Showing 1 - 2 of 2 results
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.
Argument: 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.
Dahda v. United States
Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Petitioners.
Argument: Title III, including its territorial limitation, was expressly designed to limit intrusion and protect privacy. Title III's territorial limitation is an important component of the statute's restrictive framework. Congress imposed the "automatic" remedy of suppression to enforce the statute as a whole.