Renewed War on Drugs, harsher charging policies, stepped-up criminalization of immigrants — in the current climate, joining the NACDL is more important than ever. Members of NACDL help to support the only national organization working at all levels of government to ensure that the voice of the defense bar is heard.
Take a stand for a fair, rational, and humane criminal legal system
Contact members of congress, sign petitions, and more
Help us continue our fight by donating to NFCJ
Help shape the future of the association
Join the dedicated and passionate team at NACDL
Increase brand exposure while building trust and credibility
NACDL is committed to enhancing the capacity of the criminal defense bar to safeguard fundamental constitutional rights.
NACDL harnesses the unique perspectives of NACDL members to advocate for policy and practice improvements in the criminal legal system.
NACDL envisions a society where all individuals receive fair, rational, and humane treatment within the criminal legal system.
NACDL’s mission is to serve as a leader, alongside diverse coalitions, in identifying and reforming flaws and inequities in the criminal legal system, and redressing systemic racism, and ensuring that its members and others in the criminal defense bar are fully equipped to serve all accused persons at the highest level.
Showing 1 - 1 of 1 results
Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and Center for Democracy & Technology in Support of Appellant.
Argument: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not prohibit violations of computer use restrictions, such as the restriction at issue. The CFAA was meant to target "hacking," not violations of computer use restrictions. Written, policy-based restrictions on manner of access are restrictions on use. The lower court's broad reading of the CFAA renders the statute unconstitutionally vague. Corporate policies do not provide sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited. Basing CFAA liability on violations of use restrictions would permit capricious enforcement by prosecutors. This Court should reverse Appellant's conviction under Specification 13 of Charge II.
