News & Commentary

With all we now know about unrelenting bias and systemic racism in our criminal justice system, do we really want to let gang cops and prosecutors decide whose rights will be permanently restricted?

UPDATE: The vote has been rescheduled to Tuesday, Oct. 13.

Now that AB 953 has been voted out of the California legislature, I wonder: what will Gov. Brown’s legacy on racial justice and fair policing be during this critical time in history?

In response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, the Sacramento Sheriff has now admitted that it used intrusive cellphone surveillance technology – commonly known as a “StingRay” – without obtaining court approval. Days after this stunning admission, the Sheriff publicly announced a new policy for the use of StingRay technology. While having an actual policy in place is certainly a step in the right direction, the new policy raises serious concerns.

SB 249 would allow the DMV to issue driver’s licenses that include a tiny RFID chip that broadcasts your personally identifying information.

Since Michael Brown’s death, unarmed black men have been killed by law enforcement at alarmingly disproportionate rates. Specifically, reports indicate that black men account for 40% of 60 unarmed deaths at the hands of police this year, and are seven times more likely than white men to be shot to death by police while unarmed. At the state level, California holds the ominous record for the highest number of civilian deaths at the hands of law enforcement this year, currently totaling 129.

Much of the recent outcry over policing reflects the concern that when cops violate the law, or shoot someone, the public doesn’t get the full story.

Imagine you’re on your way to buy a used car and a police officer pulls you over. After asking you a few questions, the officer asks to search your car. Knowing you’ve done nothing wrong, you agree. The next thing you know, the officer is telling you that he’s suspicious that you have $2,500 in cash – and he takes it. You explain that you’re on your way to buy a car. He doesn’t believe you and tells you that if you want your cash back, you’ll have to fight for it in court.

After three years of litigation, we’ve finally settled a portion of one of our long-running Freedom of Information Act suits against the federal government for information about its location tracking practices.  A person’s digital location information reveals detailed, private information that the government should only be able to get through a warrant based on probable cause.  As part of this settlement, the government provided us with information about the types of court orders it obtains to get location information.