T he C l erk of the C our ti s di r ect ed t o amend t he ca pt i on t o r ead a s s how n above. * 1 0 9
- 1 3 7 5
- c r

( L) Unite d State s v . A

bu-Jihaad UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS

F ORTH E S EC ON D C IR C U IT
A ugus tT erm , 2009 ( Subm i t t ed: A pr i l 29, 2010 D eci ded: D ece m ber20, 2010)

D o ck et N o s. 0 9 -13 7 5 -cr (L ), 0 9 -13 8 4 -cr (X A P )
U NI TED S T A T E S OF A MERI CA , Ap p e l l e e ,

— v . — H AS SAN A BU -J I HA AD , a lso k n o w n a s P a u l R . H a ll , D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t . *

_________________ B efor e: R AG GI , H A LL , and C H IN , C i rcui tJud ges.

____ __ A ppeal fr om a j udgm entof conv ict ion e nt er ed af t era j ur yt r i al i n t he U ni t ed St at es D is tr ic t C o u rt f

o r th e D is tr ic t o f

C o n n e c tic u t ( M a rk R . K ra v itz , Judge ) , atw hi ch def endant H as s an A bu- J i haad w as found gui l t yof comm uni cat ing nat i onal defe ns e i nfor m at i on
re sp e c tin g th e m o v e m e n ts o f a U n ited S tate s N a v yb a ttl e g ro u p to u n a u th o riz e d p e rso n s in vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 793( d)
. D efe ndant cont ends t hat ( 1) i ncul pat or y evi dence pr ocur ed2

pur s uant t o t he For ei gn I nt el l i gence Sur vei l l ance A ct , 50 U
. S. C
. § 1801 ets eq. , s houl d have been s uppr es s ed bec aus e ( a) t hats t atut e i s uncons t i tut i onal and ( b) i n anyevent , w as not compl i ed w i t h i n t hi s cas e; ( 2) err oneous evi dent i aryrul i ngs depr i ved hi m of a fai r t r i al ; ( 3) th e trial e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt c o n v ictio n ; a n d (4 ) th e d istric t c o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n ent er i ng pr ot ect i ve or der s pur s uant t o t he C l as s i fi ed I nfor m at ion P rocedur es A c t, 1 8 U .S .C . a p p . 3 , § § 1 -1 6 . W e re je c t th e s e a rg u m e n ts a s w ith o u t m e ri t. A F F I R MED .

_____________________ D AN E. L A B E LLE , H a llo ra n & S a g e L L P , W e s tp o rt , C o n n e c tic u t, f or D e fen da n t-Ap

p e lla n t . W I L L I A M J. N ARDINI , A L EXI S C OL L INS , A s s i s t a n tU n i t e d S t a t e s A t t o r n e ys ( St ephen Reynol ds , A ssist antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney ; D avi d K r i s , A s s i s t ant A t t or neyG ener al , N at i onal Secur i t yD i vi s i on; J ohn D e P ue, Seni orL i t i gat i on C ouns el , C ount er t err or i s m Sect i on, U
. S. D epart m ent of J us t i ce, W as hi ngt on, D .C ., on the br i ef

), on behal

f of N or a R
. D annehy , U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyfor th e D is tr ic t o f

C o n n e c tic u t, N e w H a v e n , C o n n e c tic u t, f or Appel l ee .

R EEN A R AG GI , C i r cui tJudge : U n ited S tate s c iti z e n H a ss a n A b u -Jih a a d , w h o se b irth n a m e is P a u l R a p h a e l H a ll, appea l s fr om a j udgm entof convi ct i on ent er ed i n t he U ni te d St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D is tr ic t o f

C o n n e c tic u t ( M a rk R . K ra v itz , J u d ge ) o n A p ril 3 , 2 0 0 9 , af ter a ju ryf

o u n d h im gui l t yof havi ng comm uni cat ed nat i o n al d ef ens e i nfor m at i on, s peci fi cal l y , t he ant i ci pat ed
m o v e m e n ts o f

a U n ited S tate s N a v y b a tt leg ro u p b e in g d e p lo y e d to th e P e rsia n G u lf , toJ i h a d h a s b e e n d e f i n e d a s “ a r e l i g i o u s wa r o f M u s l i ms a g a i n s tu n b e l i e v e r s i n I s l a m, 1 i ncul cat ed as a dut y by t he K or an and t r adi t i ons . ” 8 O xfor d E ngl i s h D i ct i onary238 ( 2d ed. 1 9 8 9 ). A lth o u g h jih a d is a ls o u n d e rsto o d to d e n o te “ th e stru g g le a g a in st o n e ’s e v il i ncl i nat i ons oreff

or t s t ow ar d t he m or al upl i ft of s oci ety , ” 7 E ncy cl opedi a of R el i gi on 4917 ( L i nds ay J ones ed. , 2d ed. 2005) , i t i s i n t he for m er s ens e t hat t he concepthas been i nvoked t o s u p por tt err or i s tact s agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es , s ee, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. R ahman, 189 F. 3d 88, 104- 09 ( 2d C i r . 1999) ( det ai l i ng Shei kh O m ar A bdel R ahman’ s s uppor tfor“vi ol ent j i had ” againstt he U nit ed S t at es)
. In thi s case, t he juryheard t est i m on yt hat j i had w arr i ors, know n as m uj ahi deen, comm onl ys el ectnom s de guerr e. T her e can be no ques t i on t hatt he U ni t ed St at es w as t hen aw ar e thati tw as a t ar get 2 of j i had t err or i s m , as evi dence d byt he February1993 bom bi ng of the W or l d T r ade Cent er 3 unauthor i zed per s ons i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 793( d)
. Pr es ent l ys ervi ng a t en- y earpr i s on ter m f o r th a t cr im e , A b u -Jih a a d c o n ten d s th a t ( 1 ) in c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e o b tain e d p u rsu a n t to t he For ei gn I nt el l i gence Sur vei l l ance A ct ( “FI SA ”) , 50 U
. S. C
. § 1801 ets eq. , s houl d have been s uppr es s ed bec aus e ( a) t hats t atut e i s uncons t i tut i onal and ( b) i n anyevent , w as not compl i ed w i t h i n t hi s cas e; ( 2) err oneous evi dent i ary rul i ngs depr i ved hi m of a f ai rt r i al ; ( 3) th e trial e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to su p p o rt c o n v ictio n ; a n d (4 ) th e d istric t c o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n ent er i n g p r o t e c t i v e o r der s pur s uantt o t he C l as s i fi ed I nfor m at i on Pr ocedur es A ct ( “C I PA ”) , 18 U
. S. C
. app. 3, §§ 1- 16. W e i d e n t i f

y n o me r i t i n a n y o f t h e s e a r g u me n t s a n d , a c c o r d i n g l y , we a f f i r m t he j udgm entof convi ct i on. I . Backg r ound I n 1997, defe ndantPaul R aphae l H al l change d hi s name t o “H as s an A bu- J i haad, ” the
s ur name of w hi ch tr ans l at es t o “Fatherof J i had. ” T hi s cur i ous choi ce a ppear s nott o have 1

r ai s ed any conce r n i n t he U ni t ed St at es N avyw hen, i n J anuary1998, A bu- J i haad e nl i s t ed. 2i n N ew Y or k C i t y , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Y ous ef, 327 F. 3d 56, 78- 79 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ; foi l ed

pl ot s i n J une 1993 and J anuary 1995 t o bom b U ni t ed St at es ai r cr aft en r out e fr om A s i a and N ew Y or k C i t ybr i dges , tunnel s , and bui l di ngs , s ee i d. at79; U ni t ed St at es v. R ahman, 189 F. 3d at109- 11, 155; and the J une 1 9 9 6 bom bi ng of the K hobarT ow er s , a r es i dent i al compl ex on a U ni t ed St at es m i l i t ary bas e i n D hahr an, Saudi A r abi a, s ee Est at e of H ei s erv. Is la m ic R e p u b lic o f

Ir a n , 6 5 9 F . S u p p . 2 d 2 0 , 2 2 (D .D .C . 2 0 0 9 ). 4 In d e e d , o v e r th e c o u rse o f A b u -Jih a a d ’s m ili tar y se rv ice , f ro m 1 9 9 8 -2 0 0 2 , the N a v yw o u ld cl eardefe ndantt o r ece i ve cl as s i fi ed nat i onal defe ns e i nfor m at ion
. T h e N avy ’ s t rus tw as
m i s pl ace d. A s t he j ur y found, s om et i m e i n ear l y 2001, A bu- J i haad l eake d classified in f o rm a tio n a b o u t th e m o v e m e n ts o f N a v ysh ip s d e stin e d f o r th e P e rsia n G u lf

to unauthor i zed pe r s ons s uppor t i ve of j i had. B eca us e A bu- J i haad c hal l enges t he s uffi ci ency
o f th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g th e ju ryv e rd ict, w e d isc u ss th a t ev id e n c e in so m e d e tail. A
. D i s coveryof the C l as s i fi ed I nfor m at i on i n a London S ear ch T he fi r s tl i nk i n t he cha i n of ci r cumst ant i al evi dence pr ovi ng A bu- J i haad’ s gui l tw as di s cover ed i n L ondon w her e, on D ece m ber2, 2003, B r i t i s h author i t i es conduct ed s ear ches
o f v ariou s loc ati o n s ass o ciated w ith B ab ar A h m ad , an inf o rm ati o n tech n o log istat L o n d o n ’s Im p e ri a l C o lle g e w ith tie s to A z z a m P u b lic a tio n s .

1
. A zz am P u b li ca ti o n s’ S u p p o rtfo r Ji had L ondon- based A zza m Publ i cat i ons ( “A zza m ”) w as an or gani zat i on t hati n 2001
m ai nt ai ned a numberof w ebs i t es t hatgl ori fied m artyr dom i n t he name of j i had and the vi ol e nt e xp l oi t s of muj a hi de e n ar ou nd t he w or l d. Se e U ni t e d St a t e s v. A bu
- J i ha a d, 60 0 F. Supp. 2d 362, 366 ( D
. C onn. 2009) ( r evi ew i ng t r i al evi dence i n deny i ng pos t - ver di ctm ot i onsT hi s i s onl y one of a num ber of t hought ful publ i s hed and unpubl i s hed opi ni ons fi l ed 3 by t he di s t r i ct cour t i n t hi s cas e. O t her s i ncl ude U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 531 F. Supp. 2d 299 ( D
. C onn. 2008) ( addr es s i ng FI SA chal l enge) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, N o. 07 C r . 57, 2008 W L 282368 ( D
. C onn. J an. 31, 2008) ( rul i ng on admi s sibil ityof r ecor ded s t at ement s ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 5 5 3 F. Supp. 2d 121 ( D
. C onn. 2008) ( rul i ng on admi s s i bi l i t yof expe r t , vi deot ape, and w ebs i t e evi dence ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, N o. 07 C r . 57, 2008 W L 346121 ( D
. C onn. Feb. 4, 2008) ( rul i ng on fi r s tC I PA m ot i on) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, N o. 07 C r . 57, 2008 W L 596200 ( D
. C onn. Feb. 22, 2008) ( rul i ng on sec o n d C IP A m o ti o n ). O n O ct ober12, 2000, I s l ami c t err or i s t s i n a sm al l boatl aden w i t h expl os i ves 4 at t acke d t he U
. S. S. C ol e, a N avydes t r oy er , off the coa s tof Y emen , ki l l i ng s event een m ember s of the s hi p’ s cr ew . See T he N at ’ l C om m ’ n on T err or i s tA t t acks U pon t he U
. S. , T he 9 /1 1 C o m m is s io n R e p o rt 1 9 0 -9 1 (2 0 0 4 ). 5 f o r j u d g m e n t o f a c q u itta l o r n e w tr ia l)
. It s n a m e p a id tr ib u te to S h e ik h A b d u lla h A z z a m , a 3 l eade ri n ur gi ng t he r evi val of vi ol ent j i had i n t he t w ent i eth centur y . I n addi t i on t o m arket i ng j i hadi s taudi o an d v ide o r ecor di ngs on i t s w ebs i t es , A zza m offe r ed Engl i s h t r ans l at i ons of b o o k s wr i t t e n b yS h e i k h Az z a m. I ta l s o p r o v i d e d a c c e s s t o t h e 1 9 9 6 f a t wa i s s u e d b yOs a ma bi n L aden, ent i t l ed a “ D ecl ar at i on of W arA gai ns tt he A m er i cans O ccupy i ng t he Land of the T w o H o lyP lac e s,” w h ich c h a rg e d M u slim s to tak e u p a rm s ag a in st th e U n ited S tate s to rid t he A r abi an Peni ns ul a of “ i nfi del s . ” I d. at367. I ts ol i ci t ed as s i s t ance forj i hadi s tgr oups , for exampl e, r eques t i ng t hat rea d er s ai d t he Tal i ban “bys endi ng m oneyorgas m as ks , or t ravel i ng t o A fgh anis t an to provide bat t l efi el d m edical ser vices ” i n an t i ci pati on of an off ense byA m er i can a nd R us s i an for ces i n r et al i at i on fort he O ct ober2000 at t ack on the U
. S. S. C ol e. Id. at 36 6 -67
. O n e o f A zz am ’s m o st p o p u lar p o sti n g s instructed M u sli m s li v ing in W estern

4 countr i es as t o how t hey , t oo, coul d t r ai n as m uj ahi deen.F o r ex am p le, on e o f th e f il es o n the s eize d d isk, en ti tl ed “F O R T H E G U Y IN 5 C H A R G E T O R E A D (0 1

_ 0 8

_ 0 1 ).zip ,” p ro v id e d p a ss w o rd s f o r A z z a m ’s v a rio u s e m a il acc ount s and i ns t ruct i ons fort he managementof A zza m ’ s vi deo and book i nvent or y . U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at369 & n. 4. A tt he b eginni ng of the B at t l egro up D ocu m ent, a st at em ent appears i n b racket s: 6 “[N ece s s arychange s m ade i n gr amm ar and s pel l i ng and for t he s ake of cl ar i t y . ] , ” G ov’ tE x. 1, sign ali n g th at th e d o cu m en t w as e d it ed b yso m eo n e o ther tha n the o ri g inal au tho r. A ccordi ng l y , t he excerpts repr od uced here are verbati m , w i t h n o att em pt t o si gn al , m uch l ess corr ect , gr amm ar , s pel l i ng, or punctuat i on err or s , and w i t h hi ghl i ght i ng appea r i ng as i n t he d o c u m e n t. 6

2. T he D ece m ber2, 2003 D i s coveryof the B at t l egr oup D ocument I n the c o u rse o f se arc h ing B ab ar A h m ad ’s be d roo m o n D ec em b er 2 , B r i t i s h author i t i es di s cover ed a c om put erdi s k cont ai n ing mat er i al s r el at ed t o A zza m . O f part i cul ar 5

s i gni fi canc e t o t hi s cas e w as a fi l e denomi nat ed “l et t er . doc, ” w hi ch cont ai ned a thr ee- page
uns i gned documentdes cr i bi ng t he ant i ci pat ed s pr i ng 2001 dep loy m entof t en U
. S. N avy
s hi ps carr y i ng appr oxi m at el y15, 000 s ai l or s and mar i nes fr om t he Paci fi c coas t of t he U ni t ed S ta te s to th e P e rs ia n G u lf (“ th e B a ttle g ro u p D o c u m e n t” ). Id . a t 3 6 7
. T he s i gni fi canc e of the B at t l egr oup D ocumenti s bes ti l l us t r at ed byquot i ng i tdi r ect l y . T he fi r s tpage s t at es as 6 foll ow s: I n t he coming day s t he U ni t ed St at es w i l l be depl oy i ng a l ar ge nava l / m ar i ne f o rc e to th e M id d le E a st. T hi s w i l l be a tw o gr oup for ce: t he B att le G roup ( B G ) and the A m phi bi ous R eadi nes s G r oup ( A R G ) – t hes e gr oups w i l l be r epl aci ng t he al r eadydepl oy ed gr oups i n t he gul f. T he B G m i s s i on i s t o hol d up t he sanc t i ons agai ns t I r aq, e. g. patr ol l i ng t he N oF l yZ on e, carryou tM ari t i m e Int ercept i on O perat i on s (M IO ) orl aun ch st ri kes.H ere af ter, w e w il l r ef

er to a ll sh ips a t i ssu e a s “the C o n stel lat ion b att legro u p ” o r, 7 s im p ly, “t h e b a ttle g ro u p .” 7 T h ere is a p o ssibil ity that the sh ips an d su b m arine s tha t are ca p ab le w il l carry outa s t r i ke aga i ns tA fghani stan . M ai n t ar get s : U s ama and t he M uj ahi deen, T al i ban, et c. A t w o s t ar admi r al , C O M C R U D E SR O N 1 ( hi s t i t l e) , a hi gh r anki ng offi cerof t he B G s ai d t hat “ther e w i l l be cert ai n s hi ps of t hi s B G s i t t i ng off the coa s tof P ak ist an w ith ‘l au n ch p ad s. ’” M os tof the s hi ps t hat ar e par tof the B G w i l l depl oyon M ar ch 15 2001 l eavi ng t hei rhom e por t s out of C al i forni a and W as hi ngt on St at e. T hey w i l l m eetup w ith th e o th e r sh ip s th a t ar e p a r t o f th e B G w h ich a re sta tio n e d in H a w a ii. T hei r fi r s t por t s t op i s H aw ai i on M ar ch 20 2001, w her e s om e s hi ps w i l l l oad T o m ah aw k D m issi les. T h e sa m e m issl es u sed o n A fg an ist an an d S u d an . It h a s a w a rh e a d a n d 1 6 6 [ m m ? ] f ra g m e n t b o m b lets
. T h e n th e w h o le B G w ill head t ow ar ds A us t r ai l i a. T he m ai n s hi p w i t h hi gh r anki ng offi ci al s w i l l be at S y d n e yo n Ap r i l 6 2 0 0 1 , o t h e r s h i p s
– M e l b o u r n e , P e r t h , Bu n b a r ye t c . Th e BG w ill b e g o in g th ro u g h th e s tr a its o f H o rm u z o n th e A p ril 2 9 2 0 0 1 a t n ig h t, cut t i ng off c er t ai n “i nfocoms” a nd “Em coms” t o di ver t t hei r enemi es on how m anys hi ps ar e ac tual l ycomi ng t hr ough. T hi s w i l l be a ni ghtt i m e s et - up. G ov’ tE x. 1. I m m edi at el ybenea t h t hi s t ext i s a di agr am show i ng a tw o- col um n for m at i on i n w hi ch i dent i fi ed s hi ps i n t he batt l egr oup, i ncl udi ng t he ai r cr aftcarr i erU
. S. S. C ons t el l at i on and the 7 d e stro y e r U .S .S . B e n f

o ld – o n w h ich A b u -Jih a a d se rv e d a s a sig n a lm a n – w e re e x p e c ted to ent ert he St r ai tof H or m uz. Fol l ow i ng t he di agr am ar e bri ef des cr i pt i ons of t he ca pabi l i t i es of ea ch ship. F or exam ple, w i t h respectt o the bat t l egroup shi ps, t he d ocu m ent s t at es: 1. U SS C onst el l at i on ( C V 64) K i t t y H aw k C l as s carr i er Per s onnel : 5, 500 t o 6, 000 S p e c i a l t e a m: o n b o a r d E x p l o s i v e Or d n a n c e Di s p o s a l t e a m ( E OD) M i s s i on: N o- fl yzone, patr ol , et c.8

2. U S S C h osi n (C G -65) T i con d erog a class Per s onnel : 350 t o 400 S p ec ial isat ion : anti- air w arf are Pl us carr i eres cor tal l t hes e s hi ps 3. K i n k aid (D D 96 5) Sp rva n ce cl ass3 Per s onnel : 300- 350 S p e c ialisa tio n : M IO e tc 4. U S S B en fol d (D D G -65) A rl ei gh B u rk e cl ass Per s onnel : 300 M u lti -c a p a b le s h ip

. . . 7. U SS R ai ner ( A O E - 7) Per s onnel : 400 t o 500 Am mo a n d f

u e l r e p l e n i s h i n g s h i p f

o rt h e BG
. I d. W i t h r es pectt o t he A m phi bi ous R eadi nes s G r oup, t he documentr evea l s t hatt hr ee s hi ps
w e re e x p e c ted to d e p lo y“ o u t o f h o m e p o rt S a n D ieg o , M a rc h 1 4 2 0 0 1 ” w ith a p o rt v isit in S o u th -E a st A sia , sp e c if

ica lly , in T h a ilan d a n d S in g a p o re , b e f o re h e a d in g to th e M id d le E a st. Id . A m o n g th e sh ip s d e sc rib e d is th e f o llo w in g : 1. U S S B O X E R (L H D 9) com ship, W asp cl ass P ers on nel: 1, 50 0 sai l ors, 2, 50 0 m ari nes; h ig h rangi ng off i ci al s abroad; al so sp e c ial f o rc e s, N a v yS e a ls a n d M a rin e s S p e c ial U n it R econ nais sance ships carri es l ots of h el os [he l i cop t ers ? ] al l kinds. I d. T he documentconcl udes byi dent i fy i ng th e b a t t l egr oup’ s vul ner abi l i t i es , hi ghl i ght i ng i t s oper at i on s chedul e i n t he Per s i an G ul f, and then exhort i ng t he r eci pi entt o d estroyt he
comm uni cat i on:In su p p o rt o f th is c o n c lu sio n , the a g e n t tes tifie d , inte r a lia, th a t th e m e tad a ta in 8 c e rta in c o m p u ter f

iles re c o v e re d f

ro m A h sa n ’s re sid e n c e m a tch e d th e m e tad a ta c o n tain e d in th e B a ttl e g ro u p D o c u m e n t. 9 W eak n ess: T heyhav e no t hing t o st op a sm a ll craftw i t h R P G et c, excep tt heirS eal s’ st i ng er m i ssi l es. D epl oy ops i n G ul f

29 A pri l – 04 O ct ober. 29t h A P R I L i s m ore l i kel y t he day t hrough t he St rai t s . F or the w hol e of M a rc h is t a x fre e – a m o ra l bo o ster . M a n y sa il o rs d o n o t l ike th e G u lf . P l eas e des t roy m es s age. Id
. B as ed on for ens i c ana l y s i s of the t ot al i t yof ev iden ce obt ai ned i n t he ens ui ng i nves t i gat i on , a fe der al agentt es t i fi ed att r i al t hatt he di s k cont ai ni ng t he B at t l egr oup D ocument appea r ed t o have been cr eat ed by B r i t i s h ci t i zen Sy ed T al ha A h san , an A zzam empl oy ee w ho handl ed pr oduct backl og. See U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at369. Fur t her , al t hough t he B at t l egr oup D ocumentw as cr eat ed on A p ri l 2 , 2 001, t he

8 di agr am depi ct i ng t he batt l egr oup’ s for m at i on w as not embedded i n t he fi l e unt i l A pr i l 12, 2 0 0 1 , the d a te th e d o c u m e n t w a s las t s a v e d
. S e e id . a t 3 7 0
. O n th a t d a te, th e a u th o r f ield in th e d o c u m e n t’ s p ro p e rt ie s w a s c h a n g e d f ro m “ S A A h s a n ” to “ J o n G re e n e .” Id
. F o re n sic anal y s i s r evea l ed that“w i pi ng” s oftw are h ad b een us ed t o r emove ot herm at er i al fr om t he di s k, butfede r al author i t i es w er e unabl e t o r ecove rt hatm at er i al
. I d. I n t he cour s e of thei rl ar geri nves t i gat i o n , au thor i t i es w oul d r ecove rno ot herT he B at t l egr oup D ocument t r ans m i t t ed t o A zza m t hus corr ect l yi dent i fi ed A pr i l 29, 9 2001, as an i m por t antdat e i n t he tr ans i tpl an, butm i s as cri b ed it to en tr yi nt o t he St r ai tof 10 el ectr oni c dat a fr om anys our ce r evea l i ng t r ace i nfor m at i on per t ai ni ng t o t r ans m i t t al of the B at t l egr oup D ocument , r es ear ch i nt o U ni t ed St at es naval forc es gene r al l yort he C o n s te lla tio n b a ttle g ro u p in p a rt ic u la r, o r a n ye v id e n c e re la tin g to “ J o n G re e n e .” B
. A bu- J i haad’ s T r ans m i t t al of the B at t l egr oup D ocument T o pr ove A bu- J i haad’ s t r ans m i t t al of the B at t l egr oup D ocument ( or t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned ther ei n) t o per s ons atA zza m , t he governm entr el i ed o n ev idence s how i ng: ( 1) defe ndant ’ s acc es s t o t he i nform at i on; ( 2) hi s comm uni cat i ons w i t h A zza m expr es s i ng
s uppor tforj i h ad; and ( 3) hi s i m pl i ci tadmi s s i on i n a 2006 r ecor ded s t at ementt o havi ng d i s c l o s e d c o n f

i d e n t i a l n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y i n f o r m a t i o n w h i l e i n t h e N a v y. 1. D efe ndant ’ s A cce s s t o t he Tra ns i tPl an T h e 2 0 0 1 d e p lo ym e n t o f th e C o n ste llatio n b a ttl e g ro u p f ro m S a n D ieg o to th e M id d le E as tw as exec ut ed pur s uantt o a N avyt r ans i tpl an thatw entt hr ough m anydr aft s begi nni ng on Sept ember29, 2000, and cont i nui ng t hr ough fi nal i zat i on on February24, 2001. E ach of t hes e i t er at i ons hi ghl i ght ed the dat e A pr i l 29, 2001, w hen, j us tbefor e mi dni ght , t he b a ttl e g ro u p w o u ld c ro ss th e “ c h a n g e o f o p e ra tio n c o n tro l” (“ C H O P ” ) po in t, i .e., en ter in to t he geogr aphi c r egi on contr ol l ed byt he U ni t ed St at es Fi fth Fl eet . O nl yt he fi nal t r ans i tpl an
r e f e r e n c e d a s t o p i n Ha wa i i b ya s i n g l e v e s s e l , t h e U. S
. S
. Be n f o l d , t o l o a d a mm u n i t i o n . No
ver s i on of t he t r ans i t pl an s peci fi ed the dat e on w hi ch the batt l egr oup w oul d pas s t hr ough t he St r ai tof H or m uz. 9H or m uz, r athert han cr os s i ng t he C H O P poi nt . T he C ons t el l at i on bat t l egr oup i n fac tt r avel ed

t hr ough t he St r ai ta fe w day s l at er , on M ay2- 3, 2001. T hu s, A dm i ral H art t est i fi ed t hat, despit e t he B at t l egroup D ocu m ent’ s i naccu raci es, 10 its tra n sm itt a l ra ise d c o n c e rn s b e c a u se o f its d isc lo su re o f

