Opinion ID: 4465383
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allegations and Initial Proceedings

Text: The conduct underlying Hasbajrami's prosecution occurred primarily between April and August, 2011. During that time, Hasbajrami communicated by e-mail with Individual #1, a non-American located abroad, who Hasbajrami believed was associated with a terrorist organization, In those e-mails, Hasbajrami discussed his interest in the group's terrorist operations, and Individual #1 instructed Hasbajrami how he could smuggle himself into Pakistan to join the organization. Individual #1 also detailed means by which Hasbajrami could send money to him and how Hasbajrami could contact him once he reached Pakistan. In discussing his plans to join Individual #1 in Pakistan, Hasbajrami also described his arrangements for traveling to Turkey, and his concern that his projected route from there to Pakistan might have been compromised. Following an investigation by the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Joint Terrorism Task Force, Hasbajrami was arrested as he was 9 about to board a flight to Istanbut Turkey. His luggage contained a tent, boots, and cold-weather gear. Upon arrest, Hasbajrami made certain inculpatory statements.
Hasbajrami was indicted on September 8, 20lt and charged with one count of providing material support to terrorist organizations. At the same time, and as required by statute, the government gave notice that it intend[ed] to offer into evidence, or otherwise use or disclose in any proceedings ... information obtained or derived from electronic surveillance and physical searches conducted pursuant to [FISAJ. 11 See Notice of Intent to Use Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Information, United States v. Hasbajrami, l:ll-cr-623 (E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 13, 2011), ECF No. 9. In discovery, Hasbajrarni was provided with evidence of his communications obtained pursuant to traditional FISA warrants,2 and he 2As detailed below, this opinion will use traditional FISA to describe FISA surveillance that was authorized by statute prior to the enactment of Section 702. The FISA Amendments Act will be referred to as the FAA, of which Section 702 is one part. 10 eventually pleaded guilty on April 12, 2012, to one count of providing material sup port to terrorists. He was sentenced to 180 months' imprisonment. B. Disclosure of Section 702 Surveillance, Withdrawal of Plea, and Motion to Suppress After Hasbajrami's initial plea and sentencing, and while Hasbajrami was serving his sentence, the government disclosed that it had coUected Hasbajrami' s communications under Section 702 of the FAA. 3 In a letter sent to Hasbajrami in February 2014, the government stated that based on a recent determination, it had concluded that the information obtained from FISA surveillance that the government had already disclosed was itself also derived from other collection pursuant to Title VII of FISA [i.e., Section 702] as to which you were aggrieved. App'x at 31. The government stated that certain evidence and information ... that the government intended to offer into evidence or otherwise use or disclose 3The government's provision of notice in this case was likely in response the Solicitor General's assertion, at oral argument before the Supreme Court in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013), that prosecutors would provide notice to defendants in cases where evidence was derived from Section 702 surveillance. See Charlie Savage, Door May Open Challenge to Secret Wiretaps, N.Y.Times (Oct. 17, 2013), at A3. While the government's policy prior to Clapper was not to provide notice of Section 702 surveillance, it began reviewing cases and providing supplemental notice in 2013. Id. 11 in proceedings in this case was derived from acquisition of foreign intelligence information conducted pursuant to the FAA. Id. In response to that disclosure, Hasbajrami sought leave to withdraw his plea. The district court granted that motion, finding that Hasbajrami had specifically asked [his counsel] about whether warrantless wiretaps had played a role in his case. After [counsel] informed him that such wiretaps were not part of the evidence, he was more willing to plead guilty. Thus, Hasbajrami seems to have been misled about a fact he considered important in deciding how to plead. App'x at 39. Furthermore, the government's misleading notice, according to the district court, prevented Hasbajrami from kno wing that he could challenge the evidence against him on the grounds that Section 702 was unconstitutional. The court concluded that, prior to the letter disclosing Section 702 surveillance, Hasbajrami was not sufficiently informed about the facts to have ''made an intelligent decision about whether to plead guilty[.] When the government provided FISA notice without FAA notice, Hasbajrami was misled about an important aspect of his case. App'x at 38. Accordingly, the court allowed him to withdraw the plea and reopened the case. 12 Hasbajrami then moved to suppress the fruits of all warrantless FAA surveillance, the motion that is at issue in this appeal. See Omnibus Motions at 8-9, United States v. Hasbajrami, 1:ll-cr-623 (E.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 26, 2014), ECF No. 92 (Suppression Motion). He described what he sought to suppress, the fruits of all warrantless FAA surveillance, as including: • all evidence and information derived as a result of Title VII warrantless FAA surveillance; • all evidence and information obtained or derived from Title I and Title III PISA collection ... [that was] itself also derived from other collection pursuant to Title VII of the FAA; • Hasbajrami's custodial statements; and • Any other evidence and information that the Government could not have obtained in this case through an independent source. Id. To properly understand the scope of Hasbajrami's motion, however, it is necessary to describe the statutory framework underpinning Section 702 surveillance and the way in which the program operates in practice. 13