NACDL’s top line recommendation on data-driven policing tools is that police departments must not utilize data-driven policing technologies because they are ineffective; lack scientific validity; create, replicate and exacerbate “self-perpetuating cycles of bias”; hyper-criminalize individuals, families, and communities of color; and divert resources and funds from communities that should be allocated towards social services and community-led public safety initiatives.

Below are NACDL's comments on Executive Order 14074 on Advancing Effective, Accountable Policing and Criminal Justice Practices to Enhance Public Trust and Public Safety. The policing technologies at issue in the Executive Order create serious harms for individual criminal defendants, their lawyers, and the criminal legal system more broadly. In this comment, NACDL aims to highlight the serious dangers that these technologies pose and propose recommendations for mitigating those dangers.

NACDL has serious concerns with many of the changes in the proposed rule Inmate Discipline Program: Disciplinary Segregation and Prohibited Act Code Changes, 89 FR 6455. …the proposed regulations provide no protections for people in administrative segregation and other forms of solitary confinement. Second, the creation and elevation of disciplinary violations … will lead to arbitrary and capricious enforcement and further erode public trust in the agency. Third, the proposed ban on social media accounts … impedes a critical component of successful reentry...

Back on November 4, 2022, NACDL’s then President Nellie L. King wrote to Director Peters to amplify the association’s call for (1) permitting privileged and unmonitored email communications between attorneys and clients in both pretrial and post-conviction settings and (2) for a “help desk” to facilitate scheduling of privileged attorney-client telephone calls.

We have seen the DOJ Advisory Group’s July 20, 2023, Report and Recommendations... In general, we think many of the recommendations are sensible. But some of them are troubling.

As a criminal defense organization, we do not profess to possess expertise in policing practices insofar as those practices do not directly intersect with the criminal justice system. But many police practices do have a direct impact on the treatment of accused persons, the degree to which their cases are litigated justly, and case outcomes. Accordingly, we offer a few key insights, which we hope will find their way into the Commission’s recommendations.

NACDL submits this comment in response the Bureau of Prisons’ Proposed rule that would significantly change the regulations regarding the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program. We oppose these proposed changes, which are harsh and inequitable and will harm not only people who are incarcerated, but their families and dependents.

Comments on rules & regulations and letters submitted to the Department of Justice on behalf of NACDL

Letter from NACDL Executive Director Norman L. Reimer and NACDL affiliates' leadership to FBI Director James Comey regarding the FBI's policy on recording custodial interrogations, especially for those suspected of felony offenses.

We submit these comments on the interim rule, published by BOP on December 5, 2013 … on sentence reduction for extraordinary and compelling reasons. The first provision codifies existing practice by which, when considering a prisoner for reduction in sentence, the General Counsel solicits the opinion of the United States Attorney in the district in which the prisoner was sentenced. The second provision provides that the Bureau’s “final decision is subject to the general supervision and direction of the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General.” Neither provision should be adopted.

After reviewing the “Recommendations to the Attorney General Regarding the Use of the Term ‘Reasonable Scientific Certainty’” (Recommendations), the NACDL wholly agrees with and supports all three recommendations of the subcommittee which, taken together, would end the use of the terms “to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty” or “to a reasonable degree of (discipline) certainty” by those employed and appearing on behalf of the Department of Justice. 

NACDL commends the Department of Justice for conducting an independent root cause analysis on testimonial errors by microscopic hair analysts and for conducting a “quality review” of other disciplines to see if similar “testimonial statements” were made in other comparison disciplines. NACDL has … seen firsthand how pervasively examiners exaggerated their conclusions in hair comparison cases. Thus, this initiative by DOJ, along with its commitment to making both efforts “deliberative” and “transparent” is most welcome.

NACDL commends the DOJ for developing uniform standards for testimony and lab reports generated by the FBI, the ATF and the DEA. NACDL further commends the DOJ for releasing these standards for public comment, particularly for comment from the scientific community. … Thus, this initiative by DOJ, along with its commitment to making both efforts “deliberative” and “transparent” is most welcome. In the spirit of that commitment to a deliberative and transparent process, NACDL offers these comments on the proposed “Uniform Language for Testimony and Reports.” 

NACDL has worked collaboratively with the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Innocence Project, and the pro bono law firm Winston & Strawn on the FBI Microscopic Hair Comparison Analysis Review since 2012, and, as a result, NACDL has seen firsthand how pervasively examiner opinions exceeded the limits of science in hair comparison cases. Thus, this initiative by DOJ, along with its commitment to a process that is “deliberative” and “transparent” is most welcome. In the spirit of that commitment, NACDL offers these comments.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) commends the Department of Justice (DOJ) for developing proposed uniform standards for testimony and lab reports generated by the Federal Bureau of lnvestigation (FBI), the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. NACOL further commends the DOJ for releasing these standards for public comment, particularly for comment from the scientific community.