With an increasing number of police departments across the country turning to unregulated, untested, and flawed facial recognition technology to identify suspects, it is vital defenders understand the technology, its limitations, and how to challenge its use in their cases.

NACDL's 19th Annual State Criminal Justice Network Conference
August 17-19, 2020 | Held Virtually
When Robocop Becomes Reality: Confronting Technology in the Criminal Justice System

Subject matter experts and litigators from NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center explain and discuss some of the important digital technology issues that defense counsel will very likely encounter in these cases. The faculty focus on reverse searches, facial recognition, and device searches.

NACDL opposes the use of facial recognition technology by law enforcement.

NACDL continues to oppose the use of face surveillance in California.

NACDL is working with partners to oppose efforts to expand the use of facial recognition technology in Virginia.

Coalition letter to the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate regarding proposed legislation to allow law enforcement to use facial recognition technology for criminal investigations. 

Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Privacy Information Center, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Defendant-Appellant.

Argument: In this case of first impression, appellant argues that information about the technology and procedures underlying a facial recognition search must be disclosed to the defendant to cure the risk of misidentification and in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, even if the result of the search was used only investigatively, subject to later corroboration, and not admitted into evidence. The amicus brief explains the numerous opportunities for error present in the facial recognition process, and how error in that process determines the course of the investigation and results in racially disparate and otherwise wrongful arrests. NACDL’s Fourth Amendment Center has been working to better understand how defendants’ due process rights are impacted by the growing use of facial recognition technology and to equip defense attorneys with the knowledge and tools to combat resulting Brady violations. 

NACDL has engaged in legislative advocacy to stop the use of face surveillance technology in Massachusetts.

We write today to urge the Department of Justice (DOJ) to quickly complete an updated Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) for the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Next Generation Identification System (NGI) as part of a broader effort to examine the goals and impact of NGI. The previous PIA on NGI’s face recognition component dates back to 2008. Since that time the program has undergone a radical transformation—one that raises serious privacy and civil liberties concerns.

Fact sheet on California SB 1038, which would preserve existing civil rights protections against the use of biometric surveillance by law enforcement on officer-worn body cameras.

Letter to Senator Steven Bradford in support of SB 1038, which would ensure the continued state law protection of civil rights against the use of biometric surveillance by law enforcement on officer-worn body cameras. 

The Challenges of the Photo and Video Identification Witness in a World of Improving Facial Recognition Technology

Robert Williams is the first known person wrongfully arrested based on facial recognition technology. During the time he was accused of shoplifting, Mr. Williams was actually driving home from work and posting a video that eventually exonerated him.

NACDL comments to the Executive Office of the President Office of Science and Technology Policy responding to a request for information regarding the use of biometric technology.

Coalition letter to California Assemblymember Ed Chau regarding disparities and discrimination, abuse, accuracy, information sharing, and other issues in the proposed bill AB 2261 on facial recognition technologies.