ANDREA R. MEYER OSB No. 93365 ACLU of Oregon Foundation PO Box 40585 Portland, OR 97240 (503) 227-6928 (ph) (503) 227-6948 (fax) ANN BEESON JAMEEL JAFFER American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004-2400 (212) 549-2500 (ph) (212) 549-2651 (fax) JOSHUA L. DRATEL National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers 14 Wall Street, 28th Floor New York, New York 10005 (212) 732-0707 (ph) (212) 571-6341 (fax) Counsel for Amici Curiae UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. CR 02-399 JO v. BRIEF OF AMICI JEFFREY LEON BATTLE, ET AL., CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ Defendants. MOTION TO SUPPRESS FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES…………………………………………………………..….ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT………………………………………………………….1 I. OVERVIEW…………………………………………………………………………..2 A. Statutory Context………………………………………………………………….2 B. In re Sealed Case 02-001 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review………………………………………………………………………….5 C. Factual Background………………………………………………………………..9 II. The FBI’s surveillance of the defendants in this case did not conform to constitutional requirements that govern the conduct of criminal investigations………………………………………………………………………...11 A. FISA surveillance orders are not warrants within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment………………………………………………………………11 B. The surveillance was conducted without compliance with the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement………………………………………11 C. The surveillance was conducted without compliance with the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement…………………………………………13 D. The surveillance was conducted without compliance with the Fourth Amendment’s notice requirement………………………………………………..16 E. The surveillance was conducted without meaningful prior judicial review……..18 III. FISA’s departures from ordinary Fourth Amendment principles are constitutionally defensible only where the government’s primary purpose is to gather foreign intelligence information…………………………………………...20 A. Numerous federal courts have held that the Fourth Amendment forecloses the government from relying on the foreign intelligence exception where its primary purpose is to gather evidence of criminal activity…………………..21 B. FISA is unconstitutional because it would allow the government to evade Fourth Amendment requirements in a virtually limitless class of ordinary criminal investigations…………………………………………………………..26 Page i United States v. Battle Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Suppress Foreign Intelligence Evidence C. The Supreme Court’s “special needs” cases confirm that the government cannot constitutionally rely on the foreign intelligence exception where its primary purpose is to gather evidence of criminal activity……………28 IV. FISA Should Be Facially Invalidated………………………………………………..31 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………..35 Page ii United States v. Battle Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Suppress Foreign Intelligence Evidence TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967) ...................................................................passim Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)....................................................................... 11 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).................................................. 29, 30 Dalia v. United States, 441 U.S. 238 (1979) .............................................................. 11, 12 Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S. 67 (2001) .................................................. 29, 30 Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)........................................................................ 18 Graves v. City of Coeur d’Alene, 2003 WL 21768966 (9th Cir. 2003)............................. 29 Halkin v. Helms, 690 F.2d 977 (D.C. Cir. 1982) ................................................................ 3 Henderson v. City of Simi Valley, 305 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) ..................................... 30 In re All Matters Submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, 218 F.Supp.2d 611 (U.S. For. Int. Surv. Ct. 2002) ..................................................... 6, 7 In re Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. Rev. 2002)..........................passim Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948) ............................................................ 18, 24 Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1987)....................................................................... 13 Miller v. United States, 357 U.S. 301 (1958).................................................................... 16 Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)........................................................................ 11 Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385 (1997) .................................................................... 17 United States v. Sarkissian, 841 F.2d 959 (9th Cir. 1988)........................................... 24, 25 United States v. Badia, 827 F.2d 1458 (11th Cir. 1987).................................................... 24 United States v. Butenko, 494 F.2d 593 (3d Cir. 1974) .................................................... 23 United States v. Cavanagh, 807 F.2d 787 (9th Cir. 1987)................................................. 24 United States v. Donovan, 429 U.S. 413 (1977)............................................................... 17 Page iii United States v. Battle Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Suppress Foreign Intelligence Evidence United States v. Duggan, 743 F.2d 59 (2d Cir. 1984) ................................................ 19, 24 United States v. Nicholson, 955 F.Supp. 588 (E.D. Va. 1997) ......................................... 18 United States v. Pelton, 835 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1987).................................................... 24 United States v. Posey, 864 F.2d 1487 (9th Cir. 1989)...................................................... 31 United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) ................................................................. 31 United States v. Smith, 321 F.Supp. 424 (C.D.Cal. 1971) .................................... 14, 21, 26 United States v. Truong Dinh Hung, 629 F.2d 908 (4th Cir., 1980)...................... 22, 23, 25 United States v. U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)..................................................... 21, 22, 26, 34 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990)................................................ 33 Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995)........................................... 29 Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (1995) ......................................................................... 16 Zweibon v. Mitchell, 516 F.2d. 594 (D.C. Cir. 1975) ....................................................... 34 STATUTES 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq......................................................................................... 16, 21, 22 50 U.S.C. § 1801 et seq...............................................................................................passim Pub. L. No. 103-359,108 Stat. 3447 (1994)........................................................................ 4 Pub. L. No. 105-272, 112 Stat. 2405 (1998)....................................................................... 4 Pub. L. No. 105-272, 112 Stat. 2411 (1998)....................................................................... 4 Pub. L. No. 107-56, 115 Stat. 272 (2001)....................................................................... 1, 5 OTHER AUTHORITIES “What do I have to do to get a FISA?” (Document released by FBI in response to August 21 Freedom of Information Act request submitted by ACLU et al.) ............... 12 S. Rep. 94-755 (1976) (2 Senate Select Comm. to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Intelligence Activities and the Rights of Americans, Final Report)................................................................................................ 3 Page iv United States v. Battle Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Suppress Foreign Intelligence Evidence S. Rep. 95-604 (1977)......................................................................................................... 3 The Supreme Court, 1966 Term, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 69 (1967) .......................................... 34 Transcript, Department of Justice Press Conference Re: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (November 18, 2002) ...................................................... 8 Page v United States v. Battle Brief of Amici Curiae in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Suppress Foreign Intelligence Evidence PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Amici curiae American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (“ACLU”) and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (“NACDL”) submit this brief in support of defendants’ Motion to Suppress Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Evidence. The surveillance at issue in this case was extraordinarily comprehensive and far- reaching. The government secretly entered defendants’ homes, conducted physical searches and installed electronic eavesdrop devices. It recorded all activity within the home, virtually uninterrupted, for a period of two full months. The government also intercepted hundreds of defendants’ e-mails and literally thousands of their telephone calls. The government’s primary – perhaps even exclusive – purpose in monitoring the defendants