“ th e tim e f

ra m e a t w h ich w e w o u ld be oper at i ng i n t he Fi fth Fl eetar ea of r es pons i bi l i ty , ” and i t s eff or tt o i dent i fy “vul ner abi l i t i es . ” Tri al T r . at 6 3 3
. H e s t at ed thati f he ha d know n aboutt he unauthor i zed t r ans m i t t al , he w oul d have s ought “t o change t he t i m e and na tur e of ourt r ans i tt hr ough t he s t r ai tof H or m uz. ” I d. at523. 11 E ach i t er at i on of the tr ans i tpl an w as class i fi ed “c onfi dent i al , ” w hi ch denot es “i nfo rm at i on , t he u nau t ho ri zed d i scl osure of w hich reason ablycou l d b e exp ect ed to cause damage t o t he nat i onal s ecur i t y t hat t he ori gi nal cl as s i fi cat i on author i t y i s abl e t o i dent i fyor descri be. ” E xec. O rderN o. 12 , 95 8, § 1
. 3(3), 60 F ed. R eg. 19 , 82 5 (A pr. 17 , 19 95 ); see al so U ni t ed S t at es v. A bu- J i haad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at 377 ( not i ng N avy ’ s oper at i onal i ns t ruct i ons
s t at i ng t hat“pr eci s e curr entorfutur e oper at i onal depl oym ent , l ocat i ons of s ur fac e combat ant
s hi ps , and pl anned f

or ei gn por tca ll s shoul d be cl as s i fi ed as ‘ confi dent i al ’ unt i l aft er depl oym ent or t he vi s i t has been a ppr oved bythe hos tgovernm ent ” ( s om e i nt ernal quot at i on
m arks om i t t ed) )
. R et i r ed R earA dm i r al D avi d C
. H ar t , Jr. , w ho comm anded the C ons t el l at i on bat t legro u p d u r i ng t he t i m e her e ati s s ue, expl ai ned thatt he N avydoes not dis cl ose ant i ci pated po rt s of cal l becau se shi ps are part i cular l yvu l nerabl e i n such l ocati on s. A s i m i l arconce r n couns el ed aga i ns tdi s cl os ur e of pl ans for sh ips t o t r avel t hr ough ar eas
w her e thei rm aneuve r abi l i t yw as l i m i t ed, s uch as t he St r ai tof H or m uz. 10 B eca us e of thes e conc erns , even a m ong per s ons as s i gned t o s hi ps i n a batt l egr oup,
o n lytho se w ith a “ sec ret” clea ran ce w o u ld b e g iven ac ce ss to a tr an sitp lan. O f 3 0 0 sail o rs on boar d t he U
. S. S. B enfol d, A bu- J i haad w as one of 40 a ffor ded s uch ac ces s byvi r tue ofI tappea r ed thats t i l l m or e emai l s betw een A bu- J i haad a nd A zza m had bee n del et ed. 11 12 h i s s t a tu s a s a s i g n a l ma n who wor k e d a l o n g s i d e q u a r t e r ma s t e r s i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f t he
s hi p’ s navi gat i onal chart s . H e di d not , how ever , have acc es s t o t he N avy ’ s s ecur e i nt r anet f o r c las sif ied in f o rm a tio n (“ S IP R n e t”) , w h ich c o n tain e d in f o rm a tio n e v e n m o re se n sitiv e to t he nat i onal defe ns e t han t hat cont ai ned i n t he t r ans i t pl an. Si gni fi cant l y , the B att l egr oup D ocumentr evea l ed no i nform at i on forw hi ch SI PR netcl ear ance w oul d have be en r equi r ed, th u s lim iti n g th e lik e ly so u rc e o f th e in f o rm a tio n it c o n tain e d to p e rso n s w ith a c c e ss o n lyto t he tr ans i tpl an.

2. A bu- J i haad’ s C om m uni cat i ons w i t h A zza m E ven bef

or e U n it ed S t at es offi ci al s r ece i ved a c opyof the s ei zed Bat t l egr oup D ocumentfr om t hei rB r i t i s h count erpar t s , fede r al agent s , act i ng pur s uant t o cour tor der , had
se a rc h e d v a rio u s A z z a m -a f f ili a ted e lec tro n ic a c c o u n ts a n d d isc o v e re d th e re in e lev e n e m a il excha nges i n t he t i m e fr ame of A ugus t 21, 2000, t o Sept ember3, 2001, betw een A zza m and a U ni t ed St at es s ai l ors ervi ng on t h e U
. S. S. B enfol d: t he def endantH as s an A bu- J i haad. 11 A bu -J i haad used b oth hi s p e rso n a l and m i l i t aryem ai l add res ses i n these com m un i cat i on s. In its re v iew o f 2 3 ,0 0 0 A z z a m e m a ils, th e g o v e rn m e n t d isc o v e re d o n lytw o c o rre sp o n d e n ts
w ith m il it aryem ail ad d resse s: ( 1 ) a N av y C o m m an d er w h o co m m en ted an g ri ly o n A zz am ’s
s uppor tforj i had and ( 2) A bu- J i haad. M or eover , A bu- J i haad’ s m i l i t ary emai l addr es s w as
o n e o f th e f e w a d d re ss e s s a v e d in a n A z z a m e m a il ac c o u n t a d d re ss b o o k . In h is e a rlye m a ils
w i t h A zza m , A bu- J i haad di s cus s ed pur chas es of var i ous m at er i al s , i n clud i ng t he vi deos M ar t yr s of B os ni a, R us s i an H el l 2000, Par t I , and C hechny a fr om t he A s hes ( w hi ch i ncl udedE xcerpt s fr om t hes e vi deos w er e s how n t o t he j ur y . Fr om M ar t yr s of B os ni a, t he 12 j ur yhear d Shei kh A bdul l ah A zza m “cr i t i ci ze[ ] w es t ern M us l i m s forfai l i ng t o s hed anyof th ei r ow n bl oo d i n behalf of the cause” and an i nst ruct i on from a m ujahi deen l eader in B os ni a for“vi ew er s w ho w ant ed t o cont act t he m uj ahi deen t o do s o t hr ough A zza m . ” U ni t ed S tate s v . A b u -Jih a a d , 6 0 0 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 3 7 2 . T h e e x c e rp ts f ro m R u ss ian H e ll 2 0 0 0 , P a rt I and R us s i an H el l 2000, Par tI I , depi ct ed combats cene s , i ncl udi ng an execut i on and a s ui ci de t ruck bombi ng. 13 t he fe atur e R us s i an H el l 2000, Par tI I )
. I n l at er emai l s , A bu- J i haad r evea l ed hi s i dent i t yand 12
s t atus as an ac t i ve dutym emberof the N avyand hi s per s onal s uppor tforj i had, even w hen d ir e c te d a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s . In a Ju ly2 0 0 1 e m a il se n t f ro m A b u - J ih a a d ’s p e rso n a l em a il ac c o u n t to qoqaz@ as s am. com – t he emai l addr es s t o w hi ch A zza m ’ s w ebs i t es di r ect ed r eade r s t o s end t hei rm es s ages of s uppor t– defe ndantpr ai s ed the “mar t yr dom oper at i on agai ns tt he us s col e” and the debi l i t at i ng eff

ect of t hat act i on on t he U ni t ed St at es ( “C ol e emai l ”)
. T r i al T r . at333- 34; G ov’ tE x. 19. T he t extof the C ol e emai l , w hi ch w as r etr i eved onl ybeca us e i tw as
e m b e d d e d in A z z a m ’s r e p ly , sta tes a s f o llo w s: i am a m u slim sta tio n o n b o a rd a u .s. w a rsh ip c u rre n tly o p e ra tin g d e p o ly e d to t he ar abi an gul f. i ts hal l be not ed befor e usama’ s l at es t vi deo w as vi ew ed by m as s i ve peopl e al l overt he w or l d. t hatps y chol ogi cal anxi ety had al r eadys et i n on amer i ca’ s for ces everyw her e. al l t hi s i s due t o t he mar t yr dom oper at i on agai ns tt he us s col e. s i nce then eve r y w ar s hi p s t at i on ei t her on t he w es t ern or e a ste rn sh o re s o f a m e ric a w h o c o m e to o p e ra te in th e 5 th f lee t o p a re a h a s to be gi ven a for ce pr ot ect br i ef. w el l dur i ng t he br i ef, i at t ended ther e w as one t hi ng t hats tuck outl i ke thor ns on a rose bush. i do notknow w ho w as t he or i gi nat orof thi s ei t her t op br as s or an amer i can poi t i ci an. w el l her e i s hi s / her s t at ement : “amer i ca ha s N everfac ed an e nemyw i t h no bor der s , no governm ent , no di pl om at s , nora s t andi ng arm yt hatpl edges al l egi ance t o noT h e A ra b ic p h ra se “ A llah u a k b a r,” k n o w n a s th e “ tak b ir” in A ra b ic, is u su a lly 13 t r ans l at ed as “G od i s G r eat . ” See, e. g. , 12 E ncy cl opedi a of Rel i gi on, s upr a, at8057. U s ed i n Isl am i c pray er and i nco rporat ed i nto t he fl ags of cou ntr i es such as Ir an and I raq, t he p hrase has bee n ap propri at ed b y som e j i had t err ori st s. S ee, e. g. , N otes F ou nd A ft er the H i j ackings, N
. Y
. T i m es , Sept
. 29, 2001, atB 3 ( r epor t i ng t hatdocumentus ed b y S ep tem ber11, 2001 h ija c k e rs in s tru c te d , in te r a lia , “ [ w ]h e n th e c o n f ro n ta tio n b e g in s , . . . [ s ]h o u t, ‘ A lla h u A k b a r,’ beca us e thi s s t r i kes fea ri n t he hea r t s of the nonbel i ever s ”) ; M i chae l W i l s on, J udgm entD ay i n T w o H i gh- Pr ofi l e C as es : T i m es Squar e’ s W oul d- B e B om berI s D efi antas H e G et s a Li fe T e rm , N .Y . T im e s, O c t. 6, 2 0 1 0 , at A 2 5 (re p o r ti n g th a t d e f e n d a n t re sp o n d e d to prono un cem ent of l i fe sentence w i t h ph ras e “A l l ahu akb ar”) ; B enjam i n W ei ser , In T err ori sm C as e, a Pl ea Bar gai n Secr et l yi n t he M aki ng for2 Y ear s , N
. Y
. T i m es , O ct . 24, 2000, atB 1, B 3 ( r eport ing w it h r es pectt o pr os ecut i on fort he 1998 bombi ngs of the U ni t ed St at es e m b a ss ies in K e n y a a n d T a n z a n ia th a t, “[ i]n Ju n e 1 9 9 9 , o n e d e f e n d a n t lea p t o u t o f

h is c h a ir i n t he cour t r oom and cha r ged t ow ar d J udge Sand, w hi l e anotherdefe ndants cr eamed ‘ A l l ahu a k b a r,’ A ra b ic f

o r “ G o d is g re a t” ). 14 st at e. ” A l l ahu A kb ar! A l l ahu A kb ar! i give takbir s [prai se t o A l l ah] becau se 13 i know deep dow n i n m yheartt hatt he amer i can enemi es t hat t hi s per s on has di s cr i be i s t he M uj ahi deen Fee s abi l i l l ah [hol yw arr i or s fi ght i ng i n t he caus e of A llah ]. th e se b ra v e m e n a re th e tru e c h a m p io n s an d so ld ier s o f A llah in th is duny a [w or l d]
. i under s t and ful l y t hat they ar e t he men w ho have br ong honor t o t hi s w eak umm ah [I s l ami c comm uni t y ] i n t he l ands o f ji had af ghani s t an, b o sni a, chech ny a, et c. A l ham du l i l l ah! [P rai se t o A l l ah!] W i t h their o n ly m is s io n in lif

e to m a k e A lla h ’s n a m e a n d la w s s u p re m e a ll o v e r th is w o rl d . i w antt o l eti tbe know n t hati have be en i n t he mi ddl e ea s tforal m os ta t ot al of 3 m ont hs
. fort hes e 3 mont hs y ou can trul y s ee t he ef fec t s of thi s ps y chol ogi cal w arfar e t aking a t oll on j un i or and h i g h rank i ng off i cers . bu taft er the lat est vi deo s uppor t i ng pal es t i ne. t he t op br as s and amer i can offi ci al s w er e runni ng a ro u n d lik e h e a d les s ch ick e n s v e ry a f ra id , w o n d e rin g if th e re is a p o s s ib le th re a t. bu t th is tim e th e a m e ric a n p o p u latio n g o t w in d o f th is a n d th e yc a m e to know j us th o w af

rai d t he u. s . governm enti s . t hom as l
. fr i edman w r ot e an a rticle in th e n e w y o rk tim e s c a lled : “w h a t ittak e s to m a k e th e a m e ric a n s to turn tai l, run . ” this arti cle w as d istri b u ted o n m y sh ip an d m o st of the s ail o rs said itw as so tru e ab o u t the am erican g o v ern m en t, an d they fe el like th eyare w o rk in g f

o r a bu n c h o f sc a ry p u ss ies
.. .. .. .. .. a B ro th e r se rv in g a K u f f a r [ in f id e l] nat i on. A s t aghfi r ’ A l l ah [For gi venes s fr om A l l ah]
. . . . H as s an I d. at372- 73 ( emphasi s a n d br acke t ed mat er i al added bydi s t r i ctcour t )
. A bu- J i haad’ s A zza m
c o rre sp o n d e n t re p lied in re lev a n t p a rt:15

Y ou s ai d i t al l , and al l I can add i s t hatt he K ufarknow t hatt heycannotdefe at th e M u jah id e e n (th e w a rrio rs o f A llah ). I tru st th a t y o u a re d o in g y o u r b e st to m a k e su re th a t th e o th e r b ro th e rs & sis ter s in u n if o rm a re re m in d e d th a t th e ir so le pu rpo se o f e x ist en ce in this d u n iy a [w o rl d ] is p u rely to w o rship o u r L o rd an d M aster, A ll ah (S W T ) [p raise b eing g iven to A ll ah ]. M ayA l l ah be w i t h y ou & y ourbr ot her s and s i s t er s and kee p y ou fr om a ll h a rm . K eep up w it h the D aw ah [pr eac hi ng I s l am] a nd t he ps y chl ogi cal w ar efa r e. Id. at 37 3 (bra ck eted m aterial ad d ed b yd istri ct co u rt ). I n t he l as tof the el even e m ai l s r ecove r ed b y the governm ent , A bu- J i haad pr ai s ed A zza m ’ s cover age of

t he Tal i ban i n A fghani s t an, but opi ned thatt he Tal i ban w er e t oo l eni ent i n fail i ng t o ex ecute forei gn ai d w orkers w ho con vert ed M usl i m s t o o t her fai t hs. N one of A bu- J i haad’ s r ecove r ed emai l s r efe r ence d t he B at t l egr oup D ocumentort he in f o rm a tio n c o n ta in e d th e re in
.

3
. A b u -Jih a a d ’s 2 0 0 6 R e c o rd e d S tate m e n ts I n 2006, byw hi ch t i m e A bu- J i haad ha d been outof the N avyforfoury ear s and w as l i vi ng i n Phoeni x, A r i zona, A bu
- J i haad’ s t el ephone c onver s at i ons w i t h hi s fr i end D err i ck S h are ef an d a co n fid en ti al i n fo rm an t w ere interce p ted b ya c o u rt -au tho ri ze d w ir etap . In
e x c e rp ts o f

f o u r c a lls f

ro m late 2 0 0 6 th a t w e re p layed f o r th e ju ry , A b u -Jih a a d re v e a led h is fami l i ar i t yw i t h A zza m ’ s w ebs i t es , s ee G ov’ tE x. 141c, a n d h is h ig h d e g re e o f c o n c e rn w ith

“ tap p e d ” tele p h o n e s, G o v ’t E x . 1 4 1 e . A b u -Jih a a d sta ted a n in ten t to “ se c u r[ e ] m y se lf ” to
a v o id “ h a n d [ in g ] m ys e lf to a K a f ir [ in f id e l].” G o v ’t E x . 1 4 1 f. H e c a u tio n e d th o se w ith
w hom he s poke nott o r efe rt o as s oci at es byt hei rr eal names, s ee G ov’ tE x. 141g, and heI tw as s ugges t ed at tr ial that the num ber“7” r efe r r ed t o “s eventh heave n, ” the 14 r es t i ng pl ace of I s l ami c mar t yr s acc or di ng t o advoca t es of j i had. T r i al T r . at962.

T he conf i den t i al i nfo rm ant t est i fi ed that, i n the r ecorded con versat i on s, “ m eal s” 15 m eantm i l i t aryi nt el l i gence , w hi ch Shar eef and the i nfor m antw er e soli cit ing f r om A buJ ih a a d
. “ C W ” re f

e rs to th e c o n f

id e n tia l in f

o rm a n t. 16 16 fr equent l yempl oy ed code , r efe r r i ng t o j i had as “J ” or “7, ” e. g. , G ov’ tE x. 141c, l ogi s t i cs 14
as “L, ” e. g. , G ov’ tE x. 141g, m ar t yr dom oper at i ons as “M
. O
. , ” e. g. , G ov’t E x. 141f, and
m i l i t aryi nt el l i gence as “meal s , ” e. g. , G ov’ t E x. 141k. T hus , A bu- J i haad’ s r efe r ence s t o a 15

“ c o ld m e a l” m e a n t o u td a ted in tellig e n c e , w h e re a s a “f re sh m e a l” o r “h o t m e a l” r e f e rre d to
curr enti nt el l i gence . T r i al T r . at975- 76. I n a N ovember 11, 2006 conver s at i on, A bu- J i haad s t at ed thathe no l ongerhad curr ent log ist ics i n fo rm ati o n : “N o w ‘L ’ fo r m e is li k e a co ld m ea l. ‘C u z it ain’t f resh
. . . . If itain’t fr es h, i t ’ s un- fr es h and i t , i t ’ s un- benef i ci al t o y ou – j us t put i t t hat w ay . ” G ov’ tE x. 141g. H e r epea t ed thi s poi ntin a su b sequentconver s at i on w i t h Shar eef and the conf

i dent i al i n f o r m a n tt h e s a m e d a y: A B U
- J I H A A D : A nd I s ai d, and I ’ l l s ay i t agai n, w i t h w hat everI can gi ve

y o u , that’s be n ef

ici al, I’l l give it to y o u . B u t w h atev er’s c o ld tu rk e y , if

it’ s c o ld tu rk e y , I c a n ’t g iv e it to y o u . C W : A k
. . . 16 A B U
- J I H A A D : ‘ C uz thatm eans t hat , if i t ’ s col d tur key– I ’ m t al ki ng a b o u t “L ” y o u f

ig u re it o u t – ‘c u z th e n th a t m e a n s th a t, t hat ’ s j us ts ay i ng t hat , I haven’ tb ee n o n tha tj ob, s o I d o n ’t– y o u k n o w w h at I’m say ing , I ha v en ’tb ee n there . . . to s e e . . . w h a t th e f re s h m e a l is
.17

S H A R E E F : O k a y. A B U -JI H A A D : Y o u u n d e rsta n d th a t? SH A R E E F: Y eah. C W : T e ll h im , m a n I a lr e a d yg o t b ro th e rs . . . A B U
- J I H A A D : I f I can’ t , i f I can’ tgi ve y ou t he fr es h m eal – I ai n’ tbeen

th e re in “ X ” a m o u n t o f

y e a rs . SH A R E E F: Y eah, I – I under s t and w haty ou’ r e s ay i ng. A B U
- J I H A A D : See w hatI ’ m s ay i ng ? N ow i f .
. . t he H i s pani c, i f the

M exi can, he j us t , w as t her e a m i nut e ago – he can gi ve y o u a f re s h m e a l. S H A R E E F : O k a y. A B U -J IH A A D : S o y o u p u t th a t to g e th e r.

. . . A B U -J IH A A D : If i t ’s – i f i t ’s
. . . i n tho se t erm s, he can give y ou a fresh

m eal ‘ cuz, y o u know w hatI ’ m s ay i ng, he j us tfi ni s hed h is jo b , th e re , le s s th a n a m o n th a g o , o r . . . S H A R E E F : O k a y. A B U
- J I H A A D : . . . t w o. ( L A U G H S)
. B ut I , I m ean – i n t hos e t erm s and

“ L ’s ,” – I w o u ld b e g iv in g y o u a c o ld m e a l. C W : I under s t and. S H A R E E F : A l l r i g h t y. A B U
- J I H A A D : Y ou gotm e? SH A R E E F: Y eah, I goty ou.18

A B U -JI H A A D : B e c a u se , u m – a n d th e n I c a n e lab o ra te o n th a t m o re if

y o u w a n t m e to . . . C W : N o , n o . . . A B U -J IH A A D : . . . to y o u r f a c e
– n o t o n th e p h o n e . I’ m ju s t sa y in g . . . i f w e . . . y ou gotm e? SH A R E E F: Y eah, m an . . w e good, w e good. A B U -JI H A A D : A f re sh m e a l an d a c o ld m e a l. G ov’ tE x. 141h at1- 2. T he i nform ant t es t i fi ed t hat w hen A bu- J i haad s ai d he had not“bee n
o n t h a tj o b , ” t h e i n f

o r m a n tu n d e r s t o o d A b u - J i h a a d t o m e a n h e w a s n o l o n g e ri n t h e N a v y. B yc o n tr a s t, th e in f

o rm a n t u n d e rs to o d th e “ M e x ic a n ” to b e a re f e re n c e to M ig u e l C o lo n , a
m an w ho had l eftt he M ar i ne C orps onl yr ece nt l yi n Sept ember2006. S t i l l l at er on N ov em ber 11, 2006 , A bu -J i haad spok e w i t h C olon abo ut Shareef’s w i sh to p ro c u re m ili tar yin tellig e n c e : AB U- J I HA AD : [ H] e wan t s a h o tme a l
. You k n o w w h a tI ’ m s a y i n g ? C O L O N : Y eah. A B U -J IH A A D : I d o n ’t k n o w h o w to g e t h im n o h o t m e a l. I to ld h im I, I

ai n’ tbeen w or ki ng uh, i n, i n, i n t he fi el d of m aki ng m e a ls a n d o r, yo u k n o w . . . C O L O N : Y eah. A B U
- J I H A A D : . . . i n a, i n a l ong t i m e. I ’ ve been out of t hatfor , uh, over

u h , q u a t r o y e a r s y o u k n o w. G o v ’t E x . 1 4 1 k a t 7
. A t tria l, th e g o v e rn m e n t a rg u e d th a t, b ye x p lain in g h is p re se n t in a b ili ty to p ro v id e m ili tar y in tellig e n c e b y re f e re n c e to th e f

a c t th a t h e h a d n o t b e e n “ w o rk in g . . . inT he di s t r i ctcour t concl uded t hat A bu- J i haad’ s pr ovi s i on of i nfor m at i on aboutt he 17 C ons t el l at i on bat t l egr oup coul d not , as a mat t erof l aw , suppor ta convi ct i on forpr ovi di ng m at er i al s uppor tt o t err or i s m i n ei t her of t he for m s – phy s i cal as s et s orper s onnel – ur ged by t he governm ent . See U nit ed S tat es v . A bu- J i haad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at394- 402. A s t he governm enthas notappea l ed thi s rul i ng, w e have no r eas on t o cons i deri ti n t hi s opi ni on. 19 t he fi el d of m aki ng m eal s ” forfoury ear s , A bu- J i haad w as eff ect i vel yadmi t t i ng t hathe had l e a k e d m i l i t a r y i n t e l l i g e n c e w h i l e i n t h e N a v y. C
. C onvi ct i on and Sent enci ng B as ed on the evi dence s um m ar i zed, on M ar ch 5, 2008, t he j ur yfound A b u -Ji h aad gui l t yof bot h pr ovi di ng m at er i al s uppor tt o t err or i s t s i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 2339A and
comm uni cat i ng nat i onal defe ns e i n fo rm at i on t o unauthor i zed pe r s ons i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S
. C
. § 7 9 3 (d). O n M a rc h 4 , 2 0 0 9 , the d istri ct co u rtg ran ted A b u -Ji h aa d ’s m o ti o n fo r a j udgm entof ac qui t t al as t o t he fi r s tcountand deni ed the mot i on as t o t he sec ond count . See U n ited S tate s v . A b u -Jih a a d , 6 0 0 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 3 9 4 , 4 0 2
. T h e f o llo w in g m o n th , o n A p ril 17 3, 2009, t he di s t r i ctcour ts ent ence d A bu- J i haad o n the s i ngl e countof convi ct i on t o t he st atutorym axim um t erm of ten y ears ’ i m pri sonm ent, t o b e f o llo w ed b yt hree y ears ’
s upervi s ed r el eas e. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. I I . D i s cus s i on A
. T he FI SA C hal l enge I n s ecur i ng A bu- J i haad’ s convi ct i on, t he pr os ecut i on r el i ed on ce r t ai n r ecor ded evi dence in t er cept ed pur s uantt o cour tor der s i s s ued undert he For ei gn I nt el l i genceA l t hough FI SA or i gi nal l yappl ied onl yt o el ectr oni c s ur vei l l ance , t he l aw w as 18 amended i n 1994 t o ext end t o phy s i cal s ear ches forfor ei gn i nt el l i gence i nform ati on. See I nt el l i gence A ut hor i zat i on A ct for Fi s cal Y ear 1995, Pub. L
. N o. 103- 359, 1 0 8 S tat . 3444 ( 1994) ; s ee a l s o 50 U
. S. C
. §§ 1821- 29. F ISA defines “forei gn i ntel l i gen ce i nfo rm at i on ” as: 19 (1 ) in f o rm a tio n th a t re late s to , an d if c o n c e rn in g a U n ited S tate s p e rso n is nece s s aryt o, t he abi l i t yof the U ni t ed St at es t o pr ot ectagai ns t– ( A ) actual orpot ent i al at t ack orot hergr ave hos t i l e ac t s of a f or ei gn pow er o r an ag en t of

a f o reign p o w er; ( B ) s abot age, i nt ernat i onal t err or i s m , ort he i nt ernat i onal pr ol i fer at i on of w eapo n s o f m as s des t ruct i on bya for ei gn pow eroran age ntof a f or ei gn pow er ; or (C ) c land esti n e intell igen ce ac ti v it ies b yan intell igen ce serv ice o r ne tw o rk of a f or ei gn pow erorbyan age ntof a f or ei gn pow er ; or ( 2) i nform at i on w i t h r es pect t o a for ei gn pow er or for ei gn t err i t or y t hatr el at es t o, and i f conc erni ng a U ni t ed St at es per s on i s nece s s aryt o – 20 S u rv e illa n c e A c t ( “ F IS A ” ), 5 0 U .S .C . § 1 8 0 1 e t s e q . A bu- J ihaa d su b m i t s t hatt he di s t r i ct
cour t er r ed i n r e f

u s i n g t o s u p p r e s s t h i s e v i d e n c e b e c a u s e ( 1 ) o n i t s f a c e , FI SA vi o l a t e s t he F o u rth A m e n d m e n t; an d (2 ) in a n ye v e n t, th e sta tu te’ s re q u ire m e n ts w e re n o t sa tisf ied in th is
c a se . W e id e n tifyn o m e rit in e ith e r a rg u m e n t.

