United States v. Mohammad
Decision Date | 11 September 2018 |
Docket Number | Case No. 3:15-cr-358 |
Citation | 339 F.Supp.3d 724 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff v. Yahya Farooq MOHAMMAD, et al., Defendants |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Matthew W. Shepherd, Office of the U.S. Attorney - Cleveland Northern District of Ohio, Cleveland, OH, David C. Smith, District of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, Gregory R. Gonzalez, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Michael J. Freeman, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Toledo, OH, for Plaintiff.
David Lee Klucas, Cherrefe A. Kadri, Toledo, OH, Linda G. Moreno, Tampa, FL, Christos N. Georgalis_AUSA, Northern District of Ohio, for Defendants.
Jeffrey J. Helmick, United States District JudgeBefore me are several motions.1 First, Defendants have requested the disclosure of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") material and the suppression of the evidence obtained or derived from electronic surveillance and physical searches conducted under FISA Titles I and III. (Doc, No. 148 at 1; Doc. No. 156 at 1.) These motions are denied.
Next, Defendants request the suppression of evidence obtained or derived from acquisitions made under FISA Section 702. (Doc. No. 146 at 1–2.) Defendants have also requested the disclosure of the FISA Section 702 materials relevant to this case. (Doc. No. 140 at 1.) These Section 702 motions are also denied.
And lastly, Defendants have requested an order directing the Government to provide notice and additional information about the surveillance it undertook in preparing this case, (Doc. No. 131 at 1.) This motion is denied as well.
Defendants Yahya Farooq Mohammad, Ibrahim Zubair Mohammad, Sultane Roome Salim, and Asif Ahmed Salim were indicted on September 30, 2015, and charged with (Count 1) conspiracy to provide and conceal material support to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A ; (Count 2) providing material support to terrorists, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339A ; (Count 3) conspiracy to commit bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C, § 1349 ( ); and (Count 4) conspiracy to obstruct justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(k). (Doc. No. 1 at 12–72.)
The Government accuses Defendants of conspiring to provide, and actually providing, funds and other material support to Anwar al-Awlaki for the preparation and execution of terrorist attacks and killings. (See Doc. No. 1 at 12, 68.) The Government contends Defendants conspired to obstruct its investigation into their illicit fundraising by making false statements to the FBI and destroying or concealing records. (Id. at 65–67, 71–72.) And as to Farooq and Ibrahim, the Government additionally alleges that they conspired to raise money for al-Awlaki through various fraudulent credit card and PayPal transactions. (Id. at 68–71.)
Farooq has since pleaded guilty to the charges against him. (Doc. No. 284 at 1.) The other Defendants are scheduled to be tried on April 23, 2018. (Doc. No. 259 at 1.)
On December 21, 2015, the Government notified Defendants that it intends to offer into evidence, or otherwise use or disclose in any proceeding in this case, information obtained or derived from (i) electronic surveillance under FISA Title I (as to Sultane and Asif), (ii) physical searches under FISA Title III (as to Ibrahim, Sultane, and Asif), and (iii) acquisitions under FISA Section 702 (as to Ibrahim and Asif) under FISA. (See Doc. Nos. 28, 29, 30.)
In response to these notices, Defendants have filed several motions. In motions directed at FISA Titles I and III (Doc. Nos. 148, 156), Defendants have moved for (i) me to review the Government's applications for FISA surveillance and searches, (ii) the disclosure of the Government's applications for surveillance and searches, (iii) an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978), and (iv) the suppression of any evidence obtained or derived from illegally authorized or implemented surveillance or searches. (See Doc. No. 150 at 3; Doc. No. 156 at 1.)
In motions directed at FISA Section 702 (Doc. Nos. 140, 146), Defendants have requested (i) the disclosure of the Section 702 materials relevant to this case and (ii) the suppression of all evidence obtained or derived from acquisitions under Section 702. (Doc. No. 140 at 1; Doc. No. 146 at 1.)
And in a motion aimed broadly at all of the Government's surveillance and evidence-gathering methods (Doc. No. 131), Defendants request an order directing the Government to provide notice of "(1) each surveillance technique it used to obtain information about Defendant's communications or activities in its investigation; (2) the timing or duration of that surveillance; (3) the legal authority relied upon; and (4) the evidence obtained or derived from that surveillance." (Doc. No. 131 at 1.)
