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. 

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. 

The defense’s post-hearing motion argues that the geofence warrant in Fuentes was unconstitutional, lacking probable cause and particularity, and was based on misleading information. The motion requests suppression of all evidence obtained through the warrant, asserting that it violated the Fourth Amendment and was executed in bad faith.

Charie appealed the district court's denial of his motion to suppress location information from a geofence warrant. This decision affirms the district court's decision. They do not find a privacy interest in location information or that obtaining 2 hours of Chatrie's data consituted a search due to user's ability to opt-out of Location History. Note the robust dissent that begins on page 36, which applies the Fourth Amendment to modern technology and highlights the likelihood that geofence warrants capture the movements of individuals in private spaces. 

For attorneys representing criminal defendants, court decisions on search and seizure often seem to overwhelmingly favor the interests of law enforcement. This document compiles over 30 years of cases in which defendants and civil rights plaintiffs have prevailed. It hopes to provide raw material for criminal defense lawyers to fashion suppression motions, based on chronology and causation, that can enforce their clients’ rights against government overreach while supporting an expansive view of the Fourth Amendment’s protections. 

Amicus Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Tenth Circuit Federal Defenders for the Districts of Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Utah in Support of the Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Police officers increasingly are deploying novel surveillance tools, such as cell-cite simulators, to gather evidence. Even when courts acknowledge that the surveillance was unconstitutional, often they decline to suppress the evidence based on the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. Laura Moraff offers three arguments defense attorneys can make when challenging the application of the good-faith exception in cases involving novel search technologies.

President Gerald Goldstein's written statement to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Security, International Affairs and Criminal Justice regarding government and law enforcement conduct in the 1993 confrontation between Branch Davidians and law enforcement in Waco, TX, and proposed changes in Exclusionary Rule Reform Act of 1995 (H.R. 666) and Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Improvement Act of 1995 (S. 3).

En Banc Amici Curiae Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Appellant Quartavious Davis.

Brief of Amici Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Florida, Inc., Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant.

Brief of Amici Curiae of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Maryland, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation & National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of defendants-appellants’ appeal seeking reversal.