“I liked being able to feel like I’m in the shoes of a lawyer.” - Ria Tyagi

The SVUDL Moot Court 2024 Showcase was a fantastic opportunity for SVUDL students to prepare and argue a case before a distinguished panel of judges, including: Hon. Michelle T. Friedland, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; Hon. Cynthia C. Lie, Associate Justice, California Sixth District Court of Appeal; and Hon. Charles E. Wilson, Associate Justice, California Sixth District Court of Appeal.

SVUDL's Professional Access & Mentoring program offers this event as a chance for students to broaden their horizons and networks as they continue to unlock their full potential.

Students had been working intensively for weeks to prepare for the Moot Court Showcase through collaboration with coaches and practicing and retired attorneys in advance of the Showcase where esteemed judges would be observing and interacting with them during the event.

The fictitious town of Acorn, California, was the setting for this year's Moot Court case.  At the core of the arguments was a pretrial motion of defendant Casey Davidson facing a felony charge of first degree murder.  The question at the heart of this debate was whether or not it is a permissible search under the Fourth Amendment for the government to obtain routinely collected GPS location data from a third-party GPS provider.

SVUDL Board Member and DLA Piper’s Deputy Managing Partner Carrie Williamson opened the Showcase with a brief speech about how this moment in time would foster an environment in which SVUDL students would be exposed to new goals.  She remarked how SVUDL’s mission folds naturally into the signature pro bono project of the firm -- advancing education’s promise.

Program Specialist and SVUDL alum Najma Ali then shared how she participated in almost every opportunity SVUDL offered when she was a high school student, and how that sparked her interest in a legal career. She will be entering the University of San Francisco School of Law in the fall.

SVUDL Coach and Program Specialist Kwodwo Moore spoke about how powerful this pre-trial motion was for the fictitious case given the weight of that particular evidence to the overall case.

SVUDL students Hilda Huynh (Independence High School) and Michelle Ly (Silver Creek High School) served as defense counsel and students Ria Tyagi (Mount Pleasant High School) and Isabel Reinke (Independence High School) served as prosecution.

Much of the moot court arguments centered on whether the 4th Amendment and/or Third Party Doctrine apply to this motion. Students argued about whether GPS data is considered property under the 4th amendment:  the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Third Party Doctrine says there is no expectation of privacy in information voluntarily provided to others.

Passionate and lengthy discussions followed about the difference between putting a physical device on a car compared to GPS data via the car’s own technology or GPS data on a mobile phone.

Interesting exchanges occurred between the students and the judges about digital information. Can the government rightfully take private information from consumer devices?  Did the defendant know his car had a GPS device in it?

Arguments ensued around what it means when a GPS company says data tracking and storage is used to improve their products.  Should that translate to also giving the defendant’s information to the government?  Whose information is it?  The defendant’s or the government’s?

Conversations centered around the fact that the GPS couldn’t be turned on or off.

Should the government be able to access this information – and does that depend on how “voluntarily” sharing that information is defined here?  What about a warrant? Is it required for this type of search?  Should the government have access to someone’s daily routine and lifestyle? And be able to track it without a warrant?

 Does using a GPS to navigate mean you know they are storing this information somewhere? Is there an expectation of privacy or does the user assume the risk that their information would get shared?

The judges evaluated the students on the quality and persuasiveness of their presentation, as well as their unscripted responses to spontaneous questions from the bench. The judges spoke about how students are able to improve their skills by experiencing opportunities such as Moot Court. They made a point to express how they couldn’t imagine having done this exercise in high school themselves!

The judges shared appreciation for the students’ time, effort and energy. They noted how hard it would be to listen to their difficult legal questions under such pressure and be able to respond so well, including having the self-confidence to ask for a question to be repeated as needed.

Judges gave their decision at the end which was to vote to deny the motion because up until 2018, the Third Party Doctrine was applicable, and if the government was getting data from a third party, then that negated any expectation of privacy.

The judges shared how facial recognition is now a changing issue with the expectation of privacy. When you turn your face and biometric information over, at some point, the government might say you gave it up. They posted a question:  if AI is changing the forefront of technology, is there a reasonable expectation of privacy now?

The students appreciated having the chance to participate in the Showcase. “I liked being able to feel like I’m in the shoes of a lawyer,” reflected Ria Tyagi. "Being able to experience Moot Court opened up a new world of law and public speaking that I had never known before,” noted Hilda Huynh.

Thank you to DLA Piper for hosting this event at their beautiful new Palo Alto offices. We also extend our deepest gratitude for the attorneys and judges who helped make this event such a tremendous success.