United States v. Muhtorov
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
| Citation | 20 F.4th 558 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-1366,18-1366 |
| 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. |
| Decision Date | 08 December 2021 |
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 Investigative Background...581
B. Procedural History...581
C. Issues on Appeal...582
I. Fourth Amendment Challenge to Section 702-Derived Evidence...583
A. Historical and Legal Background...583
1. Pre-FISA Developments...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 FISA Amendments 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. Investigative Background...590
C. Procedural History...590
D. Challenge on Appeal...590
E. Standard of Review and Fourth Amendment Background...592
F. Discussion...593
1. No Warrant Required...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 Ninth Circuit...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 Balancing Test...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 Advisory Opinions...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 Application Materials...618
A. Legal Background...618
B. Procedural History...619
C. Standard of Review...620
D. Discussion...621
1. Disclosure Under FISA...621
a. Traditional FISA application materials...621
b. Section 702 application materials...622
2. Due Process...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 Communications Therefrom...626
A. Legal Background...627
1. 18 U.S.C. § 3504...627
2. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16...628
3. CIPA...628
B. Additional Procedural History...629
C. Standard of Review...629
D. Discussion...630
1. Due Process...630
2. 18 U.S.C. § 3504...631
3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16...631
4. CIPA...632
V. Speedy Trial...633
A. Background...634
1. Legal Background...634
a. Sixth Amendment...634
b. Speedy Trial Act ...634
2. Procedural History...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 Trial Right...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
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
China Telecom (Ams.) Corp. v. Fed. Commc'ns Comm'n
...to determine whether they include any matters that might be exculpatory and justify discovery. See, e.g. , United States v. Muhtorov , 20 F.4th 558, 624 (10th Cir. 2021) (noting no favorable material in FISA evidence after independent review); United States v. Moalin , 973 F.3d 977, 1002 (9......
-
United States v. Jumaev
...from the decision not to vacate Bakhtiyor Jumaev's conviction for want of a speedy trial.1 See United States v. Muhtorov, No. 18-1366, 20 F.4th 558, 580-592 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) (Lucero, Senior J., dissenting) (hereinafter " Muhtorov dissent"). I incorporate that dissent in its entirety......
-
M.G. v. Scrase
...Court recognize DRNM's associational standing, the Court declines to rule on this issue at this time.[3] See United States v. Muhtorov, 20 F.4th 558, 607 (10th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 214 L.Ed.2d 105, 143 S.Ct. 246 (2022) (“One limitation on the judicial power is the prohibition of adviso......
-
Ullerich v. Shrader
...conduct the search and seizure reasonably.” United States v. Palm, 21 F.4th 689, 697 (10th Cir. 2021); see also United States v. Muhtorov, 20 F.4th 558, 592 (10th Cir. 2021) (“A search or seizure satisfies the Fourth Amendment if it is reasonable.” (citing Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373,......