United States v. Muhtorov

• Decision Date: 08 December 2021
• Docket Number: No. 18-1366,18-1366
• Citation: United States v. Muhtorov, 20 F.4th 558 (10th Cir. 2021)
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Jamshid MUHTOROV, Defendant - Appellant. Peter Fenn ; Loch Johnson; David Medine; Sharon Bradford Franklin; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amici Curiae.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

20 F.4th 558

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.Jamshid MUHTOROV, Defendant - Appellant.

Peter Fenn ; Loch Johnson; David Medine; Sharon Bradford Franklin; Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law; National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Amici Curiae.

No. 18-1366

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

FILED December 8, 2021

Patrick Toomey, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York (Ashley Gorski, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York, Virginia L. Grady, Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, John C. Arceci, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, with him on the briefs), for Defendant-Appellant.

Joseph Palmer, National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. (Steven L. Lane, National Security Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., Jason R. Dunn, former United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, Matthew R. Kirsch, United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, James C. Murphy, Assistant United States Attorney, District of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, John C. Demers, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, with him on the briefs), for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Andrew Crocker and Aaron Mackey, Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco, California, filed an amicus brief on behalf of Church Committee Staff in support of Defendant-Appellant.

Andrew C. Lillie, Jessica Black Livingston, Nathaniel H. Nesbitt, and Mark D. Gibson of Hogan Lovells US LLP, Denver, Colorado filed an amicus brief on behalf of David Medine and Sharon Bradford Franklin in support of Defendant-Appellant.

Elizabeth Goitein, of The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Washington, D.C., filed amicus brief in support of Defendant-Appellant.

Norman R. Mueller of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C., Denver, Colorado, and John D. Cline, Law Office of John D. Cline, San Francisco, California, filed an amicus brief on behalf of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Defendant-Appellant.

Before MATHESON, Circuit Judge, LUCERO, Senior Circuit Judge, and EID, Circuit Judge.

MATHESON, Circuit Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BACKGROUND...580

A.Factual and InvestigativeBackground...581

B.ProceduralHistory...581

C.Issues on Appeal...582

I.Fourth Amendment Challenge to Section 702-DerivedEvidence...583

A.Historical and LegalBackground...583

1.Pre-FISADevelopments...583

2.Traditional FISA...584

3.Executive Order 12333...585

4.The Terrorist Surveillance Program and the PATRIOT Act...585

5.The Protect America Act...585

6.The FISAAmendments Act of 2008...586

a. Mechanics of Section 702...586

i. Step One – Development of procedures...587

ii.Step Two – Submission for FISC review...588

iii.Step Three – Section 702 surveillance...588

iv.Step Four – Database storage...589

b. Differences between Section 702 and traditional FISA...589

B.InvestigativeBackground...590

C.ProceduralHistory...590

D.Challenge on Appeal...590

E. Standard of Review and FourthAmendment Background...592

F. Discussion...593

1.No WarrantRequired...593

a. No warrant required to surveil a foreign target...593

b. Incidental collection of Mr. Muhtorov's communications...594

i. Legal background – incidental overhear and plain view...595

1) Incidental overhear...595

a) Title III case law...595

b) Applying the Kahn and Donovan dicta to the Fourth Amendment...595

c) Applying the Kahn and Donovan dicta to foreign intelligence surveillance – FISCR, Second Circuit, and NinthCircuit...596

2) Plain view...597

ii.Analysis...598

1) Plain view and incidental collection without a warrant...598

2) Foreign intelligence surveillance context – Section 702's statutory requirements...599

3) Incidental overhear...600

4) Mr. Muhtorov's objections...600

2.Collection of Mr. Muhtorov's Communications Passed the Reasonableness BalancingTest...602

