|
Forensic Updates
SCOTUS: Obtaining Information Via Geofence Warrants Constitutes a Search
Justice Kagan, writing for the Supreme Court in Chatrie v United States (6/29/2026), considered whether police “conducted a Fourth Amendment ‘search’ when they acquired,” by means of a “geofence warrant,” cellphone data leading to an arrest, and found that a search had occurred. A geofence warrant compels a company that collects location data to disclose data about the cell phones located in a specific area near the time of a crime. Kagan’s decision says that “[a]n individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in records about his cell phone’s location, and police intrude on that constitutionally protected interest when they demand the information—even though for only a limited time, and from a third-party tech company.” The matter was remanded for consideration of whether the search in question, which involved an “uncommon, multi-step” process, was reasonable.
Justice Jackson, concurring, agreed that a search had occurred and “would have gone further to explain that this search violated the Fourth Amendment.” The process involved officers conducting “key portions of the search outside the supervision of ‘a neutral and detached magistrate,’” i.e. leaving it to the police and Google to narrow the search themselves. Justice Gorsuch, concurring, would take a different approach to reach the result; the defendant’s “Location History data is his effect,” and searching it is subject to constitutional restrictions.
The dissenting opinion objected to the path begun in Carpenter v United States, “giving criminal suspects a ‘protected Fourth Amendment interest in any sensitive personal information about them that is collected and owned by third parties.’” The dissent said the majority decision is “advisory,” and pointed out that “Google has modified its Location History service in a manner that forecloses future use of this geofence procedure.”
Additional background history and analysis of the case can be found in The Legal Aid Society’s July issue of “Decrypting a Defense.” Digital evidence expert and attorney, John Ellis, has also provided a primer on litigation post-Chatrie. Stanford Law Professor Orin Kerr has released a paper, “The Fourth Amendment After Chatrie” and Andrew Guthrie Ferguson, Professor of Law at The George Washington University Law School, has authored a paper, “Digital Policing After Chatrie.”
NYSDA’s Discovery and Forensic Support Unit notes that while Google is said to have changed how they collect location data, the decision does not read as applying only to location data from that particular company. Chatrie does not dramatically expand Carpenter but does reaffirm it in the face of continued dissent. Defenders with cases involving digital information, in search contexts or otherwise, are encouraged to contact the Unit for consultation at forensics@nysda.org, contact form, or 518-465-3524.
CIFS Unveils New Resource for Guidance on DNA Cases
The Center for Integrity in Forensic Sciences (CIFS) recently curated a helpful list of suggested readings and a checklist for attorneys encountering DNA casework with probabilistic genotyping software in its latest resource. Access your copy here. According to the CIFS, the organization created this resource as part of “a campaign to spread awareness about forensic science issues, offer resources, and connect people to CIFS.” Does your case involve DNA analysis but you’re unsure whether probabilistic genotyping software was used? Contact NYSDA’s Discovery and Forensic Support Unit by emailing forensics@nysda.org for assistance.
Featured Resourse
Harvard Law Releases Transgender Decarceration Guide for Advocates
Professor Deborah Lolai, who presented at NYSDA’s annual conference in July, along with the students of the LGBTQ+ Clinic at the Legal Services Center at Harvard Law, has published the Transgender Decarceration Guide for practitioners of federal criminal and post-conviction law. The Guide was written as a direct response to “the escalating political and legislative attacks on transgender people,” to serve as a guide for defense attorneys, advocates, and legal professionals navigating the criminal legal system. It is meant to provide the tools necessary to represent transgender people with “cultural humility and cultural competency...[and] trauma informed care.” Though the Guide’s focus is on the experience of transgender people, much of the work on criminalization and discrimination is applicable or similar to advocacy for others experiencing systemic marginalization. Likewise, while the Guide works primarily with the federal framework, the principles may also be applicable in state court.
Family Court Updates
Family Court Decision Highlights Utility of Family Court Act 1015-A
Family Court Act (FCA) 1015-A gives courts in Article Ten cases the authority to “order a social services official to provide or arrange for the provision of services or assistance to the child and his or her family to facilitate the protection of the child, the rehabilitation of the family and, as appropriate, the discharge of the child from foster care.” In a January 2026 decision, issued after a hearing, a Brooklyn Family Court Judge relied on this provision to order the foster care agency and Administration for Children’s Services to pay the past due phone bill of a foster youth who has a son in care. The court pointed out that the agency failed to follow its obligation to provide the youth with financial literacy education and comply with a prior court order to purchase her a cell phone, and that the agency is obligated to both support family reunification and protect foster youth from lasting financial consequences such as reduced credit scores.