1. FI SA I s C ons t i tut i onal on I t s Face
a. FI SA ’ s G ener al O per at i on E n a c ted in 1 9 7 8 , F IS A p e rm its th e C h ief Ju stic e o f

th e U n ited S tate s to d e sig n a te el even f eder al j udges as t he For ei gn I nt el l i gence Sur vei l l ance C our t ( “FI SA C our t ”) , s ee i d. § 1 8 0 3 (a )(1 ), w ith ju risd ictio n to e n ter tain e x p a rte e x e c u tiv e a p p lica tio n s fo r e le c tr o n ic
su rve il lanc e “f

o r th e p u rpo se o f o b tai n ing fo reign intell i gence i nform at ion , ” id. § 1 8 0 2 (b). 18 19( A ) t he nat i onal defe ns e ort he s ecur i t yof the U ni t ed St at es ; or (B ) the co nd uct of t he fo rei gn affair s of t he U nit ed S t at es. 5 0 U .S .C . § 1 8 0 1 (e ). A s a m e n d e d in 2 0 0 1 , F I S A re q u ire s a n a p p lica tio n f o r a su rv e ill a n c e w a rra n t to in c lu d e , inte r a lia, a c e rtific a tio n f ro m a h ig h -ra n k in g e x e c u tiv e o f f icia l: ( A ) t hatt he ce r t i fy i ng offi ci al deems the i nfor m at i on s oughtt o b e for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nform at i on; ( B ) t hata s i gni fi cant purpos e of the s ur vei l l ance i s t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nform at i on; ( C ) t hats uch i nform at i on cannotr eas onabl ybe obt ai ned bynor m al i nv est i gati ve techniques; ( D ) t hatdes i gnat es t he type of for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on bei ng s ought acc or di ng t o t he ca t egor i es des cr i bed i n s ect i on 1801( e) of thi s t i t l e; and ( E ) i ncl udi ng a s t at ementof the bas i s fort he ce r t i fi cat i on t hat– ( i ) t he i nform at i on s ought i s t he t ype of for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on des i gnat ed; and ( i i ) s uch i nform at i on cann o tr eas onabl ybe obt ai ned bynor m al in v e s tig a tiv e te c h n iq u e s [ .] Id. § 1 80 4(a) (6)
. A s d i scussed i nfra, subsect i on (B ) – the “si gn i fi cant purpose” clause

– is a t th e c o re o f

A b u -J ih a a d ’s c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to F IS A
. FI SA defi nes “for ei gn pow er ” t o m ean 20 ( 1) a for ei gn governm ent or any componentt her eof, w hetherornotr ecogni zed b yth e U n ited S tate s; ( 2) a fa ct i on of a f

or ei gn n ati o n ornat i ons , nots ubs t ant i al l ycomposed of U n ited S tate s p e rso n s; ( 3) an ent i t yt hati s openl yacknow l edged bya for ei gn govern m en tor 21 T o i s s ue a FI SA w arr ant , a j udge m us t fi nd, i nt er al i a, t hatt her e i s pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve t hatt he t ar get of t he survei l l ance i s a “for ei gn pow er oran age ntof a f or ei gn pow er ” and that t he pl ace or fac i l i t i es t o be survei l l ed ar e “bei ng us ed, or . . . aboutt o be us ed, bya for ei gn p o w er o r an ag en t of

a f o reign p o w er.” Id. § 1 8 0 5 (a)(2). 20govern m ent s t o be di r ect ed and c ont r ol l ed bys uch for ei gn governm entor

g o v e rn m e n ts; ( 4 ) a gr oup engage d i n i nt ernat i onal t err or i s m oract i vi t i es i n pr epar at i on th e re f o r; ( 5) a for ei gn- bas ed pol it i cal or gani zat i on, nots ubs t ant i al l ycomposed of U n ited S tate s p e rso n s; ( 6) an ent i t yt hati s di rec ted and cont r ol l ed bya for ei gn governm entor g o v ern m en ts; o r (7 ) a n e n tityn o t su b sta n ti a ll y c o m p o se d o f U n ited S tate s p e rso n s th a t is e n g a g e d in th e in te rn a tio n a l p ro lif e ra tio n o f

w e a p o n s o f

m a s s d e s tru c tio n . 5 0 U
. S
. C
. § 1 8 0 1 (a). FI SA defi nes “age ntof a f or ei gn pow er ” t o m ean ( 1) anyper s on ot hert han a U ni t ed St at es per s on, w ho– (A ) ac ts i n the U n it ed S tat es as an o ff icer o r em p loy ee o f a fo reign p o w er, o r as a m em ber of a forei gn po w er as defined i n s ub sect i on (a) (4) of th is se c tio n ; ( B ) act s fororon behal f of a for ei gn pow erw hi ch enga ges i n cl andes t i ne i nt el l i gence act i vi t i es i n t he U ni t ed St at es contr aryt o t he i n t er es t s of the U ni t ed St at es , w hen the ci r cumst ance s of s uch per s on' s prese nce i n t he U ni t ed St at es i ndi cat e thats uch per s on m ay engage i n s uch act i vi t i es i n t he U n ited S tate s, o r w h e n su c h p e rso n k n o w in g lya id s o r a b e ts a n yp e rso n in th e c o n d u c t o f s u c h a c tiv iti e s o r k n o w in g lyc o n sp ire s w ith a n yp e rso n to e n g a g e in su c h a c tiv iti e s; ( C ) engage s i n i nt ernat i onal t err or i s m or act i vi t i es i n pr epar at i on t her efor e; (D ) e n gag es i n the i nternati on al prol i ferat i on of w eapo ns of m ass d estruc ti o n , o r ac ti v it ies i n p rep ara ti o n there fo r; o r (E) eng ages i n the i nternati on al prol i ferat i on of w eapo ns of m ass des t ruct i on, oract i vi t i es i n pr epar at i on t her eforfororon beh al f of a fo reign p o w er; or ( 2) anyper s on w ho– ( A ) know i ngl yengage s i n cl andes t i ne i nt el l i gence gather i ng act i vi t i es for oron behal f of a for ei gn pow er , w hi ch act i vi t i es i nvol ve orm ayi nvol ve a 22v io latio n o f th e c rim in a l sta tu tes o f th e U n ited S tate s; ( B ) pur s uantt o t he di r ect i on of an i nt el l i gence s ervi ce ornet w o rk of a for ei gn pow er , know i ngl yengage s i n anyot her c la ndes t i ne i nt el l i gence act i vi t i es fororon behal f of suc h for ei gn pow er , w hi ch ac t i vi t i es i nvol ve orar e aboutt o inv o lve a vi ol at i on of the cr i m i nal s t atut es of the U ni t ed S tate s; ( C ) know i ngl y engage s i n s abot age or i nt ernat i onal t err or i s m , oract i vi t i es th a t ar e in p re p a ra tio n th e re f o r, f o r o r o n b e h a lf

o f a f o re ig n p o w e r; (D ) k n o w in g ly e n ter s th e U n ited S tate s u n d e r a f a lse o r f ra u d u len t id e n tity for or on b ehalf o f a fo rei gn po w er or , w hil e i n the U nit ed S t at es, know i ngl yas s um es a fal s e orfr audul enti dent i t yfororon behal f of a fo reign p o w er; or ( E) k n o wi n g l ya i d s o ra b e t s a n yp e r s o n i n t h e c o n d u c to f a c t i v i t i es des cr i bed i n s ubpar agr aph ( A ) , ( B ) , or( C ) orknow i ngl ycons pi r es w i t h any p erso n to en g ag e in a cti v it ies d esc ri b e d in su b p ara g rap h (A ), (B ), o r (C ). Id. § 1 8 0 1 (b). 23 R ul i ngs byt he FI SA C our tar e s ubj ectt o r evi ew byt he For ei gn I nt el l i gence S u rveil l ance C ou rtof R eview (“FISA R eview C ou rt ”), com pri sed of t hree j ud ges al so des i gnat ed byt he C hi ef J us t i ce. See i d. § 1803( b)
. T he FI SA R evi ew C our thas convene d
o n ly tw i ce s i nce the s t atut e’ s enac t m ent : ( 1) w hen i thear d and r ej ect ed a c ons t i tut i onal chal l enge t o FI SA notdi s s i m i l art o t hat pur s ued by A bu- J i haad i n t hi s cas e, s ee I n r e Seal ed C as e, 310 F. 3d 717 ( FI SA C t . R ev. 2002) ; and ( 2) w hen i thear d and r ej ect ed an a s - appl i ed
co n sti tuti o n al ch all en g e to c ertain p rov isi o n s o f th e P rotec t A m erica A ct o f 2 0 0 7 (“P A A ”), P ub
. L. N o. 11 0- 55 , 12 1 St a t . 55 2, t ha tpe r mi t t e d the e xe c ut i ve t o c on du c tw a r r a nt l e ss for ei gn i nt el l i gence su rve il l ance on t ar get s r eas onabl ybel i eved t o be l ocat ed out s i de the U ni t ed St a t e s , s e e I n r e Di r e c t i v e s Pu r s u a n tt o Se c t i o n 1 0 5 B of t h e Fo r e i g n I n t e l l i g e n ce Sur vei l l ance A ct( I n r e FI SA Sect i on 105B D i rect i ves ) , 551 F. 3d 1004 ( FI SA C t . R ev.T h e P A A p rov isi o n s at i ssu e in In re F IS A S ec ti o n 1 0 5 B D ir ec ti v es, w h ich w ere 21 co d ifi ed at 50 U
. S
. C
. § § 1 8 0 5 a-1 8 0 5 c, w ere su b ject t o a F eb rua ry1 6 , 2 0 0 8 su n set an d w ere r epea l ed on Jul y 10, 2008, as par tof the FI SA A m endment s A ctof 2008, Pub. L
. N o. 110- 261, § 403, 122 St at . 2436, 2473- 74. A 2008 amendm entt o FI SA r enumber ed ce r t ai n F IS A pr ovi s i ons . A m ong ot her 22 change s , i t r edes i gnat ed for m er s ubs ect i on ( a) ( 7) as s ubs ect i on ( a) ( 6)
. See Pub. L
. N o. 110- 2 6 1 , § 1 0 4 (1 )(B ), 1 2 2 S tat. a t 2 4 6 1
. U n les s o th e rw ise n o ted , re f e re n c e s h e re in c o n f

o rm to th e p re s e n t s ta tu to ry n u m b e ri n g . 24 2 0 0 8 ). 21 b. T he P A T R IO T A ct ’s A m end m ent of F ISA ’s P urpose C er t i fi cat i on R equi r ement A s or i gi nal l yenac t ed, FI SA r equi r ed a hi gh- r anki ng m emberof the exe cut i ve br anch t o cert i fyt hat“the purpos e” f orw hi ch a w arr antw as bei ng s ou g h t w as t o obt ai n “for ei gn in tellig e n c e in f

o rm a tio n .” 5 0 U .S .C . § 1 8 0 4 (a )(7 )(B ) (S u p p . V 1 9 8 1 ). R e f e re n c in g th is 22 l anguage i n U ni t ed St at es v. D uggan, 743 F. 2d 5 9 ( 2d C i r . 1984) , w e obs erved that“the
r equi r ementt hatfor ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on be the pri m aryobj ect i ve of the s ur vei l l ance i s pl ai n not onl y fr om t he l anguage of § 1802( b) butal s o fr om t he r equi r ement s i n § 1804 as to w h a t th e a p p lica tio n m u st c o n tain .” Id
. a t 7 7 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). D u g g a n re jec ted a F o u rth A m endment c h all en ge t o t he pr ocedur es es t abl i s hed byFI SA fori s s uance of for ei gn in tellig e n c e su rv e ill a n c e w a rra n ts, s e e id . at 7 2 -7 4 , a d e c isio n w e re c e n tlyh a d o c c a sio n to
re a f f ir m in U n ite d S ta te s v . S te w a rt , 5 9 0 F .3 d 9 3 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). I n 2001, C ongr es s amended FI SA as par tof the U ni t i ng and St r engtheni ng A m er i ca byPr ovi di ng A ppr op ri at e Tool s R equi r ed t o I nt er ceptand O bs t ructT err or i s m A ct (“PA T R IO T A ct ”), P ub
. L
. N o. 10 7-56, 11 5 St at . 27 1 ( 20 01 ). A m on g ot her t hings, C on gress25

ind icated that itd id n o t, in f ac t, req u ir e f

o reign intell igen ce g athe ri n g to b e the p ri m ary purpos e of the r eques t ed s ur vei l l ance t o obt ai n a FI SA w arr ant . R ather , upon s at i s fac t i on of al l ot herFI SA r equi r ement s , C ongr es s author i zed FI SA C our tj udges t o i s s ue w arr ant s upon
execu ti ve ce r t i fi cat i on t hatacqui s i t i on of for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on i s “a s i gni fi cant purpos e” of

t he r eques t ed s ur vei l l ance . See i d. § 218, 115 St at . at291 ( codi fi ed as amended
a t 5 0 U .S .C . § 1 8 0 4 (a )( 6 )( B )) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). B eca us e nei t her D uggan nor St ew ar t cons i der ed FI SA ’ s cons t i tut i onal i t y i n l i ghtof t he s t atut e’ s amendm ent byt he PA T R I O T A ct , A bu- J i haad s ubm i t s t hatw e mustaddr es s t he q u esti o n o f c o n sti tuti o n ali tyy et ag ain. S p ec ifi ca ll y , A b u -Ji h aa d su b m it s th a t th e p ri m ary purpos e r equi r ementi s , i n fac t , es s ent i al t o t he cons t i tut i onal i t y of FI SA , l es tt he governm ent
m i s us e the s t atut e t o pr ocur e w arr ant s for cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i ons w i t houtdemonst r at i ng t he pr obabl e ca us e es s ent i al to t hatl at t erpurpos e, i
. e. , pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve “ t hatan i ndi vi dual i s comm i t t i ng, has comm i t t ed, ori s about t o comm i t a par t i cul ar offe ns e” a nd t hat “part i cul arcomm uni cat i ons conce r ni ng t hatoffe ns e w i l l be obt ai ned throu gh” the
s ur vei l l ance . See 18 U
. S. C
. § 2518( 3) ( a)
- ( b) ( s t at i ng pr obabl e ca us e r equi r ed byT i t l e I I I of t he O m ni bus C r i m e C ont r ol and Safe St r eet s A ctof 1968, Pub. L
. 90- 351, 82 St at . 197 (c o d if ie d a s a m e n d e d a t 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 5 1 0 -2 5 2 2 ))
. I n s uppor tof hi s chal l enge, A bu- J i haad ci t es M ay fi el d v. U ni t ed S t at es , 504 F. Supp. 2 d 1 0 2 3 (D
. O r. 2 0 0 7 ) (ho lding F IS A in v iolati o n o f F o u rth A m en d m en t)
. T h at distr ictco u rt deci s i on, how ever , has now been va cat ed byt he N i nt h C i r cui ton s t andi ng gr ounds
. See26

M a y f ield v . U n ited S tate s, 5 9 9 F .3 d 9 6 4 , 9 7 3 (9 th C ir. 2 0 1 0 ). M e a n w h ile, a ll o th e r c o u rts t hathave c ons i der ed the i s s ue, bot h befor e and aft er enac t m ent of the PA T R I O T A ct , have
r ej ect ed cons t i tut i onal chal l enges t o FI SA
. See U ni t ed St at es v. N i ng W en, 477 F. 3d 896, 898 ( 7t h C i r . 2007) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. D amra h, 412 F. 3d 618, 625 ( 6t h C i r . 2005) ; I n r e Seal ed C ase , 3 1 0 F
. 3 d at 74 2 -46 ; U n it ed S tat es v . Jo h n so n , 9 5 2 F
. 2 d 5 6 5 , 5 7 3 (1st C ir
. 1 9 9 1 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Pel t on, 835 F. 2d 1067, 1075 ( 4t h C i r . 1987) ; U ni t ed St at es v. C avana gh, 807 F
. 2 d 7 8 7 , 7 9 0
- 9 2 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 8 7 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . K a s h m i r i , N o . 0 9 C r . 8 3 0
- 4 , 2 0 1 0 WL 4705159, at*3- 5 ( N
. D
. I l l
. N ov. 10, 2010) ; U ni t ed St at es v. W ar s ame, 547 F. Supp. 2d 982, 99 3 (D
. M i nn . 20 08 ); U nit ed S t at es v . M u b a y y i d, 52 1 F
. S up p. 2d 12 5, 13 5-41 (D
. M ass. 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. H ol yL and Foun d
. forR el i ef & D ev. , N o. 04 C r . 240, 2007 W L 2011319, at*5- 6 ( N
. D
. T ex. J ul y11, 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J ayy ous i , N o. 04 C r. 60001, 2007 W L 851278, at*1 ( S. D
. Fl a. M ar . 15, 2007) ; U ni t ed St at es v. B enkahl a, 437 F. Supp. 2 d 5 4 1 , 5 5 4 (E .D . V a . 2 0 0 6 ); U n ited S tate s v . M a rz o o k , 4 3 5 F . S u p p . 2 d 7 7 8 , 7 8 6 (N .D . Ill
. 2006) ; U ni t ed St at es v. N i chol s on, 955 F. Supp. 588, 590- 91 ( E
. D
. V a. 1997) ; I n r e K evork, 634 F. Supp. 1002, 1014 ( C
. D
. C al
. 1985) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Fal vey , 540 F. Supp. 1306, 1312 ( E
. D
. N
. Y
. 1982)
. W e do the s ame her e. A s w e di s cus s m or e ful l yi n t hi s opi ni on, t he F our t h A m endmentw arr antr equi r ement dem and s a sh ow i ng of p robable cause reas on able t o the purpo se bei ng pu rs ued
. T hu s, i den t i fi cat i on of p urpose i s necessaryt o assess t he reasonab l eness of the probab l e cause
s t andar ds at i s s ue. W her e mul t i pl e purpos es ar e s i gni fi cantt o an i nves t i gat i on, how ever , t heW e nee d nother e dec i de how t he purpos e for w h ich a w arr anti s s oughtm i ght 23 i nform the d u ty to mi ni m i ze the i nt er cept i on of m at er i al notr el evantt o t hatpurpos e. T he FI SA r ecor d i n t hi s cas e, w hi ch both t he di s t r i ctcour tand thi s cour thave c ar eful l yr evi ew ed, rai ses no m i nim i zat i on con cerns. 27 F o u rth A m e n d m e n t d o e s n o t re q u ire th e g o v e rn m e n t to id e n tifya p rim a ryp u rp o se o r lim it i t s abi l i t yt o s ecur e a w arr antt o s at isfac ti o n of the s t andar ds fort hatpurpos e. R ather , t he governm entm ays ecur e a w arr antundert he pr obabl e c au se st andar ds appl i cabl e t o any p u rpo se th at it p u rsue s in g o o d fa ith
. T h u s, w e ide n ti fyn o co n sti tuti o n al de fe cts i n F IS A ’s 23

c e rtific a tio n re q u ire m e n t o f “ a sig n if

ica n t” r a th e r th a n a p r im a ry“ p u rp o se . . . to o b tain f o re ig n in te llig e n c e in f

o rm a tio n .” 5 0 U .S .C . § 1 8 0 4 (a )( 6 )( B ).
c. T he “Pr i m aryPurpos e” Requi r ement ’ s O r i gi ns as a Li m i ton t he E x e c u tiv e ’s C laim e d Inherent A uthori tyt o C on du c t W arrantl ess Sur vei l l ance forFor ei gn I nt el l i gence I nfor m at i on T o expl ai n t he basi s forourdeci s i on, w e begi n bynot i ng t hatt he “pr i m arypurpos e”
r equi r ementur ged byA bu- J i haad w as o ri g inal l yfor m ul at ed t o addr es s a cons t i tut i onal
con cern no tpresent i n t his case: t he scope of presi den t i al authori t y t o co nd uct w arr antl ess fo reign intell igen ce su rve illan ce . In U n it ed S tat es v . U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt(K eith ), 4 0 7 U .S . 2 9 7 (1 9 7 2 ), th e S u p re m e C o u rt re jec ted a c laim o f

in h e re n t ex e c u tiv e a u th o rityto conduct w arr ant l es s dom es t i c s ecur i t y s ur vei l l ance , w hi l e s peci fi cal l ynotdeci di ng t he s cope
o f e x ec u ti v e a u tho ri tyto co n d u ct su rve il lanc e “ w ith resp ec t t o ac ti v it ies o f f o reign p o w ers
or t hei r agent s , ” i d. at321- 22 ( emphasi s added)
. T he Four t h C i r cui taddr es s ed thatques t i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. T ru o n g D inh H u ng, 629 F. 2d 908 ( 4t h C i r . 1980) , a ca s e i nvol vi ng28

w arr ant l es s for ei gn i nt el l i g ence s ur vei l l ance conduct ed bef or e ena ctm entof FI SA , and
r es ol ved i t f

avor abl yt o t he exe cut i ve: “the Execut i ve B r anch ne ed notal w ay s obt ai n a
w arr a n t f

o r f o r e i g n i n t e l l i g e n c e s u r v e i l l a n c e , ” i d
. a t 9 1 3
. At t h e s a me t i me , h o wev e r , t he
co u rtruled that the e x ec u ti v e’s p o w er to ac t w ith o u t a w arran t w as c ab ined b ythe A rt icl e II authori t yov e r fo rei gn affair s fr om w hich i tderi ved
. T hu s, T ruong held that w arr antl ess fore i gn i nt el l i gence s urvei l l ance w as cons t i tut i onal l yauthor i zed onl yw i t h r es pectt o “a fo reign p ow er , i t s agentorcol l abor at or s ” and w hen “c onduct ed ‘ pr i m ar i l y ’ forfor ei gn i nt el l i gence r eas ons . ” I d. at 915. Som e t w enty - ei ghty ear s l at er , how ever , t he FI SA R evi ew C ou rtdecli ned t o im po se a com parabl e pri m arypu rpose r equ i rem ent on t he w a rrant l ess
su rve il lanc e p rov isi o n s o f th e P A A , ap p li ca b le to fo reign p o w ers or ag en ts o f fo reign p o w ers
r eas onabl ybel i eved t o be l ocat ed outsi d e t he U ni t ed St at es . See I n r e FI SA Sect i on 105B D i r ect i ves , 551 F. 3d at1010- 12 ( hol di ng t hat“more appr opr i at e cons i der at i on” i s w hether “pr ogr amm at i c purpos e of the survei l l ance s . . . i nvol ves s om e l egi t i m at e obj ect i ve bey ond
o rdin arycrim e c o n tr o l”). We h a v e n o o c c a s i o n h e r e t o c o n s i d e r t h e s e w a rr a n t l e s s s u r v e i l l a n c e d e c i s i o n s . We not e s i m pl yt hatt her e i s an i m por t antdi s t i nct i on betw een w arr ant l es s s ur vei l l ance s pr emi s ed
e x c lu siv e lyo n e x e c u tiv e a u th o rity , an d su rv e ill a n c e s p u rsu a n t to w a rra n ts iss u e d b yc o u rts i n compl i ance w i t h s t andar ds enac t ed byC ongr es s . T he for m er r equi r e i dent i fi cat i on of an
exce pt i on t o t he Four t h A m endment ’ s w arr ant r equi r ement . See U ni t ed St at es v. D uggan, 743 F. 2d at72 ( col l ect i ng ca ses rec ogni zi ng s uch exc ept i on) ; s ee a l s o I n r e FI SA Sect i on29

