The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones.
Argument: I am CJA counsel appointed by the Court to represent my client, Defendant Eddie MartinezFigueroa, who has been charged in a multi-defendant Indictment alleging a conspiracy to possess and distribute heroin. I submit this Memorandum in support of the Defendant’s request for a Protective Order to compel the Government to provide discovery and particularization of those electronically recorded intercepts which allegedly involve him directly.
My client is 26 years old and by virtue of a prior drug conviction is facing a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years in prison.
The instant Indictment and a companion Indictment accuse 25 people, mostly young, overwhelmingly people of color, and many of them heroin addicts, of a conspiracy conducted essentially by communication through cell phones. Through a seven month investigation involving the DEA, the New York State Police, the United States Attorney’s Office, and other law enforcement agencies, the Government employed video and personal surveillance, GPS tracking, monitoring of pen registers, and four separate Title III eavesdropping warrants, targeting four different cell phones and capturing both oral and texting communications.
Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Brennan Center for Justice, Center for Democracy and Technology, and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Defendant-Appellant and Reversal
Argument: The district court’s opinion undermines widely recognized Fourth Amendment protections for email. The expectation of privacy in email is reasonable and well established. The ability of a third party service provider to access emails does not defeat the user’s reasonable expectation of privacy. An email provider’s terms of service should not defeat a user’s reasonable expectation of privacy in email. The district court’s holding that AOLs TOS extinguished defendant’s reasonable expectation of privacy is inconsistent with established Fourth Amendment protections for email. Fourth Amendment protection should not depend on private agreements between email service providers and their users. Finding that contractual terms impact a user’s expectation of privacy against the government would lead to absurd results. A reasonable expectation of privacy does not end just because an account is terminated. Upholding the district court would reinstate the third-party doctrine for email and create a split of authority with the Sixth Circuit.