Defenders can invoke similar arguments in creative applications asking family courts to order agencies to meet their clients’ material needs. For example, judges may order agencies to pay for services that will facilitate family reunification, including transportation or cell phone service that will enable service engagement, which is often particularly important in rural areas. A sample FCA 1015-A motion and other motions are available to defenders in NYSDA’s family defense sample motion bank.
Appellate Division Reaffirms Fundamental Right to Counsel in Family Court
In Matter of Carlene R. v Heather A., 250 AD3d 1493 (6/25/2026), the family court relieved a mother’s attorney at the request of the mother and her attorney, mid-trial, and then relieved the mother’s second attorney at the attorney’s request and over the mother’s objection. The mother was then forced to represent herself for the remainder of the trial, which the family court stated was “‘because [she] may have a misunderstanding of how an attorney-client relationship works’ and because ‘being a rural county, with a short assigned counsel list ... [we have] come to the end of the free attorneys.’”
The Third Department reversed the order issued after trial, finding that the mother never waived her right to counsel and in fact repeatedly requested she be assigned new counsel. This case raises questions about the responsibility of the family court and the county to provide counsel under County Law 722 and FCA 262 and the dearth of attorneys on assigned counsel panels in certain locations, as well as the propriety of an attorney withdrawing from a case over a client’s objection. An attorney should not seek to withdraw from a case if it may cause a material adverse effect to the interests of the client, or if it would result in significant harm to the forward progress of the client’s matter. See New York Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.16(c)(1); ABA Formal Opinion 516. It is best practice, before asking to be relieved, for an attorney to meet with the client in person to attempt to resolve differences, especially mid-trial when there may not be another attorney available to take over.
Family Defenders Are Urged to Advocate for Meaningful Parenting Time in Article 6 Cases
Family defenders in custody cases are often faced with the scenario where the other parent is trying to limit contact between their client and their client’s child. In the Matter of Carrington v Pepitone (2026 NY Slip Op 04193), the Second Department offers a recitation of the law and some solid arguments on why restricted visitation should be the exception rather than the rule. It is best practice for family defenders in the situation to argue that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, a noncustodial parent has a right to reasonable parental access privileges.” [Citations omitted.] For defenders with incarcerated clients, please remember that the mere fact that a parent is incarcerated does not negate their right to meaningful contact with their child. See March 8, 2023, edition of News Picks.
The appellate court emphasized: “One of the primary responsibilities of a custodial parent is to assure meaningful contact between the child and the noncustodial parent, and the willingness of a parent to assure such meaningful contact between the child and the other parent is a factor to be considered in making a custody determination.” In contrast, willful interference with a noncustodial parent’s right to parental access is so inconsistent with the best interests of the child as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent.” [Citations omitted.] Please note that while Matter of Carrington is a relocation matter, the law and arguments cited above apply to all custody and visitation cases.
Immigration Updates
New RIAC Website Offers Current Info
The Regional Immigration Assistance Centers (RIACs), funded by the Office of Indigent Legal Services (ILS), have a new website, https://nyriac.com/. Announcement of the website was just part of the wealth of information presented by RIAC personnel at NYSDA’s recently completed 59th Annual Meeting and Conference. The RIACs provide assistance and information to criminal and family defenders with clients who were not born in the U.S. and whose cases therefore may have immigration consequences.
WNYRIAC Newsletter Highlights NYS Laws Limiting ICE Cooperation, Notes SCOTUS Decision Upholding Birthright Citizenship
The July issue of the monthly Western New York Regional Immigration Assistance Center (WNYRIAC) newsletter features an article on legislation, signed by the Governor on May 28th, “that restricts the participation of state and local authorities in civil immigration enforcement.” Restriction does not mean a complete stop to cooperation, the article points out: “For example, if ICE has filed a notification or detainer request with the jail based on allegations that a person is present in violation of the civil immigration laws, the jail may notify ICE of a criminal detainee’s impending release if they so choose.”
The new legislation includes a ban on the wearing of masks by law enforcement. The newsletter notes that the Department of Justice is seeking an injunction to bar state enforcement of the ban. In early August, a federal district court judge in the Northern District of New York issued a temporary injunction barring enforcement of the law.
The WNYRIAC newsletter also discusses the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trump v Barbara (6/30/2026) that overturned an Executive Order purporting to end birthright citizenship for those born in the U.S. to parents here illegally or temporarily. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion for the majority looks at the context in which the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment was written, from British common law precedent through the odious U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dred Scott v Sandford and subsequent decisions. A fuller look at Barbara will appear in the next issue of the Backup Center REPORT, along with information on other end-of-term immigration cases. Those include Blanche v Lau (6/23/2026), discussed in the WNYRIAC newsletter; Lau allows border officers to deem a returning lawful permanent resident someone who has committed a crime of moral turpitude and therefore must apply for admission, making it easier to find them “inadmissible” in subsequent removal proceedings based on a later conviction of a removable offense.