1 0 5 B D ire c tiv e s, 5 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 1 1 -1 2
. B y c o n tra st, th e latte r im p lem e n t th a t re q u ire m e n t. W hatever purpose l i m i t s m i gh tbe p l aced o n the presi den t ’s authori t yt o co nd uct w arr antl ess
s ur vei l l ance t o ens ur e t hat t he except i on does not ext end bey ond t he const i tut i onal gr ound f o ri t s r e c o g n i t i o n , i t do e s no t f o l l o w t h a tt h e F o u r t h Ame n d me n td e ma n d s t h e s a me lim itatio n w h e n , a s u n d e r F IS A , th e p o w e rs o f a ll th re e b ra n c h e s o f g o v e rn m e n t

– in sh o rt, th e w h o le o f f

e d e ra l a u th o rity

– a re in v o k e d in d e ter m in in g w h e n w a rra n ts m a yre a so n a b ly be s oughtand i s s ued fort he purpos e of obt ai ni ng for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on. C f. Y o u n g s to w n S h e e t & T u b e C o . v . S a w y e r, 3 4 3 U .S . 5 7 9 , 6 3 5
- 3 7 ( 1 9 5 2 ) ( J a c k s o n , J ., co n cu rri n g ). d. T he Four t h A m endment ’ s W arr antR equi r ementI s Fl exi bl e. A s this cou rt has recogn i zed, the C on st i tuti on ’s w arr ant r equ i rem ent i s “fl exibl e, ” so t hat“di ffe r ents t andar ds m aybe compati bl e w i t h t he Four t h A m endmenti n l i ghtof the di ffe r entpurpos es and pr act i cal cons i der at i ons ” at i s s ue. U ni t ed St at es v. D uggan, 743 F. 2d at72. T hus , w hen a w arr ant i s s ought for t he purpos e of i nves t i gat i ng “or di nary cr i m e, ” the Four t h A m endmen t r equi r es a s how i ng of pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve thatt he t ar getof the
w arr ant“i s comm i t t i ng, has comm i t t ed, ori s aboutt o comm i ta part i cul aroffe ns e, ” and that “part i cul arcomm uni cat i ons conce r ni ng that offe ns e w i l l be obt ai ned thr ough” the
s ur vei l l ance . 18 U
. S. C
. § 2518( 3) ( a)
- ( b) ; s ee D al i a v. U ni t ed St at es , 441 U
. S. 238, 255 (1 9 7 9 ). B u t w h e n th e g o v e rn m e n t p u rsu e s a d if f e re n t p u rp o se , su c h a s o b tain in g se c u rity i nt el l i gence , “[d] i ffe r ents t andar ds ” of pr obabl e ca us e r eas onabl e t o t hatp u rpose may30

s uppor ti s s uance of a w arr ant . See K ei t h, 407 U
. S. at322- 23. T he cons i der at i ons t hatt he Supr eme C our ti dent i fi ed i n K eit h as di s t i ngui s hi ng dom es t i c s ecur i t ys ur vei l l ance fr om t he s ur vei l l ance of “or di narycr i m e” a nd, t her efor e, as
s uppor t i ng di ffe r ent w arr ant s t andar ds , per t ai n equal l yt o for ei gn i nt el l i gence s ur vei l l ance : T h e gat her i ng of s ecur i t yi nt el l i gence i s oft en l ong r ange a nd i nvol ves t he i nt err el at i on of var i ous s our ces and t ypes of i nfor m at i on. T he exa ctt ar get s of s uch su r vei l l ance m aybe more di ffi cul tt o i dent i fyt han i n s ur vei l l ance oper at i ons agai ns tm anyt ypes of cr i m e s peci fi ed i n T i t l e I I I
. O ft en, t oo, t he emphasi s of dom es t i c i nt el l i gence gather i ng i s on t he pre vent i on of unl aw ful a c t i v i t yo rt h e e n h a n c e ment of t h e Go v e r n me n t ’ s p r e p a r e d n e s s f o rs o me pos s i bl e futur e cr i s i s oremer gency . T hus , t he focus of dom es t i c s ur vei l l ance m aybe l es s pr eci s e than thatdi r ect ed aga i ns tm or e conve nt i onal t ypes of cr i m e. Id . at 3 2 2 . A lso n o tew o rth y is K e ith ’s re c o g n iti o n o f C o n g re ss ’s p a rticu lar c o m p e ten c e to
w e ig h th e se c o n sid e ra tio n s a n d to e sta b lish re a so n a b le w a rra n t re q u ire m e n ts f o r se c u rity
s ur vei l l ance , as di s t i nct fr om t hos e al r eady pr es cr i bed for s peci fi ed cr i m es i n T i t l e I I I
. See id . a t 3 2 2 -2 3
. T h e b e n c h m a rk f

o r ju d icia l re v iew o f

th e c o n stitu tio n a lityo f w a rra n t re q u ire m e n ts
es t abl i s hed byC ongr es s i s r eas onabl enes s : “D i ffe r ent s t andar ds m aybe compat i bl e w i t h t he Four t h A m endmenti f theyar e r eas onabl e both i n r el at i on t o the legiti m at e nee d of G overnm entfori nt el l i gence i nform at i on and the pr ot ect ed r i ght s of ourci t i zens . ” I d. at322- 23. C ons i s t entw i t h t hi s pr onouncement , t he C our t i n K ei t h obs erved t hat C ongr es s m i ght
w el l j udge thatt he appl i cat i on and af fi davi ts how i ng pr obabl e ca us e fors ecur i t ys ur vei l l ance “nee d notfol l ow t he exa ctr equi r ement s of [18 U
. S
. C
. ] § 2518 buts houl d al l ege otherT o t he ext entA bu- J i haad a s s er t s t hat D u ggan di d notexpl i ci t l yaddr es s t he 24 reas on ableness of F IS A ’s no t i ce and du rat i on requi rem ents , w e here cl ari fyt hat these s t andar ds r ai s e no Four t h A m endmentconce rns. A s t he FI SA R evi ew C our tobs erved, C ongr es s det erm i ned that“‘ [t ] he nee d t o pr es erve sec r ecy fors ens i t i ve count er i nt el l i gence s our ces and met hods j us t i fi es el i m i nat i on of the not i ce r equi r ement ’ ” i n FI SA
. I n r e Seal ed C as e, 310 F. 3d at 741 ( quot i ng S. R ep. N o. 95- 701, at 12 ( 1978) )
. T he r eas onabl enes s of the conce r n i s obvi ous . Se e U ni t ed St at es v. B el fi el d, 692 F. 2d 141, 144 n. 8 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1982) (re c o g n izin g th a t “ n o tice th a t th e su rv e ill a n c e h a s b e e n c o n d u c ted , e v e n y e a rs a f ter th e e v e n t, m aydes t r oya val uabl e i nt el l i gence advant age” )
. Fur t her , t he same r eas ons t hati nfor m ed our rejecti o n o f a ch all en g e to e x p arte, in c a m e ra rev iew o f q u esti o n ed ev iden ce in In re T err or i s tB om bi ngs of U
. S. E m bas s i es in E ast A fr i ca, – s peci fi cal l y , “the i m per at i ves of n a tio n a l se c u ritya n d th e c a p a c ityo f in c a m e ra p ro c e d u re s to a d e q u a telysa f e g u a rd
. . . F o u rth A m e n d m e n t rig h ts,” 5 5 2 F .3 d 1 5 7 , 1 6 6 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ) (i n ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s an d b ra c k e ts om i t t ed) – s uppor t a concl us i on t hat FI SA ’ s l i m i t ed not i ce r equi r ementdoes notr endert he sta tu te’ s w a rra n t sta n d a rd s u n c o n stitu tio n a l. 31 circu m stan ce s m o re a p p rop ri ate to d o m esti c se cu ri tyca ses; that the re q u est fo r prior c o u rt author i zat i on coul d, i n s ens i t i ve ca s es , be made t o anym ember o f a sp ec ia l l ydes i gnat ed
c o u r t . . . ; a n d t h a t t h e t i me a n d r e p o r t i n g r e q u i r e me n t s n e e d n o t b e s o s t r i c t a s t h o s e i n § 2518. ” I d. at323. T hi s di s cus s i on i n K ei t h i nfor m ed ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed S t at es v. D uggan, 743 F. 2d at72- 74, uphol di ng t he w arr ants t andar ds es t abl i s hed byC ongr es s i n FI SA forcour t - or der ed
s ur vei l l ance t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on. T he PA T R I O T A ctdi d notm odi fy t he s t andar ds FI SA appl i es t o w arr antappl i cat i ons for the purpos e of obt ai ni ng for ei gn i nt el l i gence . R ather , i tm odi fi ed the degr ee t o w hi ch for ei gn i nt el l i gence gather i ng m us tbe th e p u rp o se o f

th e su rv e ill a n c e . T h u s, w e n e e d n o t h e re re c o n sid e r D u g g a n ’s h o ld in g a s to t he r eas onabl enes s of FI SA ’ s w arr ants t andar d s fo rt he purpos e of obt ai ni ng for ei gn intell igen ce inf

o rm ati o n . W e n ee d co n side r o n ly w h ethe r an y co n sti tuti o n al co n ce rns a re

24S im il arly , the f ac t th at F IS A au tho ri ze s su rve il lanc e fo r a l o n g er pe ri o d than T it le III , com pare 50 U
. S
. C
. § 1 80 5(d)( 1) ( authori zi ng survei l l ance of U
. S
. person for up t o 9 0 d ay s) w ith 1 8 U .S .C . § 2 5 1 8 (5 ) (a u th o riz in g su rv e ill a n c e f o r u p to 3 0 d a ys ) , is n o t u n re a so n a b le i n l i ghtof “the natur e of na t i onal s ecur i t ys ur vei l l ance , w hi ch is ‘of t en l ong r ange a nd i nvol ves t he i nt err el at i on of var i ous s our ces and types of i nfor m at i on, ’ ” I n r e Seal ed C as e, 3 1 0 F
. 3 d at 74 0 (qu o ti n g K eith , 4 0 7 U
. S
. at 3 2 2 ). B erg er v . N ew Y o rk, 3 8 8 U
. S
. 4 1 (19 6 7 ), re lied o n b yA b u -Jih a a d , is n o t to th e c o n tra ry . In in v a lid a tin g N e w Y o rk ’s w ire tap sta tu te on Four t h A m endmentgr ounds , B er ger cas tdoubt , i nt eral i a, on t he l aw ’ s 60- daydur at i on pr ovi s i on. See i d. at59. A lt h ough “Ti t l e I I I w as enac t ed, i n l ar ge part , t o m eett he r es t r i ct i ons i m pos ed on el ectr oni c s ur vei l l ance pr act i ces and pr ocedur es byB er ger , ” U ni t ed St a t e s v . Fi g u e r o a , 7 5 7 F. 2 d 4 6 6 , 4 7 1 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 8 5 ) , Be r g e r ’ s f o c u s was o n t h e p r o p er b o u n d s o f

su rv e ill a n c e in a n o rd in a ryc rim in a l ca se . A s th e S u p r e m e C o u rt su b se q u e n tly re c o g n ize d in K e ith , to a d d re ss n a tio n a l se c u rityc o n c e rn s, C o n g re ss c o u ld c o n stitu tio n a lly enac ts ur vei l l ance l egi s l at i on i n w hi ch “the t i m e and r epor t i ng r equi r ement s ” mi ght“notbe so str ict ” a s tho se in T it le III
. S ee 4 0 7 U
. S
. at 32 3
. T h u s, w e c o n clu d e th a t C o n g ress’s d e c isio n to p e rm it F IS A su rv e ill a n c e o f a U .S . p e rso n to b e a u th o riz e d f o r u p to 9 0 d a y s is re a s o n a b le in lig h t o f

th e p u rp o s e b e in g p u rs u e d
.

32 raised b yC o n g ress’s de cisi o n to al low F IS A w arran t stan d ard s to ap p lyu p o n the e x ec u ti v e’s
c e rti fi cat i on t hat a “si gn i fi cant” rather t han a “pri m ary ” pu rpose of the sur veil l ance is to obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nform at i on.

e . A “ S ig n if

ica n t” R a th e r th a n “ P rim a ry” P u rp o se to O b tain F o reign Intell igen ce Inf o rm ati o n D o es N o t R en d er F IS A ’s W a rra n t S tan d a rd s U n re a so n a b le ( 1 ) D uggan R ecogni zed “ Pr i m ary ” Purpo se as a M at t erof S tatu to ryC o n stru c tio n n o t C o n stitu tio n a l M a n d a te In conc l ud i ng t hat the “si gn i fi cant purpose” cert i fi cat i on requi rem ent do es no trai se
cons t i tut i onal conce r ns , w e not e thatw hen, i n D uggan, w e cons t rued F ISA ’ s or i gi nal
r efe r ence t o el ectr oni c s urvei l l ance for“the pu rpos e” of obt ai ni ng for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nform ati o n , ” a s a “ req u ir em en t th at fo reign intell igen ce inf o rm ati o n be the pr i m aryobj ect i veI ns ofaras a footn o te i n U ni t ed St at es v. T ruong D i nh H ung, 629 F. 2d at914 n. 4, 25 co u ld be r ead t o concl ude thatt he dual r equi r ement s i tes t abl i s hed forw arr ant l es s for ei gn i nt el l i gen ce su r vei l l ance – a for ei gn pow ert ar getand a “ pr i m ar i l y ” for ei gn i nt el l i gence purpo se, se e id. at915 – w oul d al s o be r equi r ed forcour t - or der ed s ur vei l l ance , t he concl us i on appea r s t o be di ctum and, i n anyevent , i s notbi ndi ng on t hi s cour t . Fur t her , t he concl us i on w as expr es s ed befor e concerns ar os e t hat s at i s fac t i on of t he “pr i m arypurpos e” r eq u i r e me n te f

f e c t i v e l yp r e c l u d e d t h e c o o r d i n a t i o n o f i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d l a w en f o r cement eff or t s i n ens ur i ng nat i onal s ecur i t y . W e di s cus s t hes e concerns fur t her i n t he nexts ect i on o f th is o p in io n . 33 of [a nycour t - or der ed] s ur veil lanc e, ” i d. at77 ( emphasi s added) , w e w er e i dent i fy i ng C o n g re ss ’s in ten t in e n a c tin g F IS A , n o t a c o n stitu tio n a l m a n d a te, s e e g e n e ra lly W
. R
. G r ace & C o .-C o n n . v . Z o to s In t’l, In c ., 5 5 9 F .3 d 8 5 , 8 8 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 9 ) (re c o g n izin g o b lig a tio n “ to lo o k to th e p la in la n g u a g e o f th e sta tu te to e f

f e c tu a te th e in ten t o f

C o n g re ss ” ). T h is is evi dentfr om t he f

actthatw e art i cul at ed thi s cons t ruct i on i n t he cont extof det erm i ni ng
w hethert he surveil l ance a ti ssue i n D ug gan w as co nd ucted i n accordan ce w i t h F ISA ’s t erm s, not i n t he cont ext of our ear l i er , and s epar at e, det erm i nat i on of FI SA ’ s cons t i tut i onal i t y . See U ni t ed St at es v. D uggan, 743 F. 2d at71- 74. I n s hor t , not hi ng i n D uggan er ect ed a
c on s t i tut i on a l ba rt o Cong r e s s r e c on s i de r i ng a nd r e fr a mi ng t he pu rpo s e r e qu i r e mentof FI SA
a s lo n g a s it m a in tain e d w a rra n t sta n d a rd s th a t in th e ir to talityw e re “ re a so n a b le b o th in
r el at i on t o t he l egi t i m at e need of G overnm ent for i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on and the pr ot ect ed
r i ght s of ourci t i zens . ” K ei t h, 407 U
. S. at323. 25 ( 2) C ons i der at i ons Pr om pt i ng C ongr es s ’ s A dopt i on of the “Si gni fi cant ” Purpos e A m endment I n c o n s i d e r i n g C o n g r e s s ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a l l o w F I S A s t a n d a r d s t o b e t r i g g e r e d b y a34

s how i ng of a “ s i gni fi cant ” r athert han “pr im ary ” purpos e of obt ai ni ng for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on, w e maypr oper l ycons i dert he “pr act i cal cons i der at i ons ” i nfor m i ng t hatchoi ce. See K ei t h, 407 U
. S. at322 ( obs ervi ng t hat di ffe r ents t andar ds m aybe compat i bl e w i t h t he F o u rth A m en d m en t i n li g h t of the “ d iffe ren t p o li cy an d p rac ti ca l con side rati o n s” a t i ssu e);
se e a lso U n ited S tate s v . D u g g a n , 7 4 3 F .2 d a t 7 2 . T h e re lev a n t b a c k g ro u n d is d isc u ss e d in d e tail in In re S e a led C a se , 3 1 0 F .3 d a t 7 2 2 -2 9
. W e su m m a riz e it h e re o n lya s n e c e ss a ryto hi ghl i ghtt w o cons i der at i ons t hat em erge d fr om y ear s of J us t i ce D epart m entexper i ence t r y i ng t o s at i s fyt he “pr i m arypurp o s e ” r e q u i r e me n ta n d thati nfor m ed C ongr es s ’ s amendm ent
o f F IS A ’s p u rp o se c e rtific a tio n p ro v isio n : (1 ) if in tellig e n c e a n d law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f icia ls
coor di nat e ef

for t s i n pur s ui ng nat i onal s ecur i t y i nqui r i es , i t can be di ffi cul t , i f noti m pos s i bl e, t o i dent i fyw hethert hei r“pr i m ary ” purpos e i s t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on or
e v id e n c e o f

a c rim e ; a n d (2 ) th e se g re g a tio n o f in tellig e n c e a n d law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f icia ls t o ens ur e the execu t i ve’s abi l i t yt o cert i fya “pri m ary ” forei gn -i ntel l i gen ce-gat heri ng pu rpose
c a n c o m p r o m i s e n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y. FI SA ’ s or i gi nal purpos e cer t i fi cat i on r equi r ement w as notuni for m l ycons t rued byt he
c o u rts. A lth o u g h w e th o u g h t itc lea r th a t th e sta tu te’ s o rig in a l re f e re n c e to “ th e p u rp o se ” to obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfo rm at i on r efe r ence d t he pr i m arypurpos e, U ni t ed St at es v. D uggan, 743 F. 2d at 77, t he F i r s t C i r cui t cons t rued t he re qui r ement i n t he nega t i ve, hol di ng t hat“the i nves t i gat i on of cr i m i nal act i vi t y cannot be t he pr i m arypurpos e” of a s ur vei l l ance
o rd e r u n d e r F IS A , U n ited S tate s v . Jo h n so n , 9 5 2 F .2 d a t 5 7 2 . M e a n w h ile, th e N in th C irc u it35

hes i t at ed t o d ef

ine F IS A ’ s purpos e r equi r ement“t o dr aw t oo fi ne a di s t i nct i on betw een
cr i m i nal and i nt el l i gence i nves t i gat i ons , ” not i ng t hat “‘ [i ] nt ernat i onal t err or ism , ’ by defi ni t i on , req u ir es t he i nves t i gat i on of ac t i vi t i es t hatcons t i tut e cr i m es . ” U ni t ed St at es v. S ark issi an , 8 4 1 F
. 2 d 9 5 9 , 9 6 5 (9th C ir
. 1 9 8 8 ). T h e F IS A R ev iew C o u rtec h o ed this co n ce rn i n I n r e Seal ed C as e, ques t i oni ng t he s oundnes s of any purpos e cert i fi cat i on stan d ard t hat
as s um ed “thatt he governm ent s eeks for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on ( count er i nt el l i gence ) fori t s ow n s ake – t o expand i t s pool of know l edge. ” 310 F. 3d at727. I tconcl u d ed t hat “F ISA as passed by C on gress i n 1 97 8 clear l ydid not pr ecl ud e or l i m i tt he g ov ernm ent’ s use
orp r o p o s ed us e of f

or ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on, w hi ch i ncl uded evi dence of ce r t ai n ki nds
o f c ri m in a l a c tiv ity, in a c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n .” Id
. I n Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Du g g a n , we h a d “ e mp h a s i z e [ d ] ” t h i s s a me p o i n t , e v e n t h o u g h we
c o n stru e d “ th e p u rp o se ” re q u ire m e n t o f F IS A to m e a n “ p rim a ryp u rp o se ” : [O ] t herw i s e val i d FI SA s ur vei l l ance i s nott ai nt ed si m pl ybeca us e the gov ern m en t can a nt i ci pat e thatt he frui t s of s uch s ur vei l l ance m ayl at erbe used, as al l ow ed b y§ 1 80 6(b), as evi den ce i n a cri m i nal tri al
. C on gress re c o g n ize d th a t in m a n y c a se s th e c o n c e rn s o f th e g o v e rn m e n t w ith re sp e c t to f o re ig n in te llig e n c e w ill o v e rl a p th o s e w ith re s p e c t to la w e n f o rc e m e n t. 743 F. 2d at78. W e conc l uded thatw her e i n fo rm at i on s oughtt hr ough FI SA s ur vei l l ance “i nvol ved i nt ernat i onal t err or i s m [, ]
. . . t he fa ctt hatdom es t i c l aw enfor cementconce r ns m ay
a l s o h a ve be e n i mpl i c a t e d d i d n ote l i mi na t e t he go ve r nmen t ’ s a bi l i t yt o o bt a i n a va l i d FI SA
o rd e r.” Id
. I n t he y ear s aft erourdeci s i on i n D uggan, t hi s i m por t ant poi ntbeca m e muddl ed, i f notF or exam ple, t he o rdervacated byt he F ISA R e v iew C ou rti n In re Sealed C ase 26 p ro h ib ited law e n f

o rc e m e n t o f

f icia ls, in ter a lia, f

ro m m a k in g a n yre c o m m e n d a tio n s to i nt e l l i gen ce of

fi ci al s r espect i ng “t he ini t i at i on , op erat i on , con t i nu at i on , or expa ns i on of FI SA s ear ches ors ur vei l l ance s . ” See 310 F. 3d at720 n. 3. 36 lost. In 1 9 9 5 , the J u sti ce D ep artm en t no t o n ly c o m m itt ed it self to s ati sfy ing the p ri m ary purpos e t es t b ut , “[a ] ppar ent l yt o avoi d runni ng afoul ” of thatt es t , i tadopt ed pr ocedur es l i m i t i ng cont act s betw een i nt el l i gence and l aw enfor cement offi ci al s . See I n r e Seal ed C as e, 310 F. 3 d at 727- 28 ( not i ng t hatpr ocedur es “eve ntual l ycame t o be narr ow l yi nt erpr et ed
w i t hi n t he D epart m entof J us t i ce” s o as t o er ecta “w al l ” t o “pr eventt he FB I i nt el l i gence offi ci al s fr om comm uni cat i ng w i t h t he C r i m i nal D i vi s i on r egar di ng ongoi ng [i nt el l i gence ] i nves t i gat i ons ”) ; s ee a l s o T he N at ’ l C om m ’ n on T err or i s tA t t acks U pon t he U
. S. , T he 9/ 11 C om m i s s i on R epor t78- 80 (20 0 4 ) ( di s cus s i ng cons t r ai nt s i m pos ed by“pr i m arypurpos e”
r equi r ementon s har i ng of i nt el l i gence i nfor m ati o n betw een pr os ecut or s and i nt el l i gence agent s )
. M or eover , as t he FI SA C our t beca m e aw ar e of t hes e J us t i ce D epart m entpr ocedur es f o r s e g r e g a t i n g i n t e l l i g e n c e a n d c r i mi n a l i n v e s t i g a t i v e o f f i c i a l s , i t “ a d o p t e d e l e m ent s of th e m ” in to c e rta in o f

its o rd e rs. In re S e a led C a se , 3 1 0 F .3 d a t 7 2 8
. T h e n e t re su lt w a s to 26

s hi ft“the foc us ” of FI SA s ur vei l l ance appl i cat i ons fr o m t he “purpos e of the s ur vei l l ance ” t o “the natur e of the under l y i ng i nves t i gat i on. ” I d. A s t he FI SA R evi ew C our tobs erved, thes e pr act i ces i m pos ed a c os ton nat i onal
s ecur i t y . See i d. at744 & n. 29 ( ci t i ng congr es s i onal hear i ngs i ndi cat i ng t hatpr act i ces i m pl ement ed t o s egr egat e i nt el l i gence fr om l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s t o avoi d runni ng afoul37

