General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDoes the government have our phone records or not? Court orders Govt to respond re FISA metadata
Criminal trial going on down FL way. Defendant is charged with robbing a Brink's truck. The defense subpoenaed cell phone records from the government which defense claims are exculpatory. The government contends it doesn't have records for one particular month in question, and so the defense moved the court to order production based on recent FISA metadata collection revelations. And so, in a nutshell, the court has ordered the government to produce the records. I can't think of any reason they can't, if the FISA reporting is factual.
Under 50 U.S.C. § 1806(f), when an aggrieved person2 moves to discover, obtain, or suppress evidence or information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance[3] under [FISA], the Court must provide the Attorney General of the United States with an opportunity to file an affidavit under oath indicating whether disclosure or an adversary hearing on the defendants request would harm the national security of the United States. If the Attorney General files such an affidavit, the Court must conduct an in camera and ex parte review of the application, order, and other materials to determine whether the surveillance of the movant was lawfully authorized and conducted. If the Attorney General declines to file such an affidavit, however, the Court may conduct this inquiry in open court.
Upon review of the application, order, and other materials, if the Court concludes that Defendant Brown was an aggrieved person and that the surveillance was not lawfully authorized or conducted, it must grant Defendants Motion and preclude the Government from using the evidence. See 50 U.S.C. § 1806(g). And, even if the Court determines that the surveillance was lawfully authorized or conducted, it must order discovery or disclosure to the extent that due process requires it, although the Court must otherwise deny the motion. Id. Here, Defendant asserts that, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), due process requires the production of the July 2010 telephone records because they are anticipated to be exculpatory in that they are expected to show that Defendant Brown was not physically located at the scene of the alleged attempted Brinks truck robbery in July 2010.
In view of Defendant Browns Motion and the requirements of FISA, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Government shall respond to Defendant Browns Motion and, if desired, shall file an affidavit of the Attorney General of the United States, as contemplated by Section 1806(f), by Wednesday, June 12, 2013. The Court regrets the short deadline for compliance but notes that the evidence that Defendant Brown seeks pertains to a trial that has been underway since May 31, 2013,4 and any order requiring the production of any materials sought would become meaningless if such items were not produced in sufficient time for the defense to use them in its case.5
http://www.scribd.com/doc/147116286/Order-Requiring-Response-Re-FISA-Records
This should be interesting....
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Thanks for posting.
-Laelth
Melinda
(5,465 posts)My pleasure. Watch this space, lol.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
Melinda
(5,465 posts)I appreciate the response and kick. My threads tend to go nowhere. Another go figure
Laelth
(32,017 posts)That, I think, is key to getting a broader audience.
Me? I'm just interested in the legal stuff.
-Laelth