ACLU of Massachusetts Deploys Legal Toolkit to Unmask Police Surveillance

The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts is releasing an encrypted, password-protected online library of handcrafted legal motions. The toolkit is intended for criminal-defense attorneys and compels prosecutors to disclose whether surveillance technologies—facial-recognition systems, automatic license-plate readers (ALPR), gunshot-detection software, “stingray” cell-site simulators, commercial geolocation data, AI-generated police reports, and phone-forensic tools—were used in building a case. Preservation motions also require agencies and vendors to retain data that might otherwise be auto-deleted, allowing defense teams to examine the full digital record.

Wired MagazineHow Defense Lawyers Are Fighting the Police Surveillance Machine

The motions rely on a 1963 rule of American criminal law that obligates prosecutors to turn over any evidence that could aid the defense. When a judge grants a motion, the state must produce records of surveillance deployment, vendor contracts, and raw data streams. The ACLU distributes the motions only to verified attorneys, aiming to create a standardized discovery request that covers entire statewide networks rather than isolated cameras or sensors.

Wired Magazine

Staff attorney Jennifer Herrmann helped author the toolkit and describes the effort as a two-front war: pressuring municipalities to abandon systems such as the Flock ALPR network and ShotSpotter gunshot-detection system, while equipping lawyers to challenge past convictions. Gideon Epstein, policy counsel for Technology for Liberty, notes that defense lawyers often lack the technical vocabulary to request comprehensive surveillance records. The toolkit also highlights past abuses, including FBI non-disclosure agreements for stingray devices and the use of commercial data brokers like Fog Reveal to obtain location data without warrants.

Wired Magazine

The ACLU of Massachusetts frames the initiative as the first of its kind, emphasizing that “the motions give attorneys a way to ‘challenge what has already happened in the past,’ building a record that carries over to whatever tool comes next.” Prosecutors have historically been kept unaware of the origins of digital evidence, a gap the toolkit seeks to close. If judges routinely grant these motions, the logistical burden on prosecutors could render covert surveillance practices unsustainable.

Wired Magazine

• “The amount of time that it can take for that initial use of technology and investigation to actually get to a court and constitutional challenge is long,” — Jennifer Herrmann, Staff Attorney, ACLU of Massachusetts

Wired Magazine

• “A lot of the time they’re not asking for the full scope of surveillance technologies in use,” — Gideon Epstein, Policy Counsel, Technology for Liberty

How Defense Lawyers Are Fighting the Police Surveillance Machine

• “The motions will be distributed through a password-protected library, the ACLU of Massachusetts says, available only to verified defense attorneys.” — ACLU of Massachusetts

Wired Magazine

• “The courtroom is finally forcing the surveillance state to step into the light.” — ACLU of Massachusetts

How Defense Lawyers Are Fighting the Police Surveillance Machine