This training program will aid those working to defend persons accused of homicide in drug-related overdose deaths. Each section of the program focuses on a different aspect of these cases. CLE is not available for this program.

To help defenders understand the law, the science, and the messaging underlying these prosecutions, NACDL is offering a FREE, on-demand training videos on Defending Drug Overdose Homicides.

Funded by a grant from Vital Strategies, a public health organization committed to building community oriented, science-backed solutions which promote a sustained reduction in overdose deaths, this on-demand training content is designed to educate and empower defenders to tackle these challenging and difficult cases.

Search & Seizure Commentary: A Human Look at Canine Sniffing

Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet of Things

People use wearable technologies, smart home devices, and personal medical devices daily. These internet of things (IoT) devices collect and share information without human intervention. What are the public’s expectations of privacy in a world dependent on IoT, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence?

In People v. Seymour, 21CR20001, defense challenges the constitutionality of a reverse keyword warrant served on Google for anyone who searched for a particular physical address over 15 days, and moves to suppress all resulting evidence. The Fourth Amendment Center’s Litigation Director, Michael Price, is co-counsel for the defense. 

Illinois v. Caballes: Some Disturbing Questions

Data Privacy And The Vanishing Fourth Amendment

A Fourth Amendment Issue Sampler, focusing on new technologies and methods, featuring NACDL's Jumana Musa, Director of the Fourth Amendment Center

 To identify suspects, law enforcement officers are turning increasingly to reverse search warrants, such as geofence warrants and keyword search warrants. These are searches used to find suspects and are not conducted to find evidence on a targeted individual. This trend presents novel challenges to the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights in the United States. 

Fuentes centers on the use of a geofence warrant, which searches all the location information of Google users with location history enabled for individuals who were near within a specified area during a period of time. The court granted the motion to suppress, ruling that the geofence constituted a general warrant and violated the Fourth Amendment. The court did not apply the good faith doctorine. 

Geofence warrants are a type of reverse warrant where the government seeks to know who was within a “geofence,” a defined physical area during a specific period of time. These are a type of “reverse warrant,” used to identify suspects when none are known without the data gathered by the warrant. The government utilizes geofence warrants to compel companies, such as Google, to produce information about devices interacting with their technology within a particular geographic region, which often includes many people who are wholly unconnected to the event being investigated. 

The motion requests the court to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant. They argue the geofence warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment and should not be suppressed because investigators acted in good faith. The motion requests the court to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained through the geofence warrant.

This motion argues that the geofence warrant in Fuentes was constitutional and asserts that the warrant complied with the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence should not be suppressed because investigators acted in good faith and reasonably relied on the warrant. The motion requests the court to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress.

The defense argues that the geofence warrant in Fuentes was unconstitutional. They assert that it violated the Fourth Amendment and that the evidence should be suppressed due to intentional, reckless, and grossly negligent omissions and deceptions by law enforcement.

This decision granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained through a geofence warrant, ruling that the warrant lacked probable cause and was overly broad, constituting a general warrant. The court found that the search violated the Fourth Amendment as it did not adhere to the required three-step process to protect user anonymity. The court also rejected the government’s argument for a good faith exception, noting that the affidavit contained false information and lacked necessary details. The court suppressed all evidence from the geofence warrant.