o f p rim a ryp u rp o se tes t “ m a y w e ll h a v e c o n trib u ted , w h e th e r co rre c tlyu n d e rsto o d o r n o t, t o t he FB I m i s s i ng oppor tuni t i es to ant i ci pat e the Sept ember11, 2001 at t acks ”)
. I n t he aft erm ath of Sept ember11, 2001, t he execut i ve aske d C ongr es s t o s ubs t i tut e “a purpos e” f or “the purpos e” r equi r ementof FI SA s o as t o al low itt o di s m ant l e the w al l betw een i nt el l i gence and l aw enfor cementper s onnel er ect ed t o ens ur e t hat t he pri m ary purpos e of any FI SA s ur vei l l ance or s ear ch w as t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on and notevi dence
o f c ri m e . Id . a t 7 3 2
. C ongr es s di d notacc eptt he exe cut i ve’ s pr opos ed l anguag e, b u t i tdi d agr ee that
cert i fi cat i on of a pr i m arypurpos e t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at ion s houl d notbe
r equi r ed t o s ecur e a FI SA w arr ant . A l t houg h n o comm i t t ee r epor t s acc om pani ed the PA T R I O T A ct , Senat orFei ns t ei n, one of the ac t ’ s s t r ong s uppor t er s , pr ovi ded a c ogentfl oor sta tem e n t as to th e re a so n s f o r re c a stin g F IS A ’s p u rp o se c e rtific a tio n re q u ire m e n t: U n d e r c u rre n t law , au th o rities c a n p ro c e e d w ith su rv e ill a n c e u n d e r F IS A o n ly i f the pr i m arypurpos e of the i nves t i gat i on i s t o col l ectfor ei gn i nt el l i gence . B u t in to d a y ’s w o rld th in g s ar e n o t so sim p le. In m a n yc a se s, su rv e ill a n c e w ill have tw o key goal s – t he gat her i ng of for ei gn i nt el l i gence , and the gather i ng of evi dence fora cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on. D et erm i ni ng w hi ch p u rpo se i s t he
“ p r i ma r y ” p u rp o s e o f

t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n c a n b e d i f f i c u l t , a n d wi l l o n l yb e c o me m or e s o as w e coor di nat e ouri nt el l i gence and l aw enfor cementeff or t s i n t he w ar a g ains t t erro r. R athert han for ci ng l aw enfor cement t o deci de w hi ch purpos e i s pr i m ary– l aw enfor cementor for ei gn i nt el l i gence gather i ng, t hi s bi l l s t r i kes a new bal ance . I tw i l l now r equi r e thata “s i gni fi cant ” purpos e of the i nves t i gat i on m us tbe f o r e i g n i n t e l l i g e n c e g a t h e r i n g t o p r o c e e d wi t h s u r v e i l l a n c e u n d e rF I S A. T h e e f f e c t o f th is p ro v isio n w ill b e to m a k e it ea s ie r f o r la w e n f

o rc e m e n t to38

obt ai n a F I SA s ear ch or survei l l ance w arr antfort hos e ca s es w her e the s ubj ect of t he s ur vei l l ance i s bot h a pot ent i al s our ce of val uabl e i nt el l i gence and the pot ent i al t ar get of a cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on. M any of t he i ndi vi dual s i nvol ved i n s up po r t i ng t he Se pt e mber11 a t t a c ks mayw e l l fa l l i nt o b oth o f the se cat ego ri es. 1 4 7 C o n g . R ec . S 1 0 5 9 1 (O ct 11 , 2 0 0 1 ) (qu o ted in In re S ea led C ase , 3 1 0 F
. 3 d at 73 2 -33 ). T o ad d ress t hes e pr act i cal cons i der at i ons – i
. e. , t he di ffi cul t yi n i dent i fy i ng t he pr i m arypurpos e w hen s ur vei l l anc e i s pur s ued j oi nt l ybyi nt el l i gence and l aw enfor cement
o f f icia ls, a n d th e im p o rta n c e o f su c h jo in t ef

f o rts to p ro tec t n a tio n a l se c u rity

– C o n g re ss in the P A T R I O T A ctamended FI SA t o pr ovi de that , upon s at i s fac t i on of al l ot hers t atut ory
r equi r ement s , FI SA w arr ant s coul d be i s s ued on ce r t i fi cat i on “thata s i gni fi cantpurpos e of th e s u rv e illa n c e is to o b ta in f o re ig n in te llig e n c e in f

o rm a tio n .” S e e P u b . L . N o . 1 0 7 -5 6 , § 2 1 8 , 1 1 5 S tat. a t 2 9 1 (c o d if ied a s a m e n d e d a t 5 0 U .S .C . § 1 8 0 4 (a )(6 )(B )). In a s e p a r a te amendm ent , C ongr es s expr es s l y author i zed fede r al offi cer s conduct i ng s ur vei l l ance w i t h t he ai m of obt ai ning fo rei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on t o coor di nat e thei ract i vi t i es w i t h l aw enfor cementoffi cer s . See P ub. L
. N o. 107- 56, § 504, 115 St at . at364 ( codi fi ed as amended at 50 U
. S
. C
. § 1 8 0 6 (k)(1 )) (“F ed era l o ff icers w h o co n d u ct electron ic su rve il lanc e to a cq u ir e for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nform at i on undert hi s t i t l e maycons ul tw i t h Feder al l aw enfor cement
o f f ic e rs o r la w e n f

o rc e m e n t p e rso n n e l o f

a S tate o r p o lit ica l su b d iv isio n o f a S tate . . . to
coor di nat e ef

for t s t o i nves t i gat e orpr ot ectagai ns t[, i nt eral i a, actual orpot ent i al at t ack by a for ei gn pow er o r age ntof a f or ei gn pow er , s abot age, i nt ernat i onal t err or i s m , orot her cl and est i ne int el l i gen ce act i vit i es by a forei gn po w er or agen t of a forei gn po w er]
. ”). In soA l t hough s om e s enat or s w ho vot ed fort he P A T R I O T A ct t hought i tpos s i bl e that 27 cour t s m i ghti m pos e a c ons t i tut i onal r equi r ementof “pr i m aryp u rpos e, ” s ee I n r e Seal ed C as e, 310 F. 3d at 737 ( quot i ng r emar ks of S enat or L eahy , 147 C ong. R ec. S11003 ( O ct . 25, 2 0 0 1 ), an d S e n a to r E d w a rd s, 1 4 7 C o n g . R e c . S 1 0 5 8 9 (O c t. 11 , 2 0 0 1 )), f o r re a so n s s tate d in t he nexts ect i on of thi s opi ni on, w e agr ee w i t h the F IS A R ev ie w C our tt hat“a s i gni fi cant purpos e” r equi r ement i s adequa t e t o ens ur e thatFI SA s t andar ds ar e r eas onabl yappl i ed t o t he p u rp o s e f

o r w h ic h th e yw e re id e n tif ie d
. 39 do i n g , Con g r e s s ma d e c l e a rt h a ts u c h c o o r d i n a t i o n wou l d p r e c l u d e n e i t h e ra f i n d i n g t hat FI SA ’ s “s i gni fi cantpurpos e” c er t i fi cat i on r equi r ementw as m et , nort he entr yof an or derof ap p rov al un d er § 1 8 0 5
. S ee 5 0 U
. S
. C
. § 1 8 0 6 (k)(2 ). 27 ( 3) A “Si gni fi cantPurpos e” To O bt ai n For ei gn I nt el l i gence I nfor m at i on I s Suffi ci entt o Suppor tt he A ppl i cat i on of FI SA ’ s St andar ds t o Sur vei l l ance A ppl i cat i ons A bu- J i haad doe s notdi s put e the cons i der at i ons pr om pt i ng C ongr e s s ’ s a d o pt i on of the “s i gni fi cant purpos e” am endment
. R ather , he ar gues t hati f FI SA ’ s pr obabl e ca us e s t andar ds
ar e appl i ed w i t houta “pr i m ary ” governm entpurpos e t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence in f o rm a tio n , the e x e c u tiv e w ill b e a b le to m a n ip u late F IS A to o b tain su rv e ill a n c e w a rra n ts forcr i m i nal i nves t i gat i ons w i t houtdemonstr at i ng t he pr obabl e caus e r equi r ed byT i t l e I I I for t hatpurpos e. B eca us e w e conc l ude thatt he r equi r ed ce r t i fi cat i on of “a s i gni fi cantpurpos e” t o o b t a i n f

o r e i g n i n t e l l i g e n c e i n f

o r ma t i o n a d e q u a t e l yp r o t e c t s a g a i n s tt h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , we
re je c t A b u -J ih a a d ’s c o n s titu tio n a l c h a lle n g e to th is la n g u a g e . A s C o n g re ss a n d th e c o u rts h a v e re c o g n ize d , g o v e rn m e n t in v e stig a tio n s re latin g to nat i onal s ecur i t y fr equent l y pur s ue m or e t han one purpos e. See U ni t ed St at es v. D uggan, 743 F. 2d at78 (st ati n g t hat , i n enac t i ng FI SA , “C ongr es s r ecogni zed thati n m anycas es t he40

c o n c e rn s of the go vernm ent w i t h respectt o fo rei gn i ntel l i gen ce w i l l ov erl ap those w ith
r es pectt o l aw enfor cement ”) ; s ee a l s o i n r e F I SA Sect i on 105B D i r ect i ves , 551 F. 3d at1011 ( “A s ur vei l l ance w i t h a for ei gn i nt el l i gence purpos e oft en w i l l have s om e anc i l l arycr i m i nal l aw purpos e. ”)
. I ndeed, m ul t i pl e purpos es m aybe i nevi t abl e gi ven FI S A ’s d efi ni t i on of “for ei gn i nt ell igen ce inf or m at i on” and “ agentof a f or ei gn pow er ” byr efe r ence t o s er i ous
cr i m i nal conduct
. See I n r e Seal ed C as e, 3 1 0 F
. 3d at724 ( obs ervi ng t hat“for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nform at i on” as defi n ed i n FI SA “‘ can i ncl ude evi dence of ce r t ai n cr i m es
r el at i ng t o s abot age, i nt ernat i onal t err or i s m , or cl andes t i ne i nt el l i gence act i vi t i es ’ ” ( quot i ng H
. R
. R ep. N o. 95- 1283, at49 ( 1978) ) ( emphasi s om i t t ed) ) ; s ee a l s o 50 U
. S. C
. § 1801 (b) ( defi ning “a gentof for ei gn pow er ” byr efe r ence t o i nvol vementi n, i nt eral i a, cl andes t i ne i ntel l i gen ce gatheri ng , sabotage, a n d int ernat i on al t err ori sm ). In such cir cum st ances, i nt el l i gence and l aw enfor cementpurpos es “‘ t end t o m er ge, ’ ” maki ng i tdi ffi cul tt o i dent i fy
one as pr i m ary . See I n r e Seal ed C as e, 310 F. 3d at 724- 25 ( quot i ng S. R ep. N o. 95- 701, at 10- 11 ( 1978) )
. I ndeed, as exper i ence has t aught , i f the exe cut i ve i s r equi r ed t o cert i fyt hat i t s “pr i m ary ” purpos e i n conduct i ng s ur vei l l a n c e i s t o o b t a i n f o r ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on, i tm ayw el l have t o excl ude l aw enfor cementoffi ci al s fr om pl ay i ng anypar ti n t he
s ur vei l l ance . Such a s egr egat i on of purpos es m akes no s ens e i n t erm s of pr ot ect i ng nat i onal
se c u rity . S e e id . at 7 2 7 (“ [ I]f o n e c o n sid e rs th e a c tu a l w a y s in w h ich th e g o v e rn m e n t w o u ld foi l es pi onage or t err or i s m i tbecomes appar entt hatcr i m i nal pr os ecut i on anal yt i cal l ycannot b e p la c e d e a silyin a se p a ra te r e sp o n se c a teg o ry .”). M o re im p o rta n t f o r o u r p u rp o se s, it isBec a us e I n r e Se a l ed C a s e , 31 0 F. 3d 71 7, w a s de c i de d i n 2 00 2, be fo r e t he FI SA 28 o rde rs he re a t i ssu e h ere w ere en tered , w e c an assu m e tha t i ts co n stru cti o n o f th e statute’s provis i on s contr oll ed the i ssuance o f t ho se orders
. 41 n o t c o m p e lle d b yth e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. ForFour t h A m endment p u rpo ses, t he cr i t i cal ques t i on i s notw hethert he exe cut i ve
can c er t i fyt hatobt ai ni ng for ei gn intell i gence i nfor m at i on i s i t s “pr i m ary ” purpos e, but
w hetheri tcan c er t i fythati ti s a bona f i de purpos e of the s ur vei l lanc e. T h us , w her e the
e x e c u tiv e in g o o d f

a ith p u rsu e s b o th in tellig e n c e a n d law e n f o rc e m e n t p u rp o se s, it m a ya p p ly fors ur vei l l ance au tho ri t yunderei t herFI SA orT i t l e I I I , pr ovi ded i ts at i s fi es t he part i cul ar
w a rra n t sta n d a rd s o f

th e sta tu te in v o k e d . A F o u rth A m e n d m e n t c o n c e rn w o u ld a rise o n lyif t he execut i ve, w i t hout a bona fi de purpos e t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on, t r i ed t o s ecur e a w arr antundert he s t andar ds i dent i fi ed i n FI SA as r eas onabl e fort hatpurpos e. W e nee d nother e dec i de atw hat poi nta purpos e adva nced byt he exe cut i ve mi ghtbe
so triv ial a s to p re c lu d e it fro m b e in g p u rsu e d in g o o d f a ith . C o n g re ss a d e q u a tely
s afe guar ded aga i ns tt hat p o ssibil i t yi n FI SA bydemandi ng cert i fi cat i on of “a s i gni fi cant purpos e” t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on, r athert han s i m pl y“a p u rpos e” a s
or i gi nal l yr eques t ed byt he exe cut i ve. M or eover , t he FI SA R evi ew C our t , w hos e ru l i n g s b i nd t he FI SA C our t in issuing s ur vei l l ance w arr ant s undert he s t atut e, has cons t rued the
s i gni fi cantpurpos e s t andar d t o r equi r e “thatt he governm enthave a m ea s ur abl e for ei gn i nt el li g en ce purpos e, ot hert han j us tcr i m i nal pr os ecut i on of eve n for ei gn i nt el l i gence cri m es. ” Id. at73 5. Indeed , t he FISA R eview C ou rthas rul ed thatt he si gn i fi cant purpose 2842

r equi r ements peci fi cal l y“exc l udes fr om t he purpos e of ga ini ng for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfo rm at i on a sol e obj ect i ve of cri m i nal prosecuti on , ” even for forei gn i ntel l i gen ce cri m es. I d. ; s ee a l s o i d. at736 ( r ej ect i ng governm ent ’ s argu m entt hat“s i gni fi cantpurpos e”
r equi r em en t all ow ed i tt o have pr i m aryobj ect i ve of pr os ecut i ng for ei gn agentfornonf o re ig n -in tellig e n c e c rim e , an d n o tin g th a t “th e m a n if e sta tio n o f s u c h a p u rp o se ” w o u ld

“ d is q u a lif

ya n a p p lic a tio n ” ). T he F ISA R eview C ou rt has al so plai nlyrul ed thatt he g ov ernm ent’ s cer t i fi ed p urpose i n s e e ki ng a FI SA w a r r a nti s s ub j e c tt o j ud i c i a l r e vi e w . Se e i d. a t73 5- 36 ( r e c og ni z i ng FI SA C our t ’ s author i t yt o s eek m or e i nfor m at i on per t ai ni ng t o governm ent ’ s purpos e)
. W hi l e “a
s i gni fi cantpurpos e s t andar d” el i m i nat es “anyj us t i fi cat i on fort he FI SA C our tt o bal ance t he
r el at i ve w ei ghtthe governm entpl ace s on cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on, ” i f the court det erm i nes t hat t he governm ent ’ s s ol e obj ect i ve i s “mer el y t o gai n evi dence of pas t cr i m i nal conduct – even for ei gn i nt el l i gence cr i m es
– to puni s h t he age ntr athert han hal tongoi ng es pi onage or t err or i s tact i vi t y , t he appl i cat i on s hould b e d en ied. ” I d. at735. T hus , t he FI SA R evi ew C our t has rul ed t hat t o s at i s fy t he s i gni fi cant purpos e t es t , i t m us t ap p ea r t h at “t he governm ent ent er t ai ns a re al i s t i c opt i on of deal i ng” w i t h t he t ar getof the FI SA s ur vei l l ance

“ o th e r t h a n th ro u g h c ri m in a l p ro s e c u tio n .” Id
. W e d o n o t here d ec ide w h ich, i f a n y , o f th ese F IS A R ev iew C o u rtco n clus ion s are
cons t i tu t i o n a l l yc o mpe l l e d
. W e c o n c l u d e s i mpl yt h a tFI SA’ s “ s i g n i f i c a n tp u rp o s e”
re q u ire m e n t, so c o n stru e d , is su f f icie n t to e n su re th a t th e e x e c u tiv e m a yo n lyu se F IS A to43

ob t ai n a w arr ant w hen i t i s i n goo d fai t h pursui ng forei gn i ntel l i gen ce gatheri ng , t he p urpose forw hi ch t hat s t atut e’ s w arr ant s t andar ds appl y . T he fact t hat t he gover nm ent m ayal s o be pur s ui ng ot herpurpos es , i ncl udi ng gather i ng evi dence for cr i m i nal pr os ecut i on, compel s no d if f e re n t c o n c lu s io n . A ccordi ng l y , w e rej ectA bu -J i haad ’s argum ent that FISA i s unco nst i tuti on al becau se i tdoes notr equi r e ce r t i fi cat i on of a pr i m arypurpos e t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on. R ath er, w e h o ld thatcert i fi cat i on of a s i gni fi cantpurpos e t o obt ai n for ei gn in tellig e n c e in f

o rm a tio n , tog e th e r w ith sa tisf a c tio n o f

a ll o th e r F IS A re q u ire m e n ts, is
re a so n a b le a n d , the re f

o re , su f f icie n t to su p p o rt th e iss u a n c e o f a w a rra n t u n d e r th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t. 2. F ISA W as L aw full yA pp l i ed to T his C ase A b u -Jih a a d su b m its th a t, ev e n if F IS A is n o t u n c o n stitu tio n a l o n it s f a c e , h is convi ct i on m us tbe vac at ed bec aus e the s t atut e’ s condi t i ons w er e nots at i s fi ed i n s ecur i ng
s om e of the evi dence s uppor t i ng hi s convi ct i on. Speci fi cal l y , A bu- J i haad cont ends t hatt he governm ent ’ s appl i cat i on fora s ur vei l l ance or d er (a) fai l ed t o s at i s fyt he “s i gni fi cant pu rpose” requi rem ent of 50 U
. S
. C
. § 18 04 (a) (6) (B ); (b) fai l ed to dem on strat e proba ble cause t o bel i eve thathe w as an age ntof a f or ei gn pow erort hat hi s t el ephones w er e bei ng us ed or ab o u t t o b e u sed b ya f

o reign p o w er o r ag en t of su ch a p o w er, see id. § 1 8 0 4 (a)(3)(A )-( B ); (c) i ncluded “c lea rlyerr on eou s” § 18 04 (a) (6) cert i fi cat i on s; and (d) w as based o n fals e stat em en ts, req u ir ing a h ea ri n g u n d er Fra n k s v . D elaw are , 4 3 8 U
. S
. 1 5 4 (19 7 8 ). M o reo v er,44

h e f a u lts th e d istric t co u rt f o r d e c id in g th e se q u e stio n s a g a in st h im w ith o u t af f o rd in g h im
acc es s t o t he FI SA w arr antappl i cat i on paper s and an a dver s ar i al hear i ng.

a. T he D i s t r i ctC our tPr oper l yD eni ed D i s cl os ur e and a H ear i ng I n FI SA , C ongr es s expr es s l ypr ovi ded thatw h ere , as her e, t he A t t or neyG ener al
cert i fi es t hat“di s cl os ur e [of FI SA m at er i al s ] oran adve r s aryhear i ng woul d harm t he nat i onal
s ecur i t yof the U ni t ed St at es , ” a di s t r i ctcour tm us t“r evi ew i n camer a and e x par t e the ap p li ca ti o n , o rde r, an d su ch o ther m aterial s relati n g to th e su rve il lanc e a s m ayb e n ec essa ry t o det erm i ne w hether t he survei l l ance of t he aggr i eved per s on w as l aw ful l yauthor i zed a nd conduct ed. ” 50 U
. S. C
. § 1806( f)
. W hi l e the di s t r i ctcour tr et ai ns author i t yt o or der d is c lo s u re o f

F IS A m a te ri a ls “ u n d e r a p p ro p ri a te s e c u ri ty p ro c e d u re s a n d p ro te c tiv e o rd e rs ,” i tm aydo s o “onl yw her e s uch di s cl os ur e i s nece s s aryt o m ake a n acc ur at e det erm i nat i on of t he l egal i t yof the s ur vei l l ance . ” I d. W her e the court“det erm i nes t hatt he s ur vei l l ance w as l aw ful l yauthor i zed a nd conduct ed, i ts hal l deny t he m ot i on of t he aggr i eved per s on exce pt t o t he ext entt hatdue pr oces s r equi r es di s covery or di s cl os ur e. ” I d. § 1806( g)
. M i ndful of t hes e pr ovi s i ons , w e have concl uded that di s cl os ur e of FI SA m at er i al s “i s t he exc ept i on and ex part e, i n ca m era d eterm ina t i on i s t he rul e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. St ew ar t , 590 F. 3d at129 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d b ra c k e ts o m itte d ). H ere the d istric t c o u rtfou nd t hat “r eview of the F ISA m at eri al s i n thi s case [w as]
r el at i vel ys t r ai ght forw ar d and notcompl ex. ” U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 531 F. Supp. 2d 299, 310 ( D
. C onn. 2008)
. Fur t her , w hi l e kee pi ng “the r equi r ement s of the C ons t i tut i on, t he45

s t atut e, and D uggan fi xed fi r m l y i n m i nd[, ] ” t he di s t r i ctcour tdet erm i ned thatdi s cl os ur e and
a n a d v e rsa ryh e a rin g w e re u n n e c e ss a ryb e c a u se it s in c a m e ra , ex p a rte re v iew p e rm itt e d it to a ss e ss th e leg a lityo f th e c h a llen g e d su rv e ill a n c e a n d th e re q u ire m e n ts o f d u e p ro c e ss d id notcouns el ot herw i s e. I d. at 311 & n. 11. U pon our ow n r evi ew of the mat er i al s s uppor t i ng t he cha l l enged FI SA or der s , w e r eac h t he s ame concl us i ons . A ccor d ing ly , w e i dent i fyno d e n ial o f d u e p ro c e ss in th e d istric t co u rt’s d e c isio n n o t to o rd e r d isc lo su re o f F IS A m a ter ials to th e d e f

e n d a n t, or to c o n d u c t a p re lim in a ryh e a r in g to ru le o n A b u -Jih a a d ’s c h a llen g e to FI SA ’ s i m pl ement at i on i n t hi s cas e.

b. T he G overnm ent Sat i s fi ed FI SA ’ s W arr antR equi r ement s , and T her e i s N o B as i s i n t he R ecor d fora Fr anks H ear i ng I n cons i deri n g A b u- J i haad’ s cl ai m s t hatt he governm entfai l ed t o s at i s fyt he
s i gni fi cant purpos e, pr obabl e caus e, and cer t i fi cat i on r equi r ement s of FI SA , and pr offe r ed fal s e i nfor m at i on w arr ant i ng a Fr anks hear i ng, w e have conduct ed a c ar eful i n camer a r evi ew of the cha l l enged FI SA or der s , the g o v ern m ent ’ s appl i cat i ons fort hos e or der s , and the cl as s i fi ed mat er i al s s ubm i t t ed i n s uppor t of t hos e appl i cat i ons . W e have s i m i l ar l yr evi ew ed t he governm ent’ s cl as s i fi ed M emora ndum i n O ppos i t i on t o t he D efe ndant ’ s M ot i on for Suppr es s i on of FI SA E vi dence and M ot i on forD i s cl os ur e of FI SA A ppl i cat i ons , O r der s and R e la te d M a te ri a ls a n d a n A d v e rs a ry H e a ri n g ; th e c la s s if ie d d e c la ra tio n o f J o s e p h B illy, Jr ., A s s i s t antD i r ect orof the C ount er t err or i s m D i vi s i on of the FB I ; an d the FB I ’ s cl as s i fi ed decl ar at i on r egar di ng i t s compl i ance w i t h m i ni m i zat i on pr ocedur es appl i cabl e t o t he chal l enged or der s . L i ke the di s t r i ct cour t , w e conc l ude thatt her e i s no m er i tt o anyof A bu-46

