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.

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.

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.

Statement to members of the U.S. Senate regarding amendments addressing privacy concerns in the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 (H.R. 6172).

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.

Coalition letter to members of the Senate urging more changes to the protection of American citizens before voting on the proposed USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act of 2020 (H.R. 6172).

Letter with the Due Process Institute to members of the Senate regarding the constitutional, privacy, and overreach issues arising in the Eliminating Abusive and Rampant Neglect of Interactive Technologies (EARN IT) Act of 2020 (S. 3398).

Comments to the U.S. Courts Administrative Office on the consequences of allowing public access to electronic criminal case files.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.

This month Ian Nawalinski reviews Habeas Data by Cyrus Farivar.

In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court will decide whether law enforcement may conduct GPS surveillance 24 hours a day and seven days a week without probably cause and without judicial oversight.

In United States v. Jones, the Supreme Court will decide whether law enforcement may conduct GPS surveillance 24 hours a day and seven days a week without probable cause and without judicial oversight.

The time has come for the government to provide full disclosure of the complete nature and extent of its secret serveillance programs and the secret law that forms the basis for the programs.