Court Cases

The ACLU of Oregon and our legal partners, Visible Law and LeDuc Montgomery LLC, filed to sue the City of Eugene for failing to disclose public records pertaining to the city’s operation of Flock Safety cameras. This lawsuit is filed on behalf of Seth May, a member of Eyes Off Eugene, a group of advocates and technology professionals who are rejecting mass surveillance in Oregon through public education and organized advocacy. Flock cameras are a type of advanced surveillance technology that presents a significant threat to privacy by tracking the movements of every vehicle (and even images of pedestrians, bicyclists, and animals), without a warrant, suspicion, or consent from the public. Flock allows for this personal data to be uploaded to an AI-powered platform that can be accessed by law enforcement and private companies across the country, with little to no regulation. Learn more about Flock’s disturbing web of surveillance and data sharing on our Know Your Tech Flock page. By denying Mr. May’s request and refusing to disclose the requested records, the City violated Oregon public records law. The City of Eugene’s refusal to disclose the records despite the significant public interest in them stands in stark contrast to the transparency that other cities like Springfield, Medford, and Woodburn have provided the public by identifying the locations of Flock cameras without issue. The ACLU of Oregon and our legal partners are representing Mr. May and suing the City of Eugene to ensure that the City of Eugene cannot hide their actions while demanding the public live their lives under the unblinking eyes of Flock.

The ACLU of Oregon, working in partnership with National ACLU and Burrows Appellate Law, filed an amicus brief with the Oregon Supreme Court in State of Oregon v. Brandon Tyler Kern. In State v. Kern, the trial court denied the defendant's motion to suppress medical evidence from a healthcare provider that an Oregon law mandated be given to the police without a warrant following a motor vehicle accident. The trial court concluded that the hospital’s disclosure of Mr. Kern’s medical information was not unlawful under the search and seizure guarantee of the Oregon Constitution and that Kern did not have a protected privacy interest in his medical information. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s convictions and sentence without opinion, so Kern sought review in the Oregon Supreme Court. Our amicus argues that people in Oregon do have a constitutionally-protected privacy interest in their health information and records. This is consistent with the way the public understands their privacy, is supported by medical ethics, and the myriad health privacy laws at the state and federal level. Moreover, Oregon’s constitutional right to healthcare implicates privacy as well. The amicus goes on to argue that the government-mandated disclosure of medical records to law enforcement constitutes a search, and therefore police need to get a warrant if they want to access medical records in Oregon. The warrantless search in this case, therefore, was a violation of the defendant’s Article I, section 9 right to be free from unreasonable searches under the Oregon Constitution. The Oregon Supreme Court should hold that the trial court erred when it refused to suppress the evidence of Mr. Kern’s healthcare information that was introduced against him at trial. Law enforcement officers or other government actors attempting to access private medical information without the oversight of courts is a serious concern — one that could have far reaching impacts on anyone seeking medical care — but especially vulnerable community members who are targeted by the Trump administration, such as trans people seeking gender affirming care or pregnant people in search of an abortion. Get a warrant.

The ACLU of Oregon, along with the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law and Bradley Bernstein Sands LLP, filed an amicus brief with the Oregon Court of Appeals in the case Farrell-Smith, Rogue Climate, 350Eug et al. v. Oregon Department of Justice. This case challenges that the Oregon the Oregon Terrorism Information Threat Assessment Fusion Center, (TITAN) – housed in the Criminal Division of the Oregon Department of Justice – does not have legal authority to operate in Oregon. Fusion centers are a network of 80 state-run, multi-agency entities under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as hubs to collect and disseminate so-called “counterterrorism” and other information. Due to a an extreme lack of oversight or guardrails, fusion center activity is opaque, unseen by the public or even by policymakers — leading to abuses of power, invasion of privacy, and surveillance of people engaging in First Amendment activities without evidence of wrongdoing, particularly Black and Indigenous people. The TITAN fusion center in Oregon is no exception. Appellants’ lawsuit alleges that TITAN has, among other injustices, “for years, engaged in and facilitated the surveillance of environmental advocacy groups, community organizations, and Native American tribes” that were engaging in political activity opposing the development of a pipeline, without any evidence of criminal behavior. Fusion center surveillance has also involved law enforcement at all levels working with private corporations who had financial interests that surveilled activists were challenging. But Oregon law enforcement do not have authority to operate as private security. Our amicus supports the arguments that TITAN is unauthorized. The Oregon legislature is best positioned to weigh the benefits and risks of housing a fusion center in Oregon (including risks to privacy, civil liberties, and security for Oregonians) through the democratic process. But they have not done so.