J i haad’ s chal l enges t o t he gover nm ent ’ s compl i ance w i t h FI SA r equi r ement s i n t hi s cas e, nor anybas i s fora Fr anks hear i ng. FI SA w arr antappl i cat i ons ar e s ubj ect t o “mi ni m al s crut i ny by t he court s , ” both upon i n i t i a l p r e s e n t a t i o n a n d s u b s e q u e n t c h a l l e n g e . Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Du g g a n , 7 4 3 F
. 2 d a t7 7
. Of
cour s e, even m i ni m al s crut i ny i s not t oot hl es s . C f. W i l s on v. C
. I
. A
. , 586 F. 3d 171, 185 ( 2d C i r . 2009) ( obs ervi ng i n non- FI SA cont extt hat“[d] efe r ent i al re v ie w ” of c l as s i fi cat i on chal l enge “ does notequat e t o no r evi ew ” ( ci t i ng J ohn D oe, I nc. v. M ukas ey , 549 F. 3d 861, 8 8 1 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 )))
. In rev iew ing a w arran t app li ca ti o n , the F IS A C o u rtp rop erlyco n side rs
w hether( 1) t he appl i cat i on m akes t he pr obabl e ca us e s how ing req u ir ed byFI SA , i
. e. , t hat t he t ar getof t he w arr ant i s a for ei gn pow er oragentt her eof a nd thatt he fa ci l i t i es orpl ace s to b e se a rc h e d o r su rv e ill e d a re b e in g u s e d o r a b o u t to b e u se d b ya f o re ig n p o w e r o r its agent ; ( 2) t he appl i cat i o n is ot herw i s e compl et e and i n t he pr operfor m ; and ( 3) w hen the ta rg e t is a U n ite d S ta te s p e rs o n , th e a p p lic a tio n ’s c e rt if ic a tio n s a re n o t “ c le a rl ye rr o n e o u s .” U ni t ed St at es v. D uggan, 743 F. 2d at77. Fur t her , as t he FI SA R eview C o u rt h as now cl ari fi ed, i n d eci ding w hethert o g ranta w arr ant appl i cat i on , t he F ISA C ou rtm ayal so request
m o re in f o rm a tio n – in c lu d in g in f o rm a tio n a s to p u rp o se
– a s n e c e ss a ry to m a k e th e se d isc re te d e ter m in a tio n s. S e e In re S e a led C a se , 3 1 0 F .3 d a t 7 3 6 (“ [ I]f th e F IS A c o u rt h a s re a so n to doubtt hat the governm enthas anyr eal non- pr os ecut or i al purpos e i n s eeki ng for ei gn intell igen ce inf

o rm ati o n itca n d em an d fu rth er inq u iryi nt o the ce rt ify ing o ff icer’s p u rpo se.”). I n cons i der i ng chal l enges t o FI SA C our tor der s , how ever , “the r epr es ent at i ons and47

cert i fi cat i ons s ubm i t t ed i n su p p o r tof an a ppl i cat i on forFI SA s urvei l l ance s houl d be pr es um ed val i d” bya r evi ew i ng cour t abs ent a s how i ng s uffi ci ent t o t r i ggera Fr anks hear i ng. U n ite d S ta te s v . D u g g a n , 7 4 3 F .2 d a t 7 7 n .6
. A lth o u g h th e e sta b lish e d sta n d a rd o f ju d icia l re v iew a p p lica b le to F IS A w a rra n ts is d e f e re n tial, th e g o v e rn m e n t’s d e taile d a n d c o m p lete su b m iss io n s in th is c a se w o u ld e a sily al l ow i tt o cl eara hi ghers t andar d o f rev ie w . W hi l e w e ar e nec es s ar i l yci r cumspec ti n our d isc u ss io n o f

th e se m a ter ials , li k e th e d istric t co u rt, w e o b se rv e th a t th e y“ d e sc rib e d a t len g th t he fac t s s uppor t i ng t he G overnm ent ’ s as s er t i on thatt her e w as pr obabl e ca us e t o bel i eve that t he t ar getof the FI SA s ur vei l l ance ” – w ho w as “des cr i bed w i t h par t i cul ar i t y ” – “w as an age nt
o f a f o re ig n p o w e r,” a s w e ll as “ th e b a sis f o r be liev in g th a t th e f

a c ili ties a t w h ich e lec tro n ic
s ur vei l l ance w oul d occur[w er e] bei ng us ed, oraboutt o be us ed, byt he t ar get . ” U ni t ed S tate s v . A b u -Jih a a d , 5 3 1 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 3 1 3 . F u rth e r, th e a p p lica tio n p a p e rs d e taile d f a c ts “s uppor t i ng t he G overnm ent ’ s cert i fi cat i on t hata s i gni fi cantpurpos e of t he s ur vei l l ance w as to g a th e r f

o re ig n in te llig e n c e in f

o rm a tio n .” Id
. T his recor d co nv i ncingl y sat i sfi es F ISA ’s pu rpose and probab l e cause requir em ents , and further r eveals no cl ear err or i n the cert i fi cat i on s byhigh-r ank i ng execu t i ve o ffi ci al s. See i d. at312. W e t her efor e re j ect A bu- J i haad’ s concl us or y cl ai m s t o t he cont r aryas w i t hout
m er i t . Fur t her , beca us e nothi ng i n t he r ecor d befor e t hi s cour t – w hi ch i ncl udes t he ful l t r i al
re c o rd – p ro v id e s an y b a sis to th in k th a t th e F IS A a p p lica tio n c o n tain e d a n y f a lse sta tem e n t,
m u c h le s s o n e m a d e “ k n o w in g ly a n d in te n tio n a lly, o r w ith re c k le s s d is re g a rd f o r t h e tru th ,”48

Fr anks v. D el aw ar e, 438 U
. S. at 155, w e i dent i fyno err ori n t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on not t o hol d a Fr anks hear i ng. I n s um , b ec au se w e ide n ti fyn o co n sti tuti o n al i n firm ityin C o n g ress’s d ec is i on t o al l ow FI SA w arr ant s t o i s s ue on ce r t i fi cat i on of a “ s i gni fi can tpurpos e” t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nform at i on, and bec aus e w e conc l ude thatt he re cor d – w i t hout need forfur t her d iscl o su re o r he aring – co n v incin g ly d em o n str ates that all F IS A w arran t r eq u ir em en ts w ere
s at i s fi ed i n t hi s cas e, w e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ctc o u rtcorr ect l ydeni ed A bu- J i haad’ s m ot i on t o s uppr es s FI SA
- der i ved evi dence
. B
. T he Evi dent i aryC hal l enges A bu- J i haad a s s er t s t hatevi dent i aryerr or s depr i ved hi m of hi s due pr oces s r i ghtt o a fai rt r i al
. Speci fi cal l y , he s ubm i t s t hat( 1) r eco rdin g s of t el ephone c onver s at i ons i n w hi ch he part i ci pat ed i n 2006 w er e no t rel evantt o t he cha r ged 2001 comm uni cat i on of nat i onal defe ns e inf

o rm ati o n, s ee Fed. R
. E vi d. 401, and, i n anyevent , m or e pr ej udi ci al t han pr o bat i ve, s ee Fed. R
. E vi d. 403; and ( 2) vi deos obt ai ned fr om and mat er i al s avai l abl e on A zza m ’ s w ebs i t es s houl d al s o have be en exc l uded underR ul e 403. T he di s t r i ctcour trul ed t o the c on t r a r yi n tw o d e t a i l e d wr i t t e n d e c i s i on s. Se e U ni t e d St a t e s v. A bu
- J i ha a d, 55 3 F. Supp. 2d 121 ( D
. C onn. 2008) ( rul i ng on vi deos and w ebs i t e mat er i al s ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, N o . 0 7 C r . 57, 2008 W L 282368 ( D
. C onn. J an. 31, 2008) ( rul i ng on 2006
re c o rd in g s ). W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ngs defe r ent i al l y , m i ndful of i t s s uper i or49

pos i t i on t o as s es s r el evanc y and t o w ei gh t he pr obat i ve val ue of e vi dence agai ns ti t s pot ent i al f o r u n f a ir p re ju d ice . S e e U n ited S tate s v . R o y e r, 5 4 9 F .3 d 8 8 6 , 9 0 1 (2 d C ir. 2 0 0 8 ). W e w ill
rever se an evident i ary rul i ng on l y for “abu se o f dis cret i on , ” see U nit ed S t at es v. Q uinones, 511 F. 3d 289, 307 ( 2d C i r . 2007) , w hi ch w e w i l l i dent i fyonl y i f t he rul i ng w as “arbi t r aryand i r r at i onal , ” U ni t ed St at es v. D hi ns a, 243 F. 3d 635, 649 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( i nt erna l quot at i on
m arks om i t t ed)
. T hati s pl ai nl ynott hi s cas e.

1. T he 2006 R ecor di ngs A re v iew o f

th e recorded co nv ers a tio n s c o n f irm s th e d istric t co u rt f

in d in g s th a t th e re in A bu- J i haad de m ons t r at ed hi s fami l i ar i t yw i t h A zza m as an or gani zat i on s ym pathet i c t o j i had and admi t t ed hi s ow n corr es pondence w i t h A zza m t hr ough i t s w ebs i t es , s peci fi cal l yi n an
e m a i l d i s c u s s i n g t h e b o m b i n g o f t h e U
. S
. S
. C o l e . S e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A b u - J i h a a d , 2 0 0 8 WL 2 8 2 3 6 8 , at * 4 . In th e c o n v e rs a ti o n s , A b u -Jih a a d f u rth e r d e m o n stra ted a n o b se ss io n w ith
se c re c yin d is c u s s in g m a tters re late d to jih a d . N o t o n lyd id h e ro u tin e lye m p lo yc o d e in di s cus s i ng confe der at es and obj ect i ves , he di s cus s ed hi s i nabi l i t yt o p r o v i d e a purpor t ed j i had
s ym pathi zerw i t h curr ent m i l i t ary i nt el l i gence i n coded t erm s t hats uppor t ed an i nfer ence t hat he had pr ovi ded s uch i nt el l i gence i n t he pas t . See i d. at *5- 6. A l t hough t hes e conve r s at i ons
m ade no m ent i on of t he char ged di s cl os ur e of t he B at t l egr oup D ocumentand, i n fac t , t ook pl ace m or e than foury ea rs a fter tha tchar ged cr i m e, t heyw er e undoubt edl yr el evantt o a ju ry’s a s s e s s m e n t o f

A b u -J ih a a d ’s g u ilt. T o be r el evant , evi dence need notbe s uffi ci entbyi t s el f t o pr ove a f acti n i s s ue, m uch50

l es s t o pr ove i tbey ond a r ea so n ab le doubt
. See C ont empora r yM i s s i on, I nc. v. Fam ous M us i c C orp. , 557 F. 2d 918, 927 ( 2d C i r . 1977) ( “Evi dence need not be concl us i ve i n or der t o be r el evant . ”)
. R ather , evi dence i s “r el evant ” i f i thas “anyt endenc yt o m ake the exi s t ence of an yfactt hat i s of co nsequ ence to t he d et erm i nati on of the act i on m o re p ro b a b le o r l ess pr obabl e than it w oul d be w i t houtt he evi dence
. ” Fed. R
. E vi d. 401; s ee U ni t ed St at es v. Schul t z, 333 F. 3d 393, 416 ( 2d C i r . 2003) ( “N onconcl us i ve evi dence s houl d s t i l l be admi t t ed if i t m ak es a p rop o sit ion m o re p rob ab le th an n o t. ” (intern al qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). A b u -Jih a a d ’s d isc u ss io n s o f A z z a m , it s w e b site s, a n d h is e m a il c o m m u n ica tio n s w ith t hator gani zat i on w er e r el evantbeca us e theyl i nked hi m t o t he r eci pi entof the B at t l egr oup D o c u m e n t. T h is f

a c t m a d e it m o re p ro b a b le th a t, am o n g th e d isc re te g ro u p o f p e rso n s w ith know l edge of

t he cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on ati s s ue, A bu- J i haad w as t he s our ce of t he
u n a u th o riz e d d isc lo su re to A z z a m . A lth o u g h A b u -Jih a a d e n d e a v o re d to re d u c e th is lik e lih o o d b y o f

f e rin g e v id e n c e th a t s o m e tra n sit p lan in f o rm a tio n w a s m o re w id e lya v a ilab le t han the N avym ai nt ai ned, s ee i nfr a at59- 60, s uch evi d en ce w o u ld have a ffe ct ed onl yt he
w ei ght , not t he admi s s i bi l i t y , of the r ecor ded conve r s at i ons . See U ni t ed St at es v. Schul t z, 333 F. 3d at416 ( obs ervi ng t hat“fa ct ors w h ich m ake e vi dence l es s t han conc l us i ve af fec t
o n ly w e ig h t, n o t a d m is s ib ility” (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ))
. S im il arly , the r ecor di ngs demonstrati n g A b u -Ji h aa d ’s ke en co n ce rn w ith sec rec yw ere
r el evantbot h gener al l yi n demonst r at i ng cons ci ous nes s of gui l tand s peci fi cal l yi n e x p l a i n i ng
w hyt here w as n o evi dence on A zza m w ebs i t es aboutt r ans m i t t al of the B at t l egr oup51

Doc u me n to rt h e i n f

o r ma t i o n c o n t a i n e d t h e r e i n . As f o rAbu
- J i h a a d ’ s r e c o r d e d d i s c u s s i on of w hyhe coul d notpr ovi de curr entm i l i t aryi nt el l i gence – “I ai n’ t been w or ki ng ah i n, i n t he field o f m ak ing m ea ls an d o r, y o u k n o w . . . [i]n a, in a lon g ti m e. I’ve b ee n o u t of that fo r, ah, over ah, quatr o y ear s y ou know , ” Tri al T r . at989- 90; G ov’ tE x. 141k at7 – t he s t at ement perm i t t ed an i nfer ence t hat , foury ear s ear l i er , A bu- J i haad ha d b ee n engage d i n “maki ng
m eal s , ” i
. e. , pr ovi di ng m i l i t aryi nt el l i gence , a n a d mi s s i on hi ghl ypr obat i ve of hi s comm i s s i on of the cha r ged cr i m e. T hat t he s t at ement m i ght be cons t rued m or e i nnocent l yw as a mat t er pr oper l yaddr es s ed thr ough cr os s - exami nat i on and arg u m entt o the j ur y , nota gr ound for
e x c lu d in g th e e v id e n c e a s ir re le v a n t. R ul e 403 w arr ant s n o d iffe ren t c oncl us i on. A s w e obs erved i n U ni t ed St at es v. L aFl am, 369 F. 3d 153 ( 2d C i r . 2004) , w hen w e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s eval uat i on of
e v id e n c e u n d e r R u le 4 0 3 , w e “ g e n e ra llym a x im ize its p ro b a tiv e v a lu e a n d m in im ize its p re ju d icia l ef

f e c t,” id . at 1 5 5 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s an d b ra c k e ts o m itt e d ). A p p ly in g th is
s t andar d, w e conc l ude thatt he r ecor ded discu s s i ons w er e both hi ghl ypr obat i ve of the char ged cr i m e and, t o t he ext entt heyr efe r ence d unchar ged cont empora neo u s su ppor tfor j i had, no m ore inf

lam m at or yt han the cha r ges al l eged i n t he i ndi ctm ent . I n anyevent , t he dis t ri ctcou rt properl y m i nim i zed the r i sk of unf ai r prej ud i ce t hroug h li m i t i ng i nst ruct i on s. Se e Uni t e d St a t e s v . M e r c a d o , 5 7 3 F. 3 d 1 3 8 , 1 4 2 ( 2 d Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( u p h o l d i n g Rul e 403 det erm inati on w her e cha l l enged e vi dence “notes peci al l yw or s e ors hocki ng t han the tr an sac ti o n s ch arg ed ” a n d w h ere d istri ct co u rt“g av e se v era l caref u l instruc ti o n s to the jury52

re g a rd in g w h a t in f

e re n c e s it c o u ld d ra w f

ro m th e a d m itte d e v id e n c e ” ). T h e d istric t co u rt in stru c ted th e ju ryth a t (a ) “ A b u -Jih a a d [ w a s] n o t . . . c h a rg e d w ith
a n y th in g b a se d o n th e c o n v e rsa tio n s . . . fr o m 2 0 0 6 ,” (b ) “ th e e v e n ts th a t f o rm [ e d ] th e b a sis of t he char ges agai ns t . . . A bu- J i haad i n t hi s cas e occ ur r ed i n 2001, not2006, ” and ( c) t he j ur yw as “nott o s pecul at e aboutw hatw as t he natur e of the i nves t i gat i on” i nvol vi ng Shar eef and the conf

i dent i al i nform antor“w hetherori f anychar ges r es ul t ed fr om t hat in v e s tig a tio n .” T ri a l T r. a t 9 9 2
. A bu -J i haad do es not ch a l l eng e t he ad equ acyof these in stru c tio n s. T h u s, h is c o n ten tio n th a t th e 2 0 0 6 re c o rd in g s p e r m it te d th e ju ryto sp e c u late ab o u tShar eef’ s pl ans r educe s t o a cha l l enge t o t he pr es um pt i on t hatj ur or s fol l ow t he i ns t ruct i ons t heyar e gi ven. See U ni t ed St at es v. D ow ni ng, 297 F. 3d 52, 59 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( “ A b s e n te v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y, w e m u s tp r e s u m e t h a tj u r i e s u n d e r s t a n d a n d a b i d e b y a d istri ct c o u rt ' s li m it ing instruction s. ”). B ec au se A b u -Ji h aa d p o ints t o n o thing in the rec o rd t o underm i ne t hi s pr es um pt i on, w e i dent i fy no m er i t i n hi s ar gum ent , and w e conc l ude that t he d i stri ctcou rtact ed w el l w i t hin i t s di scr et i on i n ad m i t t i ng t he 2 00 6 recordi ng s.

2
. A z z a m W e b site M a ter ials W e reach t he sam e con cl usi on w i t h res pect t o t he adm i t t ed A zzam w ebsi t e m at eri al s,
w hi ch cons i s t ed of ( a) exce rpt s fr om t hr ee vi deos pur chas ed by A bu- J i haad fr om A zza m , and ( b) ot herm at er i al s m arket ed and/ orpos t ed on A zza m ’ s w ebs t i t es . A bu- J i haad c oncede s t he
r el evanc yof thes e mat er i al s t o an under s t andi ng of A zza m ’ s oper at i ons and t o hi s ow n m ens
r ea. N evert hel es s , he cont ends t hatt he evi dence s houl d have be en exc l uded underR ul e 403.T h u s, th e g o v e rn m e n t w a s p e rm itt e d to sh o w o n lyo n e m in u te o f a n in e m in u te 29 s egmentof the bl oodybodi es of j i had m ar t yr s . I t w as r equi r ed t o r edac t s cene s depi ct i ng a he a dl e s s bo dya nd on e w i t h a ba dl y s e ve r e d ne c k. Se e U ni t e d St a t e s v. A bu
- J i ha a d, 55 3 F. S u p p . 2 d a t 1 2 8
. W e e x p re ss n o o p in io n a s to w h e th e r su c h sc e n e s c o u ld b e d isp layed to a ju ryw ith o u t v io latin g a d e f e n d a n t’s rig h t to a f

a ir trial. W e c ite th e ir re d a c tio n o n lyto illu s tr a te th e c a re ta k e n b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt to a v o id u n f a irp re ju d ic e . 53 W e ar e notper s uaded.

a. V i deo Evi dence W i t h r es pectt o t he vi deos , w hi ch w e br i efl ydes cr i be sup ra a t12- 13 & n. 12, t he d istric t co u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e p ro -jih a d ist c o n ten ts o f th e v id e o s w e r e re lev a n t to under s t andi ng Abu
- J i h a a d ’ s mot i v e and i nt enti n comm uni cat i ng i nfor m at i on t hatcoul d have
r es ul t ed i n t he des t ruct i on of the verys hi p on w hi ch he s erved. See U ni t ed St at es v. A buJih a a d , 5 5 3 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 1 2 7 -2 8
. A t th e sa m e tim e , th e d istric t c o u rt w a s c o n sc ien tio u s in
en su ri n g ag ains t un fa irp rejud ice. S ee U n it ed S tat es v. S alam eh , 1 5 2 F
. 3 d 8 8 , 1 1 0 (2d C ir
. 1998)
. I tr evi ew ed the fi l m s i n t hei rent i r etybefor e appr ovi ng onl ys el ected ex ce rpt s for di s pl ayt o t he j ur y . A l t hough t hes e e x ce rpt s i ncl uded depi ct i ons of vi ol ence , as w as
nece s s arynott o di s t or t t he s ens e of t he fi l m s as a w hol e, t he depi ct i ons w er e l i m i t ed and, as t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta c c u r a t e l yo b s e r v e d , l e s s g ru e s o me t h a n ma n ys e e n o n “ n i g h t l yn e ws di s pat ches fr om B aghdad. ” U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 553 F. Supp. 2d at128. 29 W e i dent i fyno erro r, l etal one arbi t r aryori r r at i onal err or , i n t he dec i s i on of admi s s i bi l i t yundert hes e ci r cumst ance s . See U ni t ed St at es v. Sal ameh, 152 F. 3d at110- 11 ( hol di ng t hat w her e vi deo depi ct i ng embass ybom bi ng and i ns t ruct i ons form aki ng expl os i veT h e d istric t co u rt c h a rg e d th e ju ryth a t th e v id e o s c o u ld b e c o n sid e re d o n lyin 30 det erm i ni ng t he know l edge a nd i nt entw i t h w hi ch A bu- J i haad unde r t ook anyact i ons pr oved agai ns thi m . See Tri al T r . at 259- 60, 401. M or eover , t he courti ns t ruct ed the j ur yt o cons i der th e v id e o e v id e n c e “ d isp a ss io n a tely , a n d e v e n if th e re ’s m a ter ial tha t yo u f in d p e rso n a lly di s t as t eful , y ou can’ tl et y o u r p ersona l opi ni ons , y ourfea r s , y ourbi as es , t o ent eri nt o y our cons i der at i on. ” I d. at401. 54 devi ces w as r el evant t o m ot i ve and natur e of cons pi r at or i al agr eement , di s t r i ctcour tdi d not
a b u se its d isc re tio n in c o n c lu d in g th a t p ro b a ti v e v a lu e o f e v id e n c e o u tw e ig h e d a n yu n f a ir pr ej udi ce)
. M or eover , anydang er of unfai rpr ej udi ce w as her e aga i n m i ni m i zed byt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l i m i t i ng i ns t ruct i ons , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. B erm udez, 529 F. 3d 158, 163 ( 2d C i r . 2008) , w hi ch w e pr es um e t he j ur y fol l ow ed, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. D ow ni ng, 297 F. 3d at 59. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude that t he di s t r i ctcourtact ed w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n al l ow i ng 30 t he j ur yt o vi ew t he cha l l enged vi deo evi dence
.

b
. W e b site M a ter ials Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r ta l s o a l l o we d t h e j u r yt o v i e w v a r i o u s ma t e r i a l s , i n c l u d i n g Os a ma b in L ad en ’s 19 9 6 fa tw a a g ains t th e U n it ed S tat es, th at w ere m ark eted o r p o sted o n A zz am ’s
we b s i t e s i n o ra r o u n d 2 0 0 1
. T h e g o v e r n me n tc o u l d n o tp r o v e t h a t Abu
- J i h a a d s a w a par t i cul arpos t i ng, onl y t hat he vi s i t ed the s i t e dur i ng t i m es w hen the pos t i ngs w er e ava i l abl e. See U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 553 F. Supp. 2d at 128- 29. T he courtacknow l edged that
su c h m a ter ials h a d th e p o ten tial to “ in f lam e a ju ro r’s p a ss io n s.” Id . at 1 2 9 . N e v e rth e les s, it concl uded thatt he r i s k of s uch pr ej udi ce d id notout w ei gh t he pr obat i ve val ue of the
m a ter ials to th e ju ry ’s a ss e ss m e n t o f A b u -Jih a a d ’s in ten t a n d m o tiv e in c o m m u n ica tin g w ith55