The Government opposes Defendants motions and has responded by filing classified and unclassified memoranda in opposition. The Government has also filed an affidavit signed by the Attorney General in which she declared under oath that "it would harm the national security of the United States to disclose or hold an adversary hearing with respect to the FISA Materials" in this matter. (Doc. No. 190 ¶ 3.) The filing of this affidavit triggers a statutory mandate directing me to "review in camera and ex parte the application, order, and such other materials relating to the [FISA] surveillance as may be necessary to determine whether the surveillance of the aggrieved person was lawfully authorized and conducted." 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f) ; see also id. § 1881e(a).
I have conducted the required in camera, ex parte review of the FISA materials and now address Defendants' motions. I first consider the motions for disclosure and suppression under FISA Titles I and III (Doc. Nos. 148, 156).
Enacted in 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, establishes a statutory framework under which executive branch agencies may collect foreign intelligence information. See United States v. Aziz , 228 F.Supp.3d 363, 366 (M.D. Pa. 2017) ; see 50 U.S.C. § 1801, et seq. As part of this framework, Congress created two specialized courts: the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ("FISC") and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ("FISCR"). 50 U.S.C. § 1803. FISA authorizes the Chief Justice of the United States to designate eleven United States District Judges to sit as judges of the FISC. Id. § 1803(a)(1). FISC judges consider ex parte applications submitted by the executive branch for electronic surveillance and physical searches. See id. The FISCR, which is composed of three United States District or Circuit Judges designated by the Chief Justice, reviews denials by the FISC of applications for FISA intelligence collection. Id. § 1803(b).
FISA, as amended in 2001 under the USA PATRIOT Act ("Patriot Act") and as amended again in 2008 under the FISA Amendments Act ("FAA"), consists of eight titles. As relevant here, Title I (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 to 1813 ) deals with electronic surveillance, Title III (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1821 – 1829 ) deals with physical searches, and Section 702 ( ) deals with the acquisition of foreign intelligence information from electronic communication service providers. Unlike surveillance under Titles I and III, Section 702 surveillance targets non-United States persons located abroad. See 50 U.S.C. § 1881a(b).
Titles I and III of FISA provide detailed procedures for the authorization and execution of electronic surveillance and physical searches.
50 U.S.C. § 1805(e)(1) ; see id. § 1824(e)(1).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Hasbajrami
...lawful permanent residents, or are located in the United States. Accord Mohamud , 843 F.3d at 441 ; see also United States v. Mohammad , 339 F. Supp. 3d 724, 748-49 (N.D. Ohio 2018) (applying Verdugo-Urquidez and rejecting Fourth Amendment challenge to Section 702 surveillance where, despit......
-
United States v. Hossain, 19-CR-606 (SHS)
...holds a "broad right to notice of, and information about, each surveillance technique used by the Government." United States v. Mohammad, 339 F. Supp. 3d 724, 754 (N.D. Ohio 2018) (denying defendants' motion for notice of each surveillance technique used by the government against them); see......
-
United States v. Nassif Sami Daher D-2
...by a FISA judge, it carries a strong presumption of veracity and regularity in a reviewing court." See United States v. Mohammad, 339 F. Supp. 3d 724, 736 (N.D. Ohio 2018). When reviewing an application, the district court must ensure that the application contains all of the requirements li......
-
United States v. Nistor
...to obtain a warrant before collecting the [domestically located] e-mails of foreign individuals abroad."); United States v. Mohammad, 339 F.Supp.3d 724, 749 (N.D. Ohio 2018) (holding that Fourth Amendment protections are not available to a nonresident alien simply because the searched elect......
-
A Deep Dive Into Technical Encryption Concepts to Better Understand Cybersecurity & Data Privacy Legal & Policy Issues
...The Prism program was authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Services Act (FISa). See United States v. Mohammad, 339 F. Supp. 3d 724, 744 (N.D. Ohio 2018) (discussing Section 702 data collection under Prism, generally).184. Another example is the NSA's Bullrun program desi......
-
A CRUCIAL ASPECT OF NATIONAL SECURITY IN NEED OF REFORM: SECTION 702 OF THE FISA AMENDMENTS ACT.
...(172.) 568 U.S. 398(2013). (173.) Mat 407. (174.) Id. at 401. (175.) Wat 407. (176.) Id. at 402. See also United States v. Mohammad, 339 F. Supp. 3d 724, 735 (N.D. Ohio 2018) ("A person is aggrieved under FISA if he is the target of, or was subject to. electronic (177.) Clapper v. Amnesty l......