CA10 explains nondomestic FISA surveillance in easy detail

For a detailed explanation of nondomestic FISA activities and phone call surveillance, see United States v. Muhtorov, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36170 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2021) (No warrant or court order is required to surveil foreign persons’ conversations outside the United States; 218 page opinion). Update: techdirt: Tenth Circuit Appeals Court Says Fourth And Sixth Amendment Rights Are Meaningless When National Security Is On The Line by Tim Cushing

In a 2255, the search was valid on the merits of consent, so the Strickland factors don’t have to be considered. Alonzo v. United States, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235017 (E.D.Tenn. Dec. 8, 2021).

Rule 41 does not require that an application for search warrant include references to venue. Still, venue has to be shown at some point with the issuing magistrate because magistrates have some jurisdictional limits. Here, venue was shown. United States v. Jumaev, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 36168 (10th Cir. Dec. 8, 2021).

This entry was posted in F.R.Crim.P. 41, FISA, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.