A zz am . In re ac h ing this co n clus ion , the c o u rtem p h asize d that ith ad g o n e to “ ex tr ao rdin ary l engths ” t o s el ectj ur or s w ho w oul d notl etpassion orbi as i nfec tt hei rcons i der at i on of
e v i d e n c e a n d wh o wo u l d c o n s c i e n t i o u s l yf o l l o w a p p r o p r i a t e l i mi t i n g i n s t ru c t i o n s . I d
. On t his recor d, w e i den t i fyno abu se of d i scr et i on i n ad m i ssi on of the A zzam w ebsi t e m at eri al s. C
. T he Suffi ci encyC hal l enge A bu- J i haad a r gues t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t err ed i n deny i ng hi s m ot i on foracqui t t al on th e 1 8 U .S .C . § 7 9 3 (d ) c o u n t o f c o n v ictio n b e c a u se th e trial e v id e n c e w a s in su f f icie n t to p ro v e g u ilt. S e e F e d . R . C ri m . P . 2 9
. T he rul e of c ons t i tut i onal s uffi ci encyder i ves fr om t he D u e P roc es s C l aus e and i ns t ruct s t hatno convi ct i on m aybe obt ai ned “e xceptupon pr oof b ey o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t of ev eryfa ct n ec essa ry to con sti tute the crim e . . . ch arg ed
. ” In
r e W i n s h i p , 3 9 7 U. S. 3 5 8 , 3 6 4 ( 1 9 7 0 ) ; s e e a l s o J a c k s o n v . Vi r g i n i a , 4 4 3 U. S. 3 0 7 , 318- 19 ( 1979)
. W hi l e w e r evi ew de novo the deni al of a R ul e 29 s uffi ci encychal l enge, s ee U ni t ed S tat es v . P izzo n ia, 5 7 7 F
. 3 d 4 5 5 , 4 6 2 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ), w e ap p ly the sam e d ef ere n ti al st an d ard
as t he di s t r i ctcour ti n as s es s i ng t he tr i al evi dence , i
. e. , w e vi ew t hatev i dence i n t he l i ght
m ostfavo rabl e t o t he go vernm ent, assum i ng t hat the juryres olved al l qu est i on s of w i t ness
cr edi bi l i t yand compet i ng i nfer ence s i n favorof the pr os ecut i on, s ee U ni t ed St at es v. B ur den, 6 0 0 F
. 3 d 2 0 4 , 2 1 4 (2d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ); U n it ed S tat es v . P ay n e, 59 1 F .3 d 4 6 , 6 0 (2 d C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ). A defe ndantm ount i ng a s uffi ci encychal l enge thus “b ear s a veryheavybur den, ” U ni t ed S tat es v . D ese n a, 28 7 F
. 3 d 1 7 0 , 1 7 7 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 2 ), b ec au se a co u rt m u st up h o ld a ju ry
ver di cts o l ong as “‘ anyr at i onal t r i erof fa ctcoul d have found t he es s ent i al el ement s of theT i t l e 18 U
. S
. C
. § 7 93 (d) st at es: 31 W h o ev er, l aw fu ll yh av ing p o sses sion o f, ac ce ss t o , co n tr o l ov er, orbei ng entrus t ed w it h anydocument , w r i t i ng, code book, s i gnal book, s ket ch, phot ogr aph, phot ogr aphi c ne g at i ve, b lu e p rin t, pla n , m a p , m o d e l, i n stru m e n t, ap p lian c e , o r n o te r el at i ng t o t he nat i onal defe ns e, ori nfor m at ion r el at i ng t o t he 56 cr i m e bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt , ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. St ew ar t , 590 F. 3d at109 ( quot i ng Jac k so n v . V ir g inia, 4 4 3 U
. S
. at 31 9 (em p h asis in o ri g inal)). T hati s cert ai nl yt hi s cas e. T he t hrus t of A bu- J i haad’ s s uffi ci encychal l enge i s t hatt he governm ent ’ s cas e r es t ed
e n tirelyo n c irc u m sta n tial e v id e n c e . D ire c t ev id e n c e , h o w e v e r, is n o t co n s ti tu tio n a lly req u ir ed to su p p o rta co n v ict ion
. T h e law is w ell estab li sh ed that the g o v ern m en t m aysec u re convi ct i on bas ed s ol el yon ci r cumst ant i al evi dence , pr ovi ded i ti s su ff i ci entt o pr ove the el ement s of the cha r ged cr i m e bey ond a re as onabl e doubt
. See U ni t ed St at es v. L or enzo, 534 F. 3d 153, 159 ( 2d C i r . 2008)
. T o convi ctA bu- J i haad of t he § 793( d) cr i m e w i t h w hi ch he
w as char ged, t he governm entw as r equi r ed t o pr ove b ey ond a r eas onabl e doubtt hathe ( 1) l aw ful l yhad pos s es s i on of, acc es s t o, contr ol over , orw as entrus t ed w i t h i nfor m at i on r el at i ng t o t he nat i onal defe ns e; ( 2) had re as on t o bel i eve t hat s uch i nfor m at i on coul d be us ed t o t he in ju ry o f th e U n ited S tate s o r to th e a d v a n tag e o f a n yf o re ig n n a tio n ; (3 ) w ill f u lly
comm u n icated , del i ver ed, t r ans m i t t ed, orcaus ed t o be comm uni cat ed, del i ver ed, or t r ans m i t t ed s uch i nform at i on; and (4) d i d s o t o a per s on notent i t l ed t o r ece i ve i t . See 18 U
. S
. C
. § 7 9 3 (d); see also U n it ed S tat es v . A b u -Ji h aa d , 6 0 0 F
. S u p p . 2 d at 38 4 (qu o ti n g jury ch arg e). 31n a tio n a l d e f e n se w h ich in f

o rm a tio n th e p o ss e ss o r h a s re a so n to bel i eve c oul d be us ed t o t he i nj ur yof the U ni t ed St at es ort o t he adv antage of an yforei gn nati on , w ill full ycom m un i cat es, del i ver s , t r ans m i t s orcaus es t o be comm uni cat ed, del i ver ed, or t r ans m i t t ed or att empt s t o comm uni cat e, del i ver , t r ans m i tor c a u se to b e c o m m u n ica ted , d e liv e re d o r tra n sm itt e d th e sa m e to a n yp e r s o n n o t e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e i t , o rwi l l f u l l yr e t a i n s t h e s a me and fa i l s t o del i veri ton demand t o t he offi cerorempl oy ee of t he U ni t ed St at es ent i t l ed t o r ece i ve i t. . . [s ] hal l be fi ned under t hi s t i t l e ori m pr i s oned notm or e than t en y ear s , orbot h. A l t hough A bu- Ji haad a r gues t hati nfor m at i on i n t he B at t l egr oup D ocumentw as 32 p u b l i c l ya v a i l a b l e , t h e e v i d e n c e h e o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r to f

t h a tc l a i m s h o we d o n l yt h a ts o me gener al i nform at i on r egar di ng t he C ons t el l at i on bat t l egr o u p ’s t r ans i ts chedul e had e nt er ed 57 A b u -Jih a a d d o e s n o t – a n d c a n n o t – c h a ll e n g e th e su f f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e to
e sta b lish th e f

irst, se c o n d , an d f

o u rth e lem e n ts of th e c rim e . T h e trial e v id e n c e c o n v in c in g ly sh o w e d th a t, a s a m e m b e r o f th e U .S .S . B e n f o ld ’s n a v ig a tio n d iv isio n w ith a “ se c re t” s e c u rity cl ear ance , A bu- J i haad ha d acc es s t o t he C ons t el l at i on bat t l egr oup’ s t r ans i tpl an and the cl as s i fi ed i nform at i on cont ai ned ther ei n. Fur t her , beca us e t he t r ans i t pl an w as cl as s i fi ed as

“ c o n f id e n tial” a n d c o n tain e d in f o rm at i on abo ut the an t i ci pated m ov em e n ts o f N a v ysh ip s in to
ar eas of hei ght ened v u lnerabi l i t yt o at t ack, t her e ca n be no ques t i on t hatt hi s i nfor m at i on
r el at ed t o t he nat i onal defe ns e. See G or i n v. U ni t ed St at es , 312 U
. S. 1 9 , 2 8 (19 41) ( cons t ruin g p h ras e “na t i onal defe ns e” i n cont extof Espi onage A ctas “gene r i c conc eptof br o a d c o n n o t a t i o n s , r e f e r r i n g t o t h e mi l i t a r ya n d n a v a l e s t a b l i s h me n t s a n d t h e r el at ed
ac t i v i t i e s o f n a t i o n a l p r e p a r e d n e s s ” ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d ) ) ; Uni t e d St at es v. H ei ne, 151 F. 2d 813, 815- 17 ( 2d C i r . 1945) ( L
. H and, J
. ) ( cons t rui ng “i nfor m at i on r el at i ng t o t he nat i onal defe ns e” t o i ncl ude onl yi nfor m at i on t hati s cl os el yhel d)
. M or eover , gi ven 32th e pu bli c do m ai n p ri or t o the dat e of d eploym ent. S ee i nfra at59 -60. T he p ub lic

i nfor m at i on adduce d byA bu- J i haad at t r i al di d notpr ecl ude anyr at i onal j ur yfr om concl udi ng t hatt he tr ans i tpl an w i t h w hi ch he w as entrus t ed, and the B at t l egr oup D ocument der i ved ther efr om , cont ai ned i nform at i on r el at i ng t o t he nat i onal defe ns e. 58 th e c las sif

ied n a tu re o f th e in f

o rm a tio n a n d A b u -Jih a a d ’s d e m o n stra ted u n d e rsta n d in g in h is C o le e m a il o f

th e im p a c t o f

a n a ttac k o n a U n ited S tate s w a rsh ip , a r a tio n a l ju ro r c o u ld
cert ai nl yconcl u de thatt he def endanthad r eas on t o bel i eve thati nfor m at i on r egar di ng t he navi gat i onal r out e and s chedul e t o be fol l ow ed b y the C ons t el l at i on bat t l egr oup coul d be
us ed t o i nj ur e the U ni t ed St at es . Fi nal l y , t her e i s no ques t i on t hatnei t herB abarA hm ad, fr om
w hos e r es i dence t he B at t l egr oup D ocumentw as r ecove r ed, norSy ed Tal ha A h san , w ho appea r ed t o have c r eat ed the fi l e cont ai ni ng t hatdocument , noranyot herper s on as s oci at ed
w ith A z z a m , w a s a u th o ri z e d to re c e iv e c la s s if ie d U n ite d S ta te s m ilita ry in f o rm a tio n . T hus , A bu- J i haad’ s s uffi ci ency chal l enge i s r eas onabl yunder s t ood t o focus on t he t hi r d el ementof the cr i m e. H e s ubm i t s t hatt he tr i al evi dence w as i ns uffi ci entt o perm i tany
r at i onal j ur yt o fi nd bey ond a r eas o n ab le d oubtt hathe w as t he per s on w ho w i l l ful l ym ade t he cha r ged di s cl os ur e of na t i onal defe ns e i nfor m at i on. A l though t he di s t r i ctcour tobs erved t hatt hi s chal l enge w as not“i ns ubs t ant i al ” gi ven t hat t he s uppor t i ng evi dence fort hi s el ement
w as larg el yci r cumst ant i al , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at365, upon
ca ref u l r ev iew o f th e re co rd, i t co n clud ed that the ev iden ce w as su ff ici en t t o p erm itthe ju ry t o fi nd t h e thir d elem en tpr oved bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt
. U pon ourow n r evi ew of the
r ecor d, w e r eac h t he s ame concl us i on. Fr om ci r cumst an ce s ind i cat i ng t hat( 1) t he59

i nfor m at i on i n t he B at t l egr oup D ocumentcomm uni cat ed t o A zza m came fr om a N avy i ns i der , ( 2) A bu- J i haad w as an i ns i der w i t h acc es s t o t hati nfor m at i on and the onl yi dent i fi ed
me mb e ro f

t h e Na v ywh o c o mmu n i c a t e d s u p p o r tf o rj i h a d t o Az z a m i n t h e r e l e v a n tt i me p e ri o d , a n d (3 ) A b u -J ih a a d a d m itte d d is c lo s in g m ilita ry in te llig e n c e w h ile in th e N a v y , a
r eas onabl e j ur ycoul d concl ude bey ond a r eas onabl e doubt t hat A bu- J i haad w as , i n fac t , t he per s on w ho had w i l l ful l y di s cl os ed t he cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on i n t he B at t l egr oup D ocument to A z z a m . 1. T he I nform at i on i n t he B at t l egr oup D o cu m entC ame fr om a N avy

I ns i der T he cont ent s o f t he B at t l egr oup D ocument , s peci fi cal l y , i t s i dent i fi cat i on of
s i gni fi cantdat es r efe r ence d i n t he cl as s i fi ed tr ans i t p lan

– n o tabl yM ar ch 20, 2001, foran
amm uni t i on s t op i n H aw ai i ; A pr i l 6, 2001, for a port cal l i n Sy dney ; and A pr i l 29, 2001, for p assa g e thro u g h the S tr aito f H o rm u z (i n fa ct, the d ate f o r cro ssing the C H O P p o int) – stro n g lysu p p o rte d a n in f e re n c e th a t th e so u rc e o f th e in f o rm a tio n c o n tain e d th e re in h a d to have be en a N avyi ns i der
. I n ur gi ng ot herw i s e, A bu- J i haad r el i es on ar gum ent s t hathe
u n su c c e ss f

u llym a d e to th e ju ry : th a t th e B a ttl e g ro u p D o c u m e n t c o n tain e d so m u c h p u b licly avai l abl e i nform at i on and s o m anyerr or s t hat i t coul d j us t as eas i l y , i f not m or e l i kel y , have been tr ans m i t t ed bys om eone out s i de the N avy . T he j ur y ’ s r ej ect i on of th is a rgu m ent w as h a rd lyirra tio n a l. T o th e e x ten t th e d e f

e n se a d d u c e d e v id e n c e in th e p u b lic d o m a in a b o u t m o v e m e n ts of the C ons t el l at i on bat t l egr oup, i tfai l ed t o demonstr at e thatt he maj or i t yof thati nfor m at i on60

w as avai l abl e p ri o r to t he batt l egr oup’ s M ar ch 15, 2001 depl oym ent , as w oul d have be en
nece s s aryforpubl i cl yavai l abl e i nfor m at i on to h av e infor m ed cr eat i on of the B at t l egr oup D o cu m en t. T h e inf

o rm ati o n that w as sh o w n to h av e b ee n p u b li clyav ail ab le be fo re depl oy me n tf

a i l e d t o p r o v i d e s u f

f i c i e n tf a c t s f r o m w h i c h t o c o mpi l e t h e Ba t t l e gr oup D ocument . Speci fi cal l y , a F e b ru ary11, 2001 pos tt o a M as s achus et t s I ns t i tut e of Technol ogy al um ni w ebs i t e s t at ed onl y t hata ca r r i erpi l otw oul d be depl oy i ng fors i x m ont hs aboar d t he U
. S. S. C ons t el l at i on, w hi ch w as expec t ed t o m ake port cal l s i n Sy dney , Per t h, B ahr ai n, and D ubai
. W e nee d nother e ass es s t he re l at i ve i ndi s cr et i on of such a pos t . W e not e s i m pl yt hat i tdi d notpr ovi de s peci fi c dat es fort he i den ti fi ed por t s of ca l l , as cont ai ned i n t he B a ttl e g ro u p D o c u m e n t. N o r d id it m e n tio n H a w a ii as a p o rt o f c a ll, a f a c t in c lu d e d o n lyin t he fi nal t r ans i t pl an. Si m i l ar l y , al t hough a pr e- depl oym entpr es s r el eas e fr om t he C anadi an N a v yin d ica ted th a t th e C o n ste llatio n b a ttl e g ro u p w o u ld a rriv e in th e A ra b ian G u lf in e a rly M ay 2 0 0 1 , and a February2001 ar t i cl e aboutt he Tar aw a A m phi bi ous R eadi nes s G r oup i dent i fi ed Phuket , T hai l and, as a fa vor i t e por tof ca l l for t he N avyand the M ar i nes , nei t her documentpr ovi ded anys peci fi c i nfor m at i on aboutt he C ons t el l at i on bat t l egr oup’ s expec t ed po rt s of call , l etal on e t he d at es on w hich anyshi ps w ou l d reach those po rt s. Si m i l ar l yunavai l i ng i s A bu- J i haad’ s r el i ance on err or s i n t he B at t l egr oup D ocument t o ar gue that t he s our ce of i t s i nform at i on coul d nothave be en a N avyi ns i der
. T o t he ext ent t he err or s i nvo lve m i s s pel l i ng of N avyt erm s , t he j ur yw oul d have s een thatN avyi ns i der A bu- J i haad r out i nel ym i s s pel l ed or d inary w o rds i n hi s emai l s w i t h A zza m . I ns ofaras61

defe ndantpoi nt s t o t he B at t l egr oup D ocument ’ s m i s i dent i fi cat i on of A pr i l 29, 2001, as t he dat e f o r t r a n s i t t h r o u g h t h e Str a i t o f Hor muz ( whe n i n f a c t i t was t h e d a t e f

o r c r o s s i ng t he C H O P p o int) an d M arc h as a tax-f ree m o n th (w h en in f

ac t itw as A p ri l) , a re aso n ab le j u ry coul d have c oncl uded thatt he er r or s w er e ei t heri nadvert ent , i nt r oduced a ft ert he i nfor m at i on
w a s o rig in a llyc o n v e y e d , o r re f lec tiv e o f a N a v y in sid e r c o n v e y in g in f o rm a tio n o u tsid e h is par t i cul arar ea of

r es pons i bi l i t y . Ind ee d, a j ur ym i ghtr eas onabl yhave r ej ect ed the coi nci dence of any one othe r th an an i ns i ders el ect i ng t he s ame dat e ( A pr i l 29, 2001) for t r ans i t i ng t he St r ai tof H or m uz as had been e m phas i zed i n eac h i t er at i on of the tr ans i tpl an fo r cro ssing the C H O P p o int, p arti cu larl yas th e latt er e v en t w o u ld tak e p la c e o n lya sh o rt tim e b e f o re th e sh ip s e n ter e d th e S tra it o f H o rm u z , an e a silyid e n tifie d n a tu ra l g e o g ra p h ic
r efe r ence compar ed t o t he C H O P poi nt , w hi ch w as defi ned onl y by degr ees of l at i tude and l ongi tude. M or eover , a j ur yw as ent i t l ed t o cons i der that the B at t l egr oup D ocument
c o n c lu d e d w ith th e in s tru c tio n : “ P le a s e d e s tr o ym e s s a g e .” G o v ’t E x . 1
. A per s on t r ans m i t t i ng publ i cl yavai l abl e i nfor m at i on w o ul d have l es s r eas on t o i ncl ude s uch an in s tru c tio n th a n a N a v yin s id e r t ra n s m ittin g c la s s if ie d in f o rm a tio n . 2. A bu- J i haad’ s A cce s s t o t he D i s cl os ed Inf or m at i on and T i es t o A zza m T hatA bu- J i haad w as t he i ns i derw ho t r ans m it ted clas s i fi ed i nfor m at i on aboutt he C o n ste llatio n b a ttl e g ro u p ’s tra n sit p lan w a s e sta b lish e d , in p a rt, b ye v id e n c e o f h is oppor tuni t yand mot i ve t o do s o. A bu- J i haad does nots er i ous l ydi s put e that , as a s i gnal m an
w i t h a s ecr et - l evel s ecur i t ycl ear ance , he had a cce s s t o t he tr ans i tpl an and, t hus , t he62

oppor tuni t y t o t r ans m i t i tt o an unauthor i zed pe r s on. See U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 600 F. Supp. 2d at377 ( r efe r enci ng evi dence t hatA bu- J i haad “ r egul arlyw or ked on the br i dge
w her e . . . t he s hi p’ s paperchart s and cl as s i fi ed tr ans i tpl ans w ere stor ed”)
. N ordoes he di s put e thathe fr equent l ycomm u n icated w i t h A zza m , t he unauthor i zed r eci pi entof the cl as s i fi ed i nform at i on i n 2001, or t hat t he cont ent s of hi s comm uni cat i ons r evea l ed a m ot i ve to tra n sm it c las sif

ied in f o rm a tio n , i.e., h is su p p o rt f o r jih a d , ev e n w h e n d ire c ted a g a in st h is
o w n c o u n t r y. I ns t ead, A bu- J ihaad submi t s t hatanyi nfer ence t hathe tr ans m i t t ed cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on t o A zza m w as underm i ned b y h is open di s pl ayof j i hadi s ts ym pathi es i n t he N a v y, a s e v id e n c e d b y h is s h a ri n g A z z a m v id e o s w ith s h ip m a te s a n d h is u s e o f a N a v ym oni t or ed emai l acc ount t o comm uni cat e w i t h A zza m . W hi l e A bu- J i haad w as fr ee t o m ake t hi s ar gum entt o t he j ur y , i t w as har dl y compel l ed t o acc ept i t and t o r etur n a ver di ctof not g u ilty . T h e ju ryc o u ld h a v e d e ter m in e d th a t if A b u -Jih a a d u se d h is m ili tar ya c c o u n t to conveynat i onal defe ns e i nform at i on, he di d s o pr i ort o the b at t l egr oup’ s M ar ch 15, 2001 depl oym entand, t hus , at a ti m e w hen hi s N avyemai l w as notbei ng m oni t or ed. A ltern a tiv e ly, th e ju ryc o u ld h a v e f o u n d th a t A b u -Jih a a d lik e lyu se d h is p e rso n a l em a il
acc ountt o t r ans m i tcl as s i fi ed i nform at i on. T hat , aft eral l , w as t he ac counthe us ed t o s end hi s C ol e emai l t o A zza m pr ai s i ng t he m ur der ous bom bi ng of a N avy s hi p as a “mar t yr dom oper at i on. ” See G ov’ tE x. 19. I n ur gi ng ot herw i s e, A bu- J i haad obs erves t hati n t he C ol e emai l , s enti n J ul y2001, he63

in tro d u c e d h im se lf

a s a U n ited S tate s s a ilo r, an u n n e c e ss a rya c tio n if h e h a d p re v io u sly di s cl os ed mi l i t aryi nt el l i gence t o A zza m . T he C ol e emai l , how ever , w as s ent t o an A zza m
e m a il a c c o u n t s p e c if

ic a lly d e s ig n a te d f

o r t h e g e n e ra l p u b lic to s e n d e m a ils o f s u p p o rt . A
r a ti o n a l ju rym ig h t w e ll h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t A b u -Jih a a d se n t th e c las sif ied in f o rm a tio n to a di ffe r entA zza m emai l addr es s , w i t h orw i t houti nt r oduci ng hi m s el f. In su m , ev e n if th e e m a il e v id e n c e c o u ld h a v e su p p o rte d in f e re n c e s m o re f

a v o ra b le t o A bu- J i haad, i t w as nevert hel es s s uffi ci ent t o s uppor t a r eas onabl e i nfer ence that A buJih a a d w a s th e o n lyp e rso n sh o w n to h a v e h a d b o th th e o p p o rtu n itya n d m o tiv e to tra n sm it t he cl as s i fi ed tr ans i tpl an i nform at i on t o A zza m . See U ni t ed St at es v. B ur den, 600 F. 3d at 226 ( r eit era ti n g est abl i s hed rul e thati ti s forj ur yt o choos e among com pet i ng i nfer ence s
su p p o rt ed b yev iden ce ).

3. A bu- J i haad’ s A dm i t t ed D i s cl os ur e of N avyI nt el l i gence In addit i on t o ev i den ce est abli shi ng A bu -J i haad ’s op po rtun i t yand m oti ve to di scl ose
c las sif ied in f o rm a tio n , the ju ryh e a rd re c o rd e d sta tem e n ts in w h ich A b u -Jih a a d e f f e c tiv e ly admi t t ed t o havi ng actual l ydone s o. I n a ser i es of conver s at i ons i nt er cept ed i n 2006, w hi ch

w e det ai l i n our di s cus s i on of t he fa ct s , s ee s upr a at 15- 19, A bu- J i haad r epea t edl ydi s cus s ed pr ovi di ng Sha r eef

, a s us pect ed t err or i s ts ym pathi zer , w i t h “meal s . ” A confi dent i al i nfor m ant
w ho par t i ci pat ed i n s om e of the conve r s at i ons t es t i fi ed att r i al t hat“meal s ” w as a code for
m i l i t aryi nt el l i gence . T hus , w hi l e gene r al l ypr om i s i ng Shar eef s uppor t , A bu- J i haad
e xp l ai ned t hat he had been ou t of the N avy t oo l on g t o have any curr ent i ntel l i ge n c e to64

convey : “I haven’ t been on t hat j ob, s o I don’ t– y ou know w hatI ’ m s ay i ng, I haven’ tbeen t here .
. . t o see . . . w hat the fresh m eal i s. ” G ov ’t E x. 14 1h at1. A bu -J i haad nev ertheles s
encour aged Shar eef

t o s peak w i t h “the M exi can, ” i dent i fied at t r i al as M i guel C ol on, w ho had bee n di s char ged fr om t he N avyonl yt w o m onths ear l i er : “[H ] e can gi ve y ou a fr es h m eal

‘ cuz . . . he j us tfi ni s hed h is j ob, t her e, l es s t han a mont h ago .
. . . ” I d. at1- 2. T hen, i n a
conver s at i on t hat s ame day w i t h C ol on about Shar eef’ s des i r e fori nt el l i gence , A bu- J i haad
m ade the s t at ementt hatt he governm entar gued ac kno w ledged hi s pas tt r ans m i t t al of i nt el l i gence i nform at i on: “I don’ tknow how t o gethi m no hotm eal
. . . . I a in’ tbeen
w orkin g u h , in, in, i n t he fi el d of m aki ng m eal s and or , y ou know
. . . i n a l ong t i m e. I ’ ve been outof thatforuh, overuh, quatr o y ear s y ou know
. ” G ov’ tE x. 141k at7. A l t hough A bu- J i haad s ugges t s t hat t he s t at ementonl yi ndi cat ed thathe w as noti n a po si t i on t o secure curr e n t in t el l i gen ce bec ause he had been ou tof the N avyfor fou r y ears , a r eas onabl e j u ry co u ld ha ve cons t rued the s t at ementas an admi s s i on of pas ti nt el l i gence d isc lo su re s. A b u -Jih a a d d id n o t, a f ter a ll, sta te s im p lyth a t h e h a d n e v e r w o rk e d “ in th e f ield of m aki ng m eal s , ” i
. e. , pr ovi di ng m i l i t ary i nt el l i gence . R ather , he s t at ed thathe “a i n’ tbeen
w o rk in g u h , in , in , in th e f ie ld o f m a k in g m e a ls a n d o r, yo u k n o w . . . in a lo n g tim e .” Im p licit in a sta tem e n t th a t o n e h a s n o t d o n e so m e th in g “ in a lo n g tim e ” is a n a d m iss io n to havi ng done thatt hi ng ats om e t i m e i n t he p ast, in A b u -Ji h aad’ s cas e, “w or ki ng . . . i n t he fi el d of m aki ng m eal s , ” i
. e. , pr ovi di ng m i l i t aryi nt el l i gence, so m e fo u ry ear s ago w hen he
w a s in th e N a v ya n d h e ld a s e c u ri ty cl e a ra n c e to a c c e s s c e rt a in c la s s if ie d in f o rm a tio n .65

