The open fields doctrine is an exception to the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches, not seizures. While police officers can lawfully search a person’s property under the open fields doctrine, that doctrine does not speak to whether they can seize items they see.

10-cv-04059-ERK (E.D.N.Y.)

NACDL commenced a lawsuit with the ACLU challenging a U.S. Customs and Border Protection policy that authorizes searches of the contents of travelers’ laptop computers and other electronic storage devices at border crossings, notwithstanding the absence of probable cause, reasonable suspicion or any indicia of wrongdoing. Filed in the Eastern District of New York, the suit sought to enjoin future enforcement of the policy. NACDL was both a plaintiff and co-counsel in the case, which was dismissed in December 2013 and pending reconsideration as of April 2014.

Brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner.

Argument: Both federal appellate courts and state courts of last resort have inconsistently decided whether the Fourth Amendment protects social guests from unreasonable searches when they visit a home but do not spend the night. In the decision below, the New York Court of Appeals widened this split by ruling that a social guest who [*5] visited for dinner, but did not stay the night, did not have standing to challenge the search of his host's home. See People v. Ibarguen, 37 N.Y.3d 1107, 1107-08 (2021). The inconsistent application of the Fourth Amendment [*6] to social guests also degrades the efficacy of the exclusionary rule in providing clear standards for police conduct and concomitant deterrence of police misconduct by making it difficult to institutionalize uniform practices and compliance through widely-used training materials.

NACDL adopts a report and recommendations to address flaws through reform to the mail cover program.

NACDL adopts a report and recommendations on law enforcement searches of digital evidence.

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.

Courts have long made it clear that agents can search the bags of people entering the country. For the past decade or so, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has applied that logic to digital devices. NACDL members are uniquely exposed to abuse in this context: digita

Courts have long made it clear that agents can search the bags of people entering the country. For the past decade or so, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has applied that logic to digital devices. NACDL members are uniquely exposed to abuse in this context: digital devices store materials and information subject to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work-product doctrine, as well as information on overseas clients and witnesses, and other extremely sensitive materials that could be covered by Rule 1.6 of the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility.

“Surreptitious DNA sample” refers to the collection and analysis of DNA from a person without the person’s knowledge and without coercion. For example, the police may swab a suspect’s DNA from a discarded cigarette. Oded Oren outlines an argument for suppressing the DNA information extracted from the analysis of surreptitiously obtained DNA rather than suppression of the DNA itself or the physical object from which it was obtained.

During a traffic stop, a state trooper arranged for a dog sniff of the vehicle. The vehicle contained fentanyl pills and cocaine. Did the trooper have reasonable suspicion to extend the traffic stop to arrange for the dog sniff?

Comments to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules regarding proposed amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

On behalf of a diverse group of public interest and other advocacy organizations, we strongly urge you to support amendments from S.1686, the Judiciously Using Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act, during tomorrow’s Patriot Act reauthorization mark if and when they are offered. We commend Chairman Leahy and Senators Cardin and Kaufman for introducing the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Act and recommend adding additional privacy protections during your scheduled markup.

The Board of Directors adopted model legislation to protect individual privacy against unwanted governmental intrusion through the use of drones

and ‘Exigent Circumstances’ When Police Confront the Sanctity of the Home

Does the pursuit of a fleeing misdemeanor suspect always qualify as an exigent circumstance that permits warrantless entry into a home? In Lange v. California, the Supreme Court held that it does not. 

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 Evidence.