislation to alter the Foreign Intelligen