The newsletter reminds defenders that “[b]ecause immigration consequences can occur at any phase of a criminal proceeding, defense counsel should contact [the appropriate] RIAC for advice when representing noncitizens in state court.” See a list of RIACS on NYSDA’s webpage or on the Indigent Legal Services Office website.
Accountability and Oversight
Long-Delayed Report on DOCCS Released Over the Holiday
Late on Thursday before the 4th of July weekend, the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) released the long-awaited review of New York State’s prison system, which focuses on the two prisons where correction officers killed a person in their custody and were prosecuted. The City Reporter’s headline about the report describes the results this way: “Fear, Hate and Few Consequences for N.Y. Prison Officers, State’s Review Finds.” The Alliance for Rights and Recovery issued an alert that included this comment about the report’s findings: “New York needs stronger independent oversight, greater accountability, full compliance with the HALT Act, and meaningful reforms that prioritize rehabilitation, safety, transparency, and the protection of civil and human rights.”
The report itself, from the law firm of WilmerHale, concludes with “57 comprehensive recommendations for reform.” These include standardizing body-worn camera review, monitoring of compliance with 10-day use of force report reviews, restricting assignments for officers who have been disciplined, and implementing screening of all individuals entering a facility, including staff. One recommendation is to “[g]rant the Commissioner explicit authority to discipline or terminate any employee for serious misconduct”—which will “require a legislative change or changes to the Collective Bargaining Agreements with security staff.” Another says that DOCCS should “prioritize staffing for programming and recreation areas.” The recommendations do not appear to address enforcement of HALT or the issue of a culture of violence, racism, and hate among some corrections officers. The first priority recommendation is to “enhance In-Service Training,” as if the problems set out in the report stem from no more than officers being unaware that beatings and coverups are not considered best practices.
A separate report was issued by Amend (at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine). Recommendations in that document include this: “Explore modifications to the HALT Law, including to the Department’s implementation strategy.”
On July 12th, the Times Union published an editorial in the wake of the WilmerHale report. It is critical of DOCCS, including the leadership: “Changing a culture has to start at the top…. People as entrenched in the system as [Commissioner Daniel F. Martuscello III] and [Deputy Commissioner Michael D’Amore] do not belong in leadership positions.” The editorial also criticized the state government’s failure to address the twin issues of suffering and abuse of those who are incarcerated and the difficulties faced by correction staff, leaving the system in a vicious cycle of crises.
Student Loan Repayment and Forgiveness Updates
Judges Block Education Department’s Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program Changes
In late June, federal judges in Massachusetts and the District of Columbia blocked a 2025 Education Department rule deeming any organizations having a “a substantial illegal purpose” exempt for employees under PSLF. Under that rule, “illegal” actives would have included aiding and abetting violations of immigration or civil rights law or supporting terrorism. The decision would have been up to the education secretary to decide if the employer violated the rule based on a preponderance of the evidence.
The Massachusetts decision determined the proposed rule changes are “arbitrary and capricious and [violate] the First Amendment.” The decision specifically highlights the administration’s targeting of immigration attorneys (quoting a Trump DOE claim that they are “‘frequently coach[ing] clients to conceal their past or lie about their circumstances when asserting their asylum claims .…”).
The D.C. decision granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, finding that that the proposed rule exceeds the Education Secretary’s authority under the Higher Education Act.
The rule would have gone into effect July 1 of this year.
Student Loan Repayment and Forgiveness Resources
Student loan repayment and forgiveness programs are often changing. Earlier this year, NYSDA hosted a free webinar for the public defense community about recent changes to repayment and forgiveness programs, which was presented by the Education Debt Consumer Assistance Program (EDCAP), a program of the Community Service Society of New York. EDCAP offers a host of resources and webinars on its website, https://www.edcapny.org/, and they offer free individual assistance to borrowers who are New York state residents. Student debt resources are also available from Equal Justice Works.
State Attorney Loan Forgiveness Program Update
According to the NYS Higher Education Services Corporation, the District Attorney and Indigent Legal Services Attorney Loan Forgiveness Program is scheduled to open mid-to-late August 2026. You can sign up for updates about the program on the HESC website at https://hesc.ny.gov/find-aid-you-need/new-york-state-loan-forgiveness-programs/district-attorney-and-indigent-legal.
| 