a. Reasonableness balancing test...603

i. Government's interest...603

ii.Mr. Muhtorov's privacy interest...603

iii.Privacy safeguards...603

iv.Totality of the circumstances...603

b.Mr. Muhtorov's reasonableness arguments...604

II.Article III Challenge...606

A. FISC Background...606

B. Discussion...607

1.Prohibition of AdvisoryOpinions...607

a. Advisory opinions background...607

b. Analysis...608

i. Not advisory opinions...608

ii.Mr. Muhtorov's counterarguments...611

2.Separation of Powers and Article III...612

a. Separation of powers background...613

b. Analysis...614

i. FISC does not trench upon executive prerogatives...615

ii.FISC performs appropriate judicial functions...615

iii.Additional considerations...616

1) Deference to Congress...616

2) Section 702 furthers privacy interests...617

III.Nondisclosure of FISA and Section 702 ApplicationMaterials...618

A.LegalBackground...618

B.ProceduralHistory...619

C.Standard of Review...620

D. Discussion...621

1.Disclosure UnderFISA...621

a. Traditional FISA application materials...621

b. Section 702 application materials...622

2.DueProcess...623

a. Due process and Brady...623

i. Legal background...623

ii.Analysis ...624

b. Due Process and § 1806(f) – Mathews...624

i. Legal background...624

ii.Analysis...625

c. Due process and Franks...625

i. Legal background...625

ii.Analysis...625

IV.Notice of Surveillance Methods and Discovery of CommunicationsTherefrom...626

A.LegalBackground...627

1. 18 U.S.C. § 3504...627

2.Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16...628

3. CIPA...628

B.Additional ProceduralHistory...629

C.Standard of Review...629

D. Discussion...630

1.DueProcess...630

2. 18 U.S.C. § 3504...631

3.Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16...631

4. CIPA...632

V.SpeedyTrial...633

A. Background...634

1.LegalBackground...634

a. Sixth Amendment...634

b. Speedy Trial Act ...634

2.ProceduralHistory...635

a. Initial proceedings...635

b. Speedy Trial Act orders...635

c. Superseding indictment...635

d. Discovery...635

e. Section 702 notice and motion to suppress...636

f. Third superseding indictment and second trial setting...636

g. Severance and third trial setting...636

h. Fourth trial setting...636

i. District judge's medical condition and final trial setting...636

j. Disposition of speedy trial motions...637

k. Convictions and sentence...637

B. Discussion...637

1.First Barker Factor: Length of the Delay...638

a. Additional legal background...638

b. Analysis...638

2.Second Barker Factor: Reasons for the Delay...639

a. Additional legal background...639

i. Quantifying the delay...639

1) Caused by defendant...640

2) Caused by the prosecution...640

3) Caused by neither the defendant nor the prosecution...640

4) Overall considerations...640

ii.Weighing the delay...640

b. Additional procedural background – discovery...641

c. Analysis...643

i. Quantifying the pretrial periods...643

1) Discovery period...643

a) Mr. Muhtorov's discovery requests...644

b) CIPA...644

c) Translation issues...645

d) Government's discovery conduct...646

2) District judge's medical condition...648

3) Overall quantification...648

ii.Weighing the pretrial periods...648

d. The Dissent...649

3.Third Barker Factor: Assertion of Speedy TrialRight...650

a. Additional legal background...650

b. Additional procedural history...651

c. Analysis...651

4.Fourth Barker Factor: Prejudice to the Defendant...653

a. Additional legal background...653

i. Presumption of prejudice...653

ii.Specific evidence of prejudice – three types...653

1) Oppressive pretrial incarceration...654

2) Anxiety and concern...654

3) Impairment to the defense...654

a) Particularity...654

b) Causation...654

c) Steps to preserve evidence...655

b. Additional procedural history...655

c. Analysis...655

i. Presumptive prejudice...655

ii.Specific prejudice...655

1) Oppressive pretrial incarceration...655

2) Anxiety and concern...656

3) Impairment of the defense...657

5.Balancing the BarkerFactors...658CONCLUSION...661TABLE OF ACRONYMS

Acronym	Title
AG	Attorney General
AUMF	Authorization for the Use of Military Force
CIA	Central Intelligence Agency
CIPA	Classified Information Procedures Act
DNI	Director of National Intelligence
FAA	FISA AmendmentsAct of 2008
FBI	Federal Bureau of Investigation
FISA	Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978
FISC	Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
FISCR	Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
FOIA	Freedom of Information Act
IJU	Islamic Jihad Union
ISP	Internet Service Provider
NSA	National Security Agency
PAA	Protect America Act of 2007
Section 702	Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance AmendmentsAct of 2008
STA	Speedy Trial Act of 1974
TSA	Transportation Security Administration
TSP	Terrorist Surveillance Program

A jury convicted Jamshid Muhtorov on three counts of conspiring and providing material support to the Islamic Jihad Union ("IJU"), a State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization with ties to al-Qaeda, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B.On appeal, he argues the foreign intelligence surveillance methods the government used to collect his communications were unconstitutional.He also questions the district court's refusal to disclose the classified materials the government used to secure approvals for the surveillance, the types of surveillance techniques used, and the evidence derived therefrom.Finally, Mr. Muhtorov claims his Sixth Amendment speedy trial right was violated.Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

The following provides an overview of (A) Mr. Muhtorov's criminal conduct and the government's investigation, (B) the procedural history between arrest and trial, and (C) the issues Mr. Muhtorov raises on appeal.We provide additional background during our discussion of each issue.

A.Factual and Investigative Background

Mr. Muhtorov arrived in the United States in 2007 as a political refugee from Uzbekistan and became a legal permanent resident.In 2009, he met Bakhtiyor Jumaev, a fellow Uzbekistan refugee with a similar background.The two became friends and developed a shared interest in the IJU.

The government first became aware of Mr. Muhtorov's connection to the IJU through warrantless surveillance conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence...