United States v. Aziz
228 F. Supp. 3d 363, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4528, 2017 WL 118252 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) procedure for a court's in camera, ex parte review of surveillance applications to determine their legality does not violate a defendant's constitutional rights. Disclosure of classified FISA materials to a defendant is a rare exception, granted only when the court finds it necessary for an accurate determination of the surveillance's legality.
Facts:
- Jalil Ibn Ameer Aziz was suspected of supporting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), a designated foreign terrorist organization.
- Aziz allegedly conspired and attempted to provide material support and resources to ISIL.
- Via a Twitter account, Aziz allegedly transmitted a communication containing the personal information of approximately one hundred United States servicemen, including their names, addresses, and photographs.
- The communication urged readers to kill the service members in their homes and on the streets.
- To investigate Aziz, the U.S. government conducted electronic surveillance and physical searches under authorization from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).
Procedural Posture:
- The United States initiated prosecution against Jalil Ibn Ameer Aziz in federal district court with a criminal complaint on December 17, 2015.
- A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Aziz with conspiracy and attempt to provide material support to a terrorist organization.
- The government filed a notice of its intent to use information obtained from physical searches conducted under FISA.
- The grand jury returned a superseding indictment, adding charges for solicitation to commit a crime of violence and transmitting a threat.
- The government filed a second notice of intent to use FISA information, adding evidence from electronic surveillance.
- Aziz filed a motion in the district court to compel disclosure of the FISA applications and to suppress all evidence obtained or derived from FISA surveillance.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) procedure, which allows a court to review surveillance applications in camera and ex parte to determine their legality without disclosure to the defendant, violate the defendant's Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Christopher C. Conner, Chief Judge
No, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act's (FISA) procedure for in camera, ex parte review does not violate the defendant's constitutional rights. FISA's statutory framework, which has consistently withstood constitutional challenges, strikes a necessary balance between protecting national security and safeguarding individual rights through a system of legislative, executive, and judicial oversight. The court's independent in camera review of the FISA materials revealed no irregularities, and disclosure to the defendant was not necessary to make an accurate determination of the surveillance's legality. The government's applications satisfied all statutory requirements, including establishing probable cause and meeting the 'significant purpose' test. Therefore, the motion to suppress and for disclosure is denied.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for defendants seeking to challenge the legality of FISA surveillance, reaffirming the constitutionality of its secret review process. The court aligns with the vast majority of federal courts by holding that the in camera, ex parte review sufficiently protects a defendant's rights while shielding sensitive national security information. By explicitly adopting a de novo standard for reviewing the FISC's probable cause findings, the court asserts a rigorous judicial check on the executive branch, yet the overall holding solidifies a legal framework where the traditional adversarial process is displaced in favor of judicial trusteeship in national security matters.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Aziz