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.

Argument: For good reason, the Supreme Court has nearly always rejected the claim that the Fourth Amendment does not regulate advancement in surveillance technology, including location tracking. Obtaining the location data sent by the defendant’s telephone without a warrant supported by probable cause was an unconstitutional seizure of the defendant’s private information. In this case, the investigating officers could not have believed in good faith that the order requiring production of the defendant’s location tracking records was constitutional.

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.

Argument: Warrantless acquisition of long-term historical cell site location information violated defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Defendants’ cell site location information obtained by the government reveals invasive and accurate information about their location and movements over time. Obtaining 67  days’ worth of cell phone location data is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant based upon probable cause. Cell phone providers’ ability to access customers’ location data does not eliminate cell phone users’ reasonable expectation of privacy in that data. Even if the good faith exception applies, this court should decide the Fourth Amendment question.

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

Argument: The Twelfth Appellate District was wrong to rely on dicta and focus on officer culpability in order to expand the narrow exceptions to the exclusionary rule. This court should apply the exclusionary rule when there is no equivocal binding precedent authorizing a particular search. Knotts and Karo were not unequivocal binding precedent at the time law enforcement placed a GPS tracking device on Johnson’s car. A cost-benefit analysis tilts in favor of suppression in Johnson’s case.

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.

Argument: Warrantless acquisition of long-term historical cell site location information violated defendants’ reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Defendants’ cell site location information obtained by the government reveals invasive and accurate information about their location and movements over time. Obtaining 221 or 14 days’ worth of cell phone location data is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant based upon probable cause. Cell phone providers’ ability to access customers’ location data does not eliminate cell phone users’ reasonable expectation of privacy in that data. Even if the good faith exception applies, this court should decide the Fourth Amendment question.

Brief of Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Michigan, Brennan Center for Justice, Center for Democracy & Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation & National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendants-Appellants’ Seeking Reversal.

Argument: Warrantless acquisition of long-term historical cell site location information violated defendants’ reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment. Defendants’ cell site location information obtained by the government reveals invasive and accurate information about their location and movements over time. Obtaining 127 or 88 days’ worth of cell phone location data is a “search” under the Fourth Amendment requiring a warrant based upon probable cause. Cell phone providers’ ability to access customers’ location data does not eliminate cell phone users’ reasonable expectation of privacy in that data. Even if the good faith exception applies, this court should decide the Fourth Amendment question.

Brief Amici Curiae of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in Support of Appellant’s Petition for Panel Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc

Argument: The petition presents a constitutional issue of exceptional importance because the panel decision excuses “systemic negligence” in the digital age. Rehearing is warranted to ensure that extra-jurisdictional warrants comply with the laws where evidence is search or seized. Rehearing is warranted to clarify that the good-faith exception does not apply to warrants void for lack of jurisdiction where the agency obtaining the warrant was or should have been aware of the defect.