We urge you to vote “no” on S. 1080, the Cooper Davis Act. The bill purports to address the sale of methamphetamine, fentanyl, and “counterfeit substances” by coopting online services to report the alleged or suspected creation, manufacture, or distribution of these substances … Rather than meaningfully addressing the public health crisis caused by such substances, this bill would … undermin[e] the Fourth Amendment and the Stored Communications Act, likely with disproportionate effects on people of color, LGBTQ+ people, and other marginalized communities.

Digital data and privacy resources relating to the criminalization of pregnancy and reproductive health.

NACDL is providing resources regarding the Criminalization of Pregnancy and Reproductive Health to the criminal defense community. Resources are provided without warranty or guarantee. Please consult the laws and rules of your state and local authorities. Please log in to access them. Membership is NOT required.

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.

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.

Professor Wendy Bach and Dr. Mishka Terplan provide information essential for lawyers defending pregnancy-related prosecutions as well as others in the field. They discuss reproductive medicine, use of expert witnesses, and healthcare privacy and HIPAA issues in these cases.

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.

Police officers often rely on facial recognition searches as the primary piece of evidence tying a defendant to a crime, and thus defendants should be permitted to challenge the facial recognition search process. The limited case law on the discoverability, reliability, or admissibility of facial recognition is inconsistent at best. Based on the risk of misidentification, Clare Garvie suggests several steps defense counsel should consider pursuing in facial recognition cases.

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.

Case law generally requires law enforcement officers to get a warrant before they search a cellphone, track someone’s location, or obtain sensitive records from service providers. The question whether a warrant is necessary is only the first step. The next question: What does a warrant require? Jennifer Granick reveals the three ways current search warrant practice falls short. She lays out the legal arguments favoring narrow, tailored searches and seizures.

The judicial shift away from strict protection of Fourth Amendment rights has not been subtle, and the price for this diminution of rights has been severe.

For years and without legislative mandate, the Transaction Records Analysis Center (TRAC) has enabled law enforcement agencies to access and search Americans’ money transfer records. If evidence obtained or derived from queries of the TRAC database is at issue in a client’s case, Fourth Amendment arguments are available to seek suppression.

Reply brief of the appellant in US v. Chatrie. Michael Price, the Fourth Amendment Center's Litigation Director, is co-counsel for Mr. Chatrie. 

 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. 

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.