Opinion ID: 619929
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Evidence Derived from a Reasonable Search Is Admissible in a Criminal Trial

Text: Underlying defendants' argument that FISA's significant purpose test is unconstitutional is the notion that the government should not be allowed to introduce in a criminal prosecution evidence not gathered in compliance with the minimum procedural requirements the Fourth Amendment typically imposes on criminal investigations. While that notion may be appealing, it does not reflect the law. Instead, it is clear that the government may use evidence derived from non-law-enforcement searches (i.e., searches not based on a reasonable belief regarding the commission of a crime) that otherwise satisfy the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement to prosecute crimes. Thus, in the administrative context, [i]nspectors lawfully on the premises ... may report any violations of law that they find. Wen, 477 F.3d at 898. Likewise, the government may prosecute a defendant for possession of drugs uncovered in the course of a routine airport search. See Hartwell, 436 F.3d at 181; see also id. at 181 n. 13 ([T]he fruits of the search need not be suppressed so long as the search itself was permissible.). Here, we have concluded that searches in the form of surveillance conducted pursuant to FISA's significant purpose requirement are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, we join other courts of appeals in holding that evidence derived from duly authorized FISA surveillance is admissible in a criminal case. See Wen, 477 F.3d at 898 (holding that if, in the course of conducting FISA-authorized surveillance, agents discover evidence of a domestic crime, they may use it to prosecute for that offense, even if the agents knew or may have known when they applied for the FISA order that they were likely to hear evidence of domestic crime); see also Duggan, 743 F.2d at 78 (noting that otherwise valid FISA surveillance is not tainted simply because the government can anticipate that the fruits of such surveillance may later be used, as allowed by [50 U.S.C.] § 1806(b), as evidence in a criminal trial and holding that the fact that domestic law enforcement concerns may also have been implicated in government's decision to seek a FISA order did not eliminate the government's ability to obtain a valid FISA order).