Opinion ID: 410335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 16 Appellants claim first that the district court's failure to disclose the Exhibit and hold an adversary hearing was an abuse of discretion under FISA. Appellants argue on analogy with Alderman v. U.S. 26 that [q]uestions as to the legality of surveillance conducted under FISA are far too complex to be determined without disclosure and adversary proceedings. 27 In other words, appellants argue that in every case such disclosure is necessary to make an accurate determination of the legality of the surveillance. 28 17 As a matter of statutory interpretation with an eye to Congressional intent this absolutist view cannot be correct. The language of section 1806(f) clearly anticipates that an ex parte, in camera determination is to be the rule. Disclosure and an adversary hearing are the exception, occurring only when necessary. The legislative history explains that such disclosure is necessary only where the court's initial review of the application, order, and fruits of the surveillance indicates that the question of legality may be complicated by factors such as indications of possible misrepresentation of fact, vague identification of the persons to be surveilled, or surveillance records which include a significant amount of nonforeign intelligence information, calling into question compliance with the minimization standards contained in the order. 29 18 An examination of the in camera Exhibit in this case demonstrates that no such factors are present here. The target of the surveillance is clearly identified; the foreign policy purpose patently evident; the facts justifying the surveillance amply supported and certified to by responsible officials; and the results of the surveillance are well within the bounds set by the minimization procedures. It is readily apparent that all the statutory requirements have been met. Furthermore, the harm to U.S. security interests which would stem from disclosure of the Exhibit is equally evident. 19 The determination of legality in this case is not complex. The in camera Exhibit consists of only 42 pages. All four judges (not counting the original USFISC judge) who have examined the Exhibit agree upon the legality of the surveillance. Indeed, the surveillance is so clearly supported by the documents in the Exhibit that it would have been an abuse of discretion for the district court to order disclosure. 20 The demand for an adversary hearing must fall with the demand for disclosure of the in camera Exhibit. They are inextricably linked. There would be little purpose in disclosure unless appellants were then allowed to present their case against the legality of the surveillance. Thus, appellants are correct that if disclosure were ordered, they would be entitled to an adversary hearing. Conversely, given that disclosure is not necessary in this case, no purpose would be served by an evidentiary hearing. Appellants would be punching at shadows. The judge could not even make rulings upon the relevance of evidence to be presented without indirectly disclosing that which Congress has said must be kept secret. 21 In sum, the district court's decision to pass upon the legality of the surveillance based upon an ex parte examination of an in camera Exhibit was in keeping with the procedures contemplated by Congress when it enacted FISA. 30 B. Constitutional Claims 22 In the alternative, appellants claim that FISA, in so far as it does not require disclosure and an adversary hearing, violates the fifth and sixth amendments. Appellants argue that the mandatory disclosure provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (OCCA) 31 constitute a minimal requirement that must be read into FISA to save it from constitutional infirmity. 23 Appellants, however, completely ignore the nature of the national interests implicated in matters involving a foreign power or its agents. OCCA covers domestic, criminal surveillance. FISA is concerned with foreign intelligence surveillance. In the former, Congress emphasized the privacy rights of U.S. citizens. In the latter, Congress recognized the need for the Executive to engage in and employ the fruits of clandestine surveillance without being constantly hamstrung by disclosure requirements. 32 The statute is meant to reconcile national intelligence and counterintelligence needs with constitutional principles in a way that is consistent with both national security and individual rights. 33 In FISA the privacy rights of individuals are ensured not through mandatory disclosure, but 24 through its provisions for in-depth oversight of FISA surveillance by all three branches of government and by a statutory scheme that to a large degree centers on an expanded conception of minimization that differs from that which governs law-enforcement surveillance. 34 25 We appreciate the difficulties of appellants' counsel in this case. They must argue that the determination of legality is so complex that an adversary hearing with full access to relevant materials is necessary. But without access to the relevant materials their claim of complexity can be given no concreteness. It is pure assertion. 26 Congress was also aware of these difficulties. But it chose to resolve them through means other than mandatory disclosure. In FISA Congress has made a thoroughly reasonable attempt to balance the competing concerns of individual privacy and foreign intelligence. As noted, oversight of electronic surveillance is provided by all three branches of government. Appellants are understandably reluctant to be excluded from the process whereby the legality of a surveillance by which they were incidentally affected is judged. But it cannot be said that this exclusion rises to the level of a constitutional violation. Four judges have now examined the Exhibit and determined that it amply supports the determination of legality originally made by the USFISC judge and that the minimization procedures approved in the original order have been followed. Those four judges have also specifically found that appellants' participation is not necessary to a determination of the legality of the surveillance.A claim that disclosure and an adversary hearing are constitutionally required goes directly contrary to all pre-FISA precedent on point. In this circuit and in others, it has constantly been held that the legality of electronic, foreign intelligence surveillance may, even should, be determined on an in camera, ex parte basis. In U.S. v. Lemonakis, 35 this court stressed that [i]n a field as delicate and sensitive as foreign intelligence gathering, as opposed to domestic, criminal surveillance, there is every reason why the court should proceed in camera and without disclosure to determine the legality of a surveillance. 27 It is not in the national interest for revelation of either the existence or the product of the former to extend beyond the narrowest limits compatible with the assurance that no injustice is done to the criminal defendant accidentally and peripherally touched .... 36 28 The point was made again en banc in Zweibon v. Mitchell. 37 Other circuits have uniformly adopted the same view. 38 29 The fact that these cases are pre-FISA does not impair their precedential value. If anything, the legality inquiry mandated by FISA is easier for a court to perform ex parte than the pre-FISA inquiry into the legality of warrantless electronic surveillance. Previously, courts had to determine whether the surveillance fell within the President's inherent power to conduct electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. The FISA inquiry at issue here is merely to determine whether the application and order comply with the statutory requirements. In this case it is evident that they do. Furthermore, as noted, FISA incorporates nonjudicial safeguards to ensure the legality of the surveillance. No further judicial procedures are necessary for an accurate determination. No further judicial procedures are necessary adequately to safeguard appellants' rights. 30 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 31 Affirmed.