The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers provides amicus assistance on the federal and state level in those cases that present issues of importance to criminal defendants, criminal defense lawyers, and the criminal justice system as a whole. A selection of NACDL's amicus briefs that address the Fourth Amendment are offered below. 

Predictive policing encompasses the surveillance technologies, tools, and methods employed to visualize crime, target “at-risk” individuals and groups, map physical locations, track digital communications, and collect data on individuals and communities.

Corrected Brief of Amicus Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Affirmance.

Argument: The government's practice of warrantlessly searching travelers' electronic devices at the border violates the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. For many criminal defense lawyers, their work compels them to cross the border with their devices, which they use as their virtual law office. The attorney-client privilege and the Constitution protect the information on those devices. Requiring the government to get a warrant for device searches at the border would trigger the judicial supervision that is necessary to protect that information and associated rights.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and California Attorneys for Criminal Justice as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: NACDL and CACJ join to support a petition to the United States Supreme Court to review a California State Appellate Court decision expanding the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement to the home in all misdemeanor cases. The case involved a domestic dispute in which the wife viewed the husband as potentially suicidal and called officers.  While the petitioner/husband was taken for examination (and later released), the officers entered the home and seized petitioner’s guns.  Authorities refused to return the guns until petitioner sued for numerous constitutional violations.  The trial court dismissed the suit on caretaking grounds, as did the court of appeals.  The amicus brief, following an extensive review of warrantless entries in misdemeanor cases (especially “failure to obey” cases) details numerous instances in which grievous and unnecessary harm resulted from the warrantless entry.

Challenging Stored Communications Act 2702 - Anonymized Motion

Below, find reports published by NACDL's Fourth Amendment Center.

Nearly every case involves a cell phone or an online account. Laws on device and account searches are continuing to evolve, as courts reconsider old doctrines that do not fit with the realities of the digital age. Below, find sample motions on suppressing emails, passcodes, and other electronically stored information.

With protections in place, body cameras have the potential to better document encounters between police officers and citizens while mitigating competing concerns about their potential for misuse or abuse.

NACDL's Fourth Amendment Center offers direct assistance to defense lawyers handling cases involving new surveillance tools, technologies and tactics that infringe on the constitutional rights of people in America. The Center is available to help members of the defense bar in bringing new Fourth Amendment challenges, providing a range of support: from training and resources to expert consultation and direct litigation, all free of charge.

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.

This event, co-sponsored by NACDL and the Berkeley Center on Law and Technology (BCLT), was held at the International House, at the University of California - Berkeley, November 29-30, 2018.

Although businesses and individuals were sharing information and data with third-party vendors long before the COVID-19 outbreak, use of remote work tools is sure to endure long after the outbreak passes, making privacy concerns even more important.

Brief of National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Immigration Clinic, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Washington Defender Association, Brooklyn Defender Services, Bronx Defenders, and Immigrant Defense Project as Amici Curiae in Support of Appellees and Cross-Appellants Gerardo Gonzalez, et al.

Argument: ICE’s use of immigration detainers violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against arbitrary detention and its requirement that a person in government custody receive a prompt, neutral determination of probable cause for their arrest. ICE issues immigration detainers to local law enforcement without any neutral or even individualized probable cause determination, but based merely on the automated review of computerized databases that are incomplete and inaccurate. The subjects of these detainers are frequently held for at least 48 hours after they are otherwise eligible for release, even though most are not even taken into ICE custody. Those taken into ICE custody are frequently denied bond and remain in detention for additional weeks, months, or even years before an immigration judge rules on their removal proceedings, without any neutral review of probable cause supporting their arrest. ICE detainers also result in a wide range of negative collateral consequences even separate and apart from lengthy detention. Because ICE detainers have repercussions indistinguishable from criminal proceedings in which prompt, neutral review of probable cause is required, they must be subject to the same Fourth Amendment protections under Gerstein.

NACDL seeks to ensure that the Fourth Amendment remains a vibrant protection against encroachments on the privacy of the individual through litigation and public advocacy. The Fourth Amendment is the appropriate starting point for assessing the limits on government intrusion into one's privacy, and its protections must continue to thrive in the digital age.