Showing 1 - 6 of 6 results
Gonzalez v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
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.
Coalition Letter to House Judiciary on Reauthorizing FISA Amendments Act (June 2012)
Coalition letter to the House Judiciary Committee regarding concerns with the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (H.R. 6304), as it comes up for reauthorization (FISA Amendments Act Reauthorization Act of 2012, H.R. 5949).
In Re Appeal from July 19, 2002 Decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Cour
Amicus curiae brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of a 2002 decision of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court imposing certain “minimization requirements” on an order authorizing electronic surveillance of an “agent of a foreign power” who is a American citizen.
Argument: The Fourth Amendment requires a warrant and probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance of an American citizen where the “primary” purpose of the surveillance is criminal investigation, even if the collection of foreign intelligence information is a “significant” secondary purpose. The USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 unconstitutionally amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to permit the Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of an American citizen when foreign intelligence is a “significant purpose” rather than the “primary purpose.” FISA’s so-called “privacy protections” are “illusory” and do not “justify abandoning the Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause requirements.”
United States v. Katzin
Joint Amicus curiae brief of the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, the ACLU Foundation of Pennsylvania, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of affirmance of the district court.
Argument: Tracking a car by physically attaching a GPS device to it requires a warrant based on probable cause, without exception. The District Court correctly applied the exclusionary rule because the FBI agents did not rely on binding appellate precedent.
People v. Todd Johnson
Brief of Amici Curiae the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant.
Argument: The order of the Appellate Division, First Department should be reversed, Mr. Johnson’s motion to suppress should be granted, and the conviction should be reversed. There was no probable cause to arrest Todd Johnson. Mr. Johnson’s alleged gang membership is entitled to no weight when assessing probable cause. Prior gang problems at the location did not establish probable cause to arrest Mr. Johnson. Partial obstruction of a doorway cannot provide a basis for probable cause without evidence of public harm. Were the Court to uphold probable cause on these facts, the New York disorderly conduct statute would be unconstitutional.