Defense attorney Elliot Abrams discusses a Fourth Circuit case that rejects the use of filter or taint teams after a law office search. He uses this case to develop a road map for lawyers to follow to protect client confidences in response to subpoenas or seizures of client files by the government.

It is intolerable when a detainee is arrested and confined on trumped up charges based on police fabrication of evidence. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has granted pretrial detainees an important remedy. Manuel v. City of Joliet, Illinois held that when pretrial detention is based on police fabrication of evidence, the detainee may assert a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

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.

Comments to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Letter to the Judicial Conference Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure regarding proposed changes to procedures in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (on Petition for a Writ of Certiorari).

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.

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

This month Gail Gianasi Natale reviews The Pretender: My Life Undercover for the FBI by Marc Ruskin.

In cases where the government has accessed data about a defendant that was subject to a phone company or internet service provider privacy policy, that data was something that belonged to the defendant. When the data was seized and then searched, it affected a real legal interest held by the defendant. Defense counsel should put the privacy policies and terms of service statements of such providers into the trial record. It creates a foundation for arguing that defendants have property rights in their digital papers and effects.

The U.S. Supreme Court has yet to rule whether nonphysical surveillance, such as cellular GPS tracking, constitutes a search. Although the Court in Riley v. California required police to obtain a warrant to search a cellphone incident to arrest, it did not address the requirements for tracking. No definitive legal standard for gathering cellular location data exists. Adding to the judicial divide is the lack of relevant statutes. Will the courts or Congress step in to address the legislative void?

The “Getting Scholarship Into Court Project” brings helpful law review articles and other writings to the attention of criminal defense attorneys. The project’s purpose is to identify scholarship that will be especially useful to courts and practitioners. Summarized on this page are articles the project’s advisory board recommends that practicing lawyers take the time to read.

Instantaneous electronic answers can reveal information that is so private that no one, and certainly not the government, should have access without a search warrant. This is what we know as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Riley v. California.

No police technology is more commonly used — and more shrouded in mystery — than the cell site simulator. Commonly called a StingRay, the device mimics a cellphone tower and electronically forces all cellphones in an area to communicate with it. This communication can reveal critical information to police, including the phone number, the phone’s serial number, and the precise location of a phone inside a building (within an accuracy of six feet). Does the use of a StingRay device constitute a Fourth Amendment search?