W hi l e A bu- J i haad’ s i m pl i ci tadmi s s i on i s gener al , m aki ng no s peci fi c r efe r ence t o t he B a ttl e g ro u p D o c u m e n t, on a su f f ic ie n c yc h a llen g e , w e re v iew p iec e s o f e v id e n c e n o t in isolati o n , b u t i n co n

jun cti o n . S ee U n it ed S tat es v. R igas , 4 9 0 F
. 3 d 2 0 8 , 2 3 0 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed St at es v. M i l l er , 116 F. 3d 641, 676 ( 2d C i r . 1997)
. H er e the t ot al i t y of t he evi dence perm i t t ed the j ur y t o fi nd, i nt er al i a, t hat : cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on aboutN avyoper at i ons w as t r ans m i t t ed t o A zza m , an or gani zati o n sy m pathet i c t o vi ol entj i had; t he s our ce of t he d isc lo se d c las sif

ied in f o rm a tio n w a s a N a v yin sid e r; A b u - J ih a a d w a s a N a v yin sid e r w ith
a c c e ss to th e c las sif

ied in f o rm a tio n a t is su e ; d e f

e n d a n t w a s in re g u lar c o m m u n ica tio n w ith A zza m atand aboutt he t i m e r el evant t o t he cha r ged di s cl os ur e; al t hough s om e of A buJ i haad’ s comm uni cat i ons had bee n del et ed, thos e thatw er e r etr i eved r evea l ed hi s s t r ong
s uppor tforj i had, even w hen di r ect ed a g ains t hi s ow n countr y ; no ot herm emberof the U nit ed S t at es m i l i t aryhad s uch a r ecor d of comm uni cat i on w i t h A zza m ; and A bu- J i haad
e ss e n tiallya d m itt e d in re c o rd e d c o n v e rsa tio n s to d isc lo sin g c las sif ied in f o rm a tio n d u rin g h is
s ervi ce i n t he N avy . T hes e fi ndi ngs , i n tur n, w er e s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng bey ond a
reas on able dou bt that A bu -Jih a a d w as the p ers on w ho com m un i cat ed n at i on al defe nse i nfor m at i on per t ai ni ng t o t he 2001 tr ans i tpl an fort he C ons t el l at i on bat t l egr oup t o per s ons at A zz am in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 7 9 3 (d). A cc o rdin g ly , w e c o n clud e tha t A b u -Ji h aa d ’s
c h a llen g e to th e su f

f icie n c yo f

th e e v id e n c e su p p o rtin g h is c o n v ictio n is w ith o u t m e rit. E
. C IP A P rotec ti v e O rde rs In h is f in a l ch a llen g e , A b u -Jih a a d c o n ten d s th a t th e d is trict c o u rt e rre d n o t o n lyin66

gr ant i ng t he governm ent ’ s m ot i ons forpr ot ec ti v e orde r s pur s uantt o Sect i on 4 of the C las sif ied In f o rm a tio n P ro c e d u re s A c t (“ C IP A ” ), 1 8 U .S .C . ap p . 3 , § § 1 -1 6 , b u t als o in
cons i der i ng ex part e w hethert he cl as s i fi ed m at er i al s – s ubm i t t ed and r evi ew ed i n camer a –
w ere d isco v era b le. T h e d istri ct co u rtset fo rth it s rea so n s fo r issu ing the c h all en g ed o rde rs i n t wo o p i n i o n s . S e e Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Ab u - J i h a a d , No
. 0 7 Cr
. 5 7 , 2 0 0 8 WL 3 4 6 1 2 1 ( D. C onn. Feb. 4, 2008) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, N o. 07 C r . 57, 2008 W L 596200 ( D
. C onn. F e b . 2 2 , 2 0 0 8 ). N e v e rth e les s, b e c a u se n e ith e r A b u -Jih a a d n o r h is c o u n se l h a s h a d a c c e ss to t he governm ent ’ s s ubm i s s i ons ort he tr ans cr i pt s of the ex pa r t e conf ere n ce s, all of w hi ch have be en mai nt ai ned unders eal , defe ndants ubm i t s t hathe “i s i n no pos i t i on t o pr es ent fac tual ar gum ent s t hat t h[e] pr ocedur e [adopt ed by t he di s t r i ct cour t ] r es ul t ed in any pr ej udi ce. ” A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at63. H i s C I PA chal l enge can t hus be under s t ood as a gene r al
r eques tfort hi s cour tt o exami ne the s eal ed r ecor ds and t o as s es s t he pr opr i etyof the di s t r i ct
cou rt ’s decis i on t o g rantprot ect i ve o rder s. W e r evi ew forabus e of di s cr et i on a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o i s s ue a pr ot ect i ve or der pur s uantt o Sect i on 4 of C I PA , i ncl udi ng i t s det erm i nat i on w hetherevi dence i s helpful or
m a ter ial to th e d e f

e n se a n d w h e th e r u n c las s if ie d s u m m a rie s o r a d m iss io n s a re p ro p e rly
s ubs t i tut ed forcl as s i fi ed i nform at i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. St ew ar t , 590 F. 3d at131; U ni t ed S ta te s v . A re f

, 5 3 3 F .3 d 7 2 , 8 0 (2 d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). W e d e te c t n o s u c h a b u s e h e re . C I PA , w hi ch es t abl i s hes cert ai n pr ocedur es fort he handl i ng of cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on i n cr i m i nal cas es , i s des i gned “t o pr ot ect [] and r es t r i ct [] t he di s covery of cla s s i fi ed67

i nfor m at i on i n a w ayt hatdoes noti m pai r t he defenda nt ’ s r i ghtt o a fa i rt r i al
. ” U ni t ed St at es
v. A ref, 53 3 F
. 3d at78 (al t erat i on s i n o ri ginal ; i nternal quotat i on m arks om i t t ed); see al so U ni t e d St a t e s v. Pa pp a s , 94 F. 3d 79 5, 79 9 ( 2d Ci r . 19 96 ) ( ob s e r vi ng t ha t pu rpo s e of CI PA is t o “e stab li sh p roc ed u res t o h arm o n ize a d ef en d an t’ s ri g h t t o o b tai n an d p rese n t exc u lpato ry
m at er i al upon hi s t r i al and the governm ent ’ s r i ghtt o pr ot ectcl as s i fi ed mat er i al i n t he nat i onal i nt er es t ” ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) )
. C I PA defi nes “[c ] l as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on” as “anyi nfor m at i on orm at er i al t hat h as bee n det erm i ned byt he U ni t ed St at es G overnm ent pu rs uan tt o an E xecu t i ve o rder , st a tu te, o r r egu l at i on , t o requir e prot ect i on against
u n au tho ri ze d d iscl o su re f o r reaso n s o f n ati o n al sec u ri ty . ” 1 8 U
. S
. C
. ap p . 3 , § 1 (a). In regul at i ng t he d i scoveryof suc h inform at i on , S ect i on 4 o f C IPA i nst ruct s as fol l ow s: T h e c o u rt, u p o n a su f

f icie n t sh o w in g , m a ya u th o riz e th e U n ited S tate s to d e lete sp e c if ied item s o f

c las sif ied in f o rm a tio n f

ro m d o c u m e n ts to b e m a d e a v a ilab le t o t he def

endantt hr ough di s coveryundert he Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e, t o s ubs t i tute a s um m aryof the i nfor m at i on fors uch cl as s i fi ed docu m en ts, ort o s ubs t i tut e a s t at ementadmi t t i ng r el evantfac t s t hatt he cl as s i fi ed i nform at i on w oul d t end t o pr ove. T he courtm ayperm i tt he U ni t ed St at es t o m ake a r eques tfors uch aut hor i zat i on i n t he form of a w r i t t en s t at ementt o be i ns pect ed byt he co u rt alon e. I f the courtent er s an or der gr ant i ng r el i ef f

ol l ow i ng s uch an e x par t e s how i ng, t he ent i r e t extof the s t at ement of t he U ni t ed S t at es s hal l be sea l ed and pr es erved i n the r ecor ds of th e c o u rt to b e m a d e a v a ilab le to th e a p p e llate c o u rt in th e e v e n t o f a n a p p e a l. I d. app. 3, § 4. A s w e have r ece nt l yobs erved, “[t ] hi s s ect i on cl ar i fi es di s t r i ctcour t s ’ pow er
u n d er F eder al R ul e of Cri m i nal Pr ocedur e 16( d) ( 1) t o i s s ue pr ot ect i ve or der s deny i ng or
r es t r i ct i ng di s coveryforgood caus e, w hi ch i ncl udes i nfor m at i o n v it al t o t he nat i onal
sec u ri ty . ” U n it ed S tat es v . S tew art, 5 9 0 F
. 3 d at 13 0 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).I nform at i on t hati s hel pful orm at er i al t o t he def ens e “ne ed notr i s e t o t he l evel t hat 33 w o u ld tr i ggert he G overnm ent ’ s obl i gat i on underB r adyv. M ary l and, 373 U
. S. 83 ( 196 3 ), t o di s cl os e exc ul pat or yi nform at i on. ” U n i t ed St at es v. A r ef, 533 F. 3d at80 ( ci t at i on o m itt e d ); se e a lso U n ited S tate s v . M e jia, 4 4 8 F .3 d 4 3 6 , 4 5 7 (D .C . C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (o b se rv in g th a t, forpurpos es of C I PA , “i nform at i on can be hel pful w i t houtbei ng ‘ favorabl e’ i n t he B r ady sen se” ). 68 T o be cl ear , C I PA does notconfe ron t h e g o v ernm enta pr i vi l ege t o r efr ai n fr om d isc lo sin g c las sif

ied in f o rm a tio n ; itm e re lyp re su p p o se s o n e . S e e id . T h e p riv ileg e it presupp oses has i t s ori gins i n the com m on -l aw pri vil ege agai nst dis cl osure of st at e secr et s,
se e id .; U n ited S tate s v . A re f , 5 3 3 F .3 d a t 7 8 , w h ich “ a llo w s th e g o v e rn m e n t to w ith h o ld in f o rm a tio n f

ro m d is c o v e ry w h e n d is c lo s u re w o u ld b e in im ic a l to n a tio n a l s e c u ri ty,” Z uckerbr aun v. G en. D ynami cs C orp. , 935 F. 2d 544, 546 (2d C i r . 1991)
. A l t hough app l i cable i n cri m i nal cas es, t he st at e-s ecret s p ri vil ege m ust– u nd er s om e ci rcum st ances – “gi ve w ay . . . t o a cr i m i nal defe ndant ’ s r i ghtt o pr es enta meani ngful defe ns e. ” U ni t ed St at es
v. St ew ar t , 5 9 0 F. 3 d a t 1 3 1 ( i n t e r n a l q u o t a t i o n ma r k s o mi t t e d )
. I n d e t e r mi n i n g when a defe nd ant’ s ri gh t t o present a defe nse dis places t he st at e-s ecret s pri vil ege, w e app l yt he tes t
announce d i n R ovi ar o v. U ni t ed St at es , 3 5 3 U
. S. 53 ( 1957) , as ki ng fi r s t , “w hethert he
m at er i al i n di s put e i s di s cover abl e, and i f so, w hether t he st at e- s ecr et s pr i vi l ege a ppl i es ”; and
s econd, i f the pr i vi l ege a ppl i es , “w hethert he i nfor m at i on i s h elpf u l o rm at er i al t o t he defe ns e, i
. e. , us eful t o count ert he governm ent ’ s cas e or t o bol s t era def ens e, ” U ni t ed St at es
v. St ew ar t , 590 F
. 3 d at 131 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) ( ci t i ng R ovi ar o)
. For 33 purpos es of t h is t es t , t he s t at e- s ecr et s pr i vi l ege a ppl i es i f “( 1) t her e i s a r eas onabl e dange rSi nce the di s t r i ctcour t ’ s chal l enged de ci s i ons i n t hi s cas e, w e have hel d t hat 34 r epr es ent at i ons aboutt he s ecur i t y r i s ks pos ed by di s cl os ur e m us t be m ade by t he “head of t he depart m en t w hi ch has contr ol overt he mat t er , aft eractual per s onal cons i der at i on byt hat offi cer . ” U ni t ed S ta t es v. A r ef, 533 F. 3d at80 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)
. T o t he ext entt hatw as notdone her e, w e concl ude, as w e have i n ot hercas es , t hatt her e w oul d be li tt le g aine d b y rem an d ing the ca se solely to h av e the ap p rop ri ate d ep artm en t hea d rea ssert th e sta te- se c re ts p riv ileg e . S e e id .; U n ited S tate s v . S tew a rt, 5 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 . T h is is n o t to triv ializ e th e n e e d f

o r a f o rm a l cla im o f

p riv ileg e “ lo d g e d b yth e h e a d o f th e [ re lev a n t] d ep artm en t. ” U n ited S tat es v . A ref , 5 3 3 F
. 3 d at 80 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). In d e e d , “ [ w ]e e x p e c t th a t, in lig h t o f th e h o ld in g in A re f , w e w ill n o t n e e d to a d d re s s th is i s s ue i n appea l s fr om futur e pros ecut i ons i n w hi ch t he st at e- s ecr et s pr i vi l ege i s i nvoked as t he governm enti s now w el l
- i nform ed of thi s obl i gat i on. ” U ni t ed S t at es v. St ew ar t , 590 F. 3d at132. 69 t hatcompul s i on of the evi dence w i l l expos e . . . m at t er s w hi ch, i n t he i nt er es tof nat i onal
s ecur i t y , s houl d notbe di vul ged, and ( 2) t he pr i vi l ege i s l odged byt he hea d of the depa r t m ent
w hi ch has contr ol over t he m at t er , aft er actual per s onal cons i der at i on byt hatoffi cer . ” U ni t ed S ta te s v . A re f

, 5 3 3 F .3 d a t 8 0 (e llip s is in o ri g in a l; in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). 1
. T h e G o v e rn m e n t A d e q u a tely E sta b lish e d th a t th e S ta te- S e c re ts Pr i vi l ege A ppl i es H avi ng car eful l yr evi ew ed the cl as s i fi ed mat er i al s t hatar e the su bj ectof the chal l enged pr ot ect i ve or der s , w e r eac h t he s ame concl usion as the di s t r i ctcour t : t hatt he governm enthas demonst r at ed a r eas onabl e dange rt hatdi s cl os ur e w oul d j eopar di ze na t i onal
se c u rity . A g a in , o u r d isc u ss io n o f th e c las sif

ied in f o rm a ti o n is n e c e ss a rilyc irc u m sp e c t. N e v e rth e les s, w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e a f f id a v its su b m itt e d b yg o v e rn m e n toff i ci al s sat i sfact ori ly i dent i fy s peci fi c fac t s t hat( a) r endert he mat er i al s her e ati s s ue cl as s i fi ed and ( b) s uppor tt he
c o n c l u s i o n t h a td i s c l o s u r e o f th o s e m a t e r i a l s w o u l d p o s e a r i s k t o n a t i o n a l s e c u r i t y. 34I n U ni t ed S t at es v. Y uni s , 867 F. 2d at 622, t he D
. C
. C i r cui templ oy ed a “ r el evant 35 and hel pful ” st andar d fordet erm i ni ng w hethercl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on m aybe w i t hhel d under C I PA
. I n expl ai ni ng t he s t andar d, t he courthel d t hat“cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on i s not di s cover abl e on a mer e s how ing of theor et i cal r el evanc e, ” butonl yw her e r el evant i nfor m at i on “i s atl eas thel pful t o t he def ens e of the ac cus ed. ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks an d b rac k ets o m itted). I ns ofaras t he s t andar d appl i ed byt he di s t r i ct cour t di ffe r ed i n anyr es pectfr om t hat 36 announce d i n U ni t ed S t at es v. A r ef, 533 F. 3d at80, w e i dent i fyno m at er i al di ffe r ence gi ven t he fa ct s of thi s cas e. 70

2
. A b u -Jih a a d W a s N o t D e n ied In f o rm a tio n H e lp f

u l o r M a ter ial to H i s D efen se W e furt herconcl ude thatt he cha l l enged pr ot ect i ve or der s di d notd enyA bu- J i haad evi dence t hatw as ei t herhel pful orm at er i al t o hi s defe ns e. A l t hough t hi s cour thad noty et iss u e d its d e c isio n in U n ited S tate s v . A re f , a t th e tim e th e d istric t c o u rt c o n sid e r e d th is ques t i on, t hat cour t di d r el y on a t es t , s i m i l art o thatannounce d i n A r ef, i dent i fi ed byone of
ours i s t erci r cui t s . See U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 2008 W L 346121, at*3- 4 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed St at es v. Y uni s , 867 F. 2d 617, 622- 25 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1989) ) ; U ni t ed S t at es v. A bu- J i haad, 2008 W L 5 9 6 2 0 0 , a t* 1 ( r e ferr i ng t o s t andar ds governi ng di s coveryof cl as s i fi ed i nfor m at i on under C I PA s etfor t h i n pr i orC I PA rul i ng)
. A ppl y i ng t hatt es t , t he di s t r i ct cour tconcl uded that 35

n o n e o f th e m aterial s at i ssu e in th e g o v ern m en t’ s firstm o ti o n fo r a p rotec ti v e o rde r w ere di s c ov e r a bl e un de r Br a dy v. M a r y l a nd , 37 3 U
. S. 83 ( 19 63 ) , G i gl i o v. U ni t e d St a t e s , 40 5 U. S. 150 ( 1972) , orR ul e 16 of the Feder al R ul es of C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e. I n par t i cul ar , i tnot ed 36 t hat (a ) “ [m ]ostof the i nform at i on ha[d] not hi ng w hat s oevert o do w i t h anyi s s ue i n t h[e]
cas e oranycr i m i nal act i vit y at al l ”; ( b) none of the i nfor m at i on coul d be dee m ed “he l pful71

orbenef i ci al t o t he def

ens e, ” l etal one exc ul pat or yori m peac hi ng; and (c) b eca us e A buJ i haad a l r eadyhad know l edge a nd/ orpos s es s i on of m uch of t he i nfor m at i on, i t s pr oduct i on
w o u ld h a v e b e e n d u p lic a tiv e . U n ite d S ta te s v . A b u -J ih a a d , 2 0 0 8 W L 3 4 6 1 2 1 , a t * 5
. W hi l e the di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatfourof the s i x cat egor i es of i nfor m at i on at iss u e in th e g o v e rn m e n t’s s e c o n d m o tio n f o r a p ro tec tiv e o rd e r w e re e ith e r u n d isc o v e ra b le
ornot“hel pful orfavor abl e t o t he defe ns e, ” i tdet erm i ned thatt he r emai ni ng t w o cat egor i es cont ai ned di s cover abl e i nform at i on. U ni t ed St at es v. A bu- J i haad, 2008 W L 596200, at*2- 4. N evert hel es s , beca us e one of t he ca t egor i es w as cumul at i ve of i nfor m at i on al r eadypr ovi ded t o A bu- J i haad i n t he cour s e of di s covery , t he di s t r i ctcourt det erm i ned thatt he governm ent h a d n o o b l i g a t i o n t o d i s c l o s e s u c h i n f o r m a t i o n . S e e i d
. a t* 3
. A s f o rt h e s e c o n d c a t e g o r y, t he di s t r i ctcour tfound the governm ent ’ s di s cl os ur e obl i gat i on s at i s fi ed by i t s pr oduct i on of
v a ri o u s le tte rs , F B I r e p o rt s , a n d o th e r d is c o v e ry to th e d e f e n s e . S e e id . a t * 2 -3
. U pon ourow n i n camer a r evi ew of the under l y i ng m at er i als and t he s eal ed r ecor ds p re se rv e d f

o r a p p e a l, i n c lu d in g a d e taile d c o m p a riso n o f o rig in a l d isc o v e ra b le d o c u m e n ts
w i t h t he uncl as s i fi ed sum m ar i es appr oved by t he di s t r i ct cour t , w e concl ude t hatt he di s t r i ct
cour t ’ s rul i ngs w i t h r es pectt o t he di s cover abl e natur e of the cl as s i fi ed mat er i al s and the governm ent ’ s compl i ance w i t h anyext antdi s coveryobl i gat i ons m ani fest n o abuse of di s c r e t i o n . I n d e e d , we c o mme n d t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s c a r e f u l d i s c h a r g e o f

i t s CI PA
o b li g ati o n s, p arti cu larl y it s ef fe cti v e p rotec ti o n o f A b u -Ji h aa d ’s ri g h ts de sp it e the d ef en se’s lim ite d a b ility to p a rt ic ip a te in th e C IP A p ro c e e d in g s .72 3. T he D i s t r i ct C our t Pr oper l y C ons i der ed t he G overnm ent ’ s M ot i ons for P rot ect i ve O rder s E

x P a rte Inso fa r as A b u -Ji h aa d fa u lt s the d istri ct co u rtfo r en tert ainin g th e g o v ern m en t’ s
m ot i ons forpr ot ect i ve or der s ex part e, hi s ar gum enti s unconvi nci ng. A bu- J i haad doe s not d ispu te th at S ec ti o n 4 o f C IP A an d R u le 1 6 (d)(1 ) of the F ed era l R u les o f C ri m inal P roc ed u re b o th au tho ri ze ex p arte p roc ee d ing s. A cc o rdin g ly , h is co n tention that su ch su b m issi o n s are im p ro p e r “ [ a ]b se n t a sh o w in g o f e x c e p tio n a l circ u m sta n c e s,” A p p e llan t’s B r. at 6 3 , am o u n ts t o a cha l l enge t o t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s exer ci s e of di s cr et i on t o pr ocee d ex part e. T he ar gum ent fai l s i n l i ghtof ourdeci s i on i n U ni t ed St at es v. A r ef, i n w hi ch w e r ecogni zed thatw her e the g o v ern m en t m o v es to w ith h o ld classified inf o rm ati o n fro m the d ef en se, “a n ad v ersa ry hear i ng w i t h defe ns e know l edge w oul d defe att he verypurpos e of the di s coveryrul es . ” 533 F
. 3 d at 8 1 (i n terna l q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted). In suc h circu m stan ce s, a dis tr ic t c o u rt ’s decis i on t o co nd u c t e x p a rte h eari ng s m anifest s no ab use of dis cret i on . S ee i d. ; see al so U n ited S tate s v . S tew a rt, 5 9 0 F .3 d a t 1 3 2 (id e n tify in g n o e rro r in d istric t co u rt’s e x p a rte , in
camer a r evi ew of m at er i al s s ubj ect t o C I PA m ot i on beca us e s uch a “ m ethod forpr ot ect i on of cl as s i fi ed mat er i al i s nece s s ary , ” and C I PA pr ocedur es “have been e s t abl i s hed by C ongr es s and hel d t o be cons t i tut i onal ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K l i m avi ci us - V i l or i a, 1 4 4 F
. 3d 1 2 4 9 , 1 2 6 1 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 8 ) (c o n c lu d in g th a t w h ile “ [ e ]x p a rte h e a ri n g s a r e g e n e ra lly di s favor ed, ” i n a cas e i nvol vi ng cl as s i fi ed docum ent s , “ex par t e, i n camer a hea r i ngs i n w hi ch go vernm ent coun sel part i ci pates t o t he exclusi on of d efen se coun sel are partof the process th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt m a yu s e in o rd e r t o d e c id e th e re le v a n c yo f th e in f o rm a tio n ” ).73

I n s um , beca us e w e conc l ude thatt he governm ent ’ s s ubm i s s i ons ful l ys uppor tt he d istric t co u rt’s e n tryo f

th e c h a llen g e d C IP A o rd e rs, th a t th e d istric t c o u rt a c ted w e ll w ith in its d isc re tio n in re v iew in g th o se su b m iss io n s e x p a rte a n d in c a m e ra , an d th a t th e o rd e rs d id
n o t d e n y A b u -Jih a a d a n y in f o rm a tio n h e lp f

u l o r m a ter ial to h is d e f

e n se , w e id e n tifyn o b a sis i n C I PA forvaca t i ng t he convi ct i on. I I I . C oncl usi on T o su m m a riz e , w e c o n c lu d e th a t: 1. E vi dence obtai n ed pur s uantt o FI SA w arr ant s w as pr oper l yadmi t t ed i nt o evi dence agai ns tdefe ndantbeca us e FIS A w as notr ender ed uncons t i tut i onal bya PA T R I O T A ct amendm entt hat al l ow s s ur vei l l ance w arr ant s t o i s s ue upon ce r t i fi cat i on byt he exe cut i ve of a “s i gni fi cant ” r athert han “pr i m ary ” p u rpos e t o obt ai n for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on. Such a ce r t i fi cat i on, t ogether w i t h FI SA ’ s ot herr equi r ement s , s t r i kes a r eas onabl e bal ance betw een the governm ent ’ s i nt er es ti n obt ai ni ng for ei gn i nt el l i gence i nfor m at i on and the p ro te c tio n o f

in d iv id u a ls ’ F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t r ig h ts . 2
. In c u lp a to rye v id e n c e o b tain e d p u rsu a n t to F IS A w a rra n ts w a s p ro p e rlya d m itt e d in to evi dence agai ns t defe ndant beca us e al l FI SA r equi r ement s w er e compl i ed w i t h i n t hi s cas e, and due pr oces s di d notdemand di s cl os ur e of FI SA ap p li ca ti ons t o defe ndantoran adver s ar i al hear i ng. 3. T he di s t r i ctcour tact ed w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng i nt o evi dence ( a) r ecor ded t el eph o ne conve r s at i ons fr om 2006 i n w hi ch def endantpar t i ci pat ed, ( b) exce rpt s of thr ee74

vi deos pur chas ed fr om A zza m by defe ndant , and ( c) ot herm at er i al s m arket ed and/ orpos t ed on t he A zza m w ebs i t es i n orar ound 2001. 4. T he tr i al ev i dence w as s uffi ci entt o s uppor tdefe ndant ’ s convi ct i on fordi s cl os i ng
n a t i o n a l d e f

e n s e i n f o r ma t i o n t o p e r s o n s n o te n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e i ti n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 7 9 3 (d). 5. T he di s t r i ctcour tact ed w i t hi n i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng governm entm o ti o n s for p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r s p u r s u a n tt o S e c t i o n 4 o f CI P A. A ccordi ng l y , t he judgm ent of con vict i on i s AF F I R MED .