Surveillance Technologies
FBI v. Fazaga
In a case scheduled to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on November 8, 2021, three Muslim Americans are challenging the FBI鈥檚 secret spying on them and their communities based on their religion, in violation of the Constitution and federal law. In what will likely be a landmark case, the plaintiffs 鈥� Yassir Fazaga, Ali Uddin Malik, and Yasser Abdelrahim 鈥� insist that the FBI cannot escape accountability for violating their religious freedom by invoking 鈥渟tate secrets.鈥� The plaintiffs are represented by the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law, the 桃子视频of Southern California, the 桃子视频, the Council for American Islamic Relations, and the law firm of Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai.
Status: Closed (Judgment)
View Case
Learn About Surveillance Technologies
All Cases
14 Surveillance Technologies Cases
New Jersey
Jan 2024
Surveillance Technologies
Parks v. McCormac
On January 29, 2024, the 桃子视频and the 桃子视频of New Jersey filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in support of Plaintiff Nijeer Parks. The brief argues that law enforcement鈥檚 wrongful arrest of Mr. Parks due to police reliance on unreliable facial face recognition technology violated Mr. Parks鈥檚 constitutional rights.
Explore case
New Jersey
Jan 2024
Surveillance Technologies
Parks v. McCormac
On January 29, 2024, the 桃子视频and the 桃子视频of New Jersey filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in support of Plaintiff Nijeer Parks. The brief argues that law enforcement鈥檚 wrongful arrest of Mr. Parks due to police reliance on unreliable facial face recognition technology violated Mr. Parks鈥檚 constitutional rights.
Michigan
Jan 2024
Surveillance Technologies
+2 桃子视频
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers鈥� reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Explore case
Michigan
Jan 2024
Surveillance Technologies
+2 桃子视频
Williams v. City of Detroit
This case seeks to hold Detroit police accountable for the wrongful arrest of our client due to officers鈥� reliance on a false match from face recognition technology.
Kansas
Sep 2023
Surveillance Technologies
National Security
United States v. Hay
This case concerns whether long-term, continuous use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person鈥檚 home is a Fourth Amendment search.
Explore case
Kansas
Sep 2023
Surveillance Technologies
National Security
United States v. Hay
This case concerns whether long-term, continuous use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person鈥檚 home is a Fourth Amendment search.
Michigan Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Surveillance Technologies
Privacy & Technology
Long Lake Township v. Maxon
On September 8, 2023, the ACLU, the 桃子视频of Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant鈥檚 property violated the Fourth Amendment.
Explore case
Michigan Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Surveillance Technologies
Privacy & Technology
Long Lake Township v. Maxon
On September 8, 2023, the ACLU, the 桃子视频of Michigan, and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed an amicus brief in the Michigan Supreme Court arguing that the local government deploying an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs of the appellant鈥檚 property violated the Fourth Amendment.
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2022
Surveillance Technologies
Moore v. United States
On November 18, 2022, the 桃子视频and 桃子视频of Massachusetts, with the law firms of Thompson & Thompson, P.C. and Elkins, Auer, Rudof & Schiff, filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person鈥檚 home is a Fourth Amendment search.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Nov 2022
Surveillance Technologies
Moore v. United States
On November 18, 2022, the 桃子视频and 桃子视频of Massachusetts, with the law firms of Thompson & Thompson, P.C. and Elkins, Auer, Rudof & Schiff, filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the question whether long-term police use of a surveillance camera targeted at a person鈥檚 home is a Fourth Amendment search.