The FBI’s judicial search governed unconstitutional

A case that He began a decade ago with the arrest of a man in New York City at the John F. Kennedy airport for allegedly trying to join a Pakistani terrorist group has now given a setback to the government’s espionage powers.

In a decision that could feed an imminent fight on government surveillance, a federal court ruled last month that FBI agents violated the constitutional rights of man when they sought information in the databases of the National Security Agency on dozens of dozens of dozens of times without a court order.

The decision gives an impulse to the surveillance critics that have long asked the Congress to impose an order requirement on the “rear door” searches of the NSA data collected in section 702 of the Intelligence Surveillance Law Foreign, known as Fisa.

Donald Trump’s candidate to lead the FBI, Kash Patel, has requested an “important reform” of section 702. He faces a confirmation hearing on Thursday in which surveillance vendors in the Senate’s Intelligence Committee could About that position. The other Trump nominees, however, have aligned to support the law.

The parts of the New York City have not indicated whether they intend to appeal the ruling in the case against Agron Hasbajrami, who remains imprisoned. But if it is found, the decision could play a role in the congressive debate on the espionage law when it expires in April 2026.

“This is an important constitutional decision of one of the most abused provisions of FISA,” said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of the National Security Project of the American Union of Civil Liberties, which presented a friendly report on the court in the case. A statement. “As the court recognized, the unbridled digital searches of the FBI Americans are an immense invasion of privacy and cause the protections of the mother rock of the fourth amendment. Section 702 is very behind the reform of Congress, and this opinion shows why. “

Hasbajami was arrested in September 2011 while trying to fly from JFK to Istanbul, where prosecutors said he planned to fly to Pakistan to join a terrorist group.

His statement of guilt and sentence in January 2013 seemed to resolve the case, to the revelations of the NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, months later Fiscal forced to admit that they had not failed to reveal the use of surveillance apparently addressed to foreigners to build the case against him.

Prosecutors admitted that FBI agents in the case of Hasbajrami had tracked the NSA databases to present key information about it, without requesting a court order.

Hasbajami’s appeal from his guilt declaration offered a rare opportunity to set up a legal challenge to a spy regime that is often So it is secretly wrapped that it cannot be challenged in the Court, according to the precedent of the Supreme Court.

The judge of the United States District Court, Lashann Dearcy Hall, only ruled last month about the constitutionality of FBI searches. His decision was launched on Tuesday in very drafted form.

Hall concentrated on the process by which the national agencies for the application of the law, such as the FBI, can comb through foreign surveillance databases.

The Government argues that the FBI is free to seek information in the databases about Americans as long as it follows certain guidelines, and provided that surveillance originally addressed foreigners outside the United States, such surveillance often collects telephone calls, telephone calls, Electronic emails and text messages of text messages of text messages from US citizens or legal residents such as Hasbajrami communicate with foreigners.

Privacy defenders have long sustained that these “rear door” searches are a final race around the fourth amendment, which guarantees the right of Americans to be free from unreasonable privacy invasions. Hall said that in the case of Hasbajami, she agreed.

“While the communications of American people can be intercepted, by the way or inadvertently, it would be paradoxical to allow searches without a court order of the same information as section 702 is specifically designed to avoid compilation. To make such a practice, this practice would turn section 702 into precisely what the defendant has labeled it, a tool for the police to execute ‘rear door searches’ that the fourth amendment eludes, “Hall said.

Hall said that in an investigation that extended for months, there was no reason why the government could not have sought a court order. Even so, he refused to suppress the emails collected as part of the FBI investigation, discovering that FBI agents were acting in “good faith” based on their understanding of the law when they made their searches.

The mixed ruling is a blessing for the defenders of civil liberties, but does not help Hasbaajami, whose lawyers did not comment immediately if it will attract. They presented a letter in the Judicial Registry on Friday asking Hall to allow them to see parts of their written decision.

Andrew Crocker, a lawyer from Electronic Frontier Foundation, who joined the ACLU in the presentation in a brief in support of Hasbajami, said that the judge’s decision closely tracked the arguments that the defenders of surveillance have been doing for years. They have fought a battle of almost decades in Congress to force the police to obtain an arrest warrant before searching in the databases, reaching a vote of the victory last year.

The Surveillance Law will be in debate again in April 2026. Liberal critics of the law expect to join forces with the skeptics of the Maga Government to add the provision of court order, and Crocker said that he believes that the Court’s ruling will help.

“This would be the front and the center in any argument that Congress needs to impose an order requirement for these rear door searches. You have a federal court that says it, and that tends to be the kind of things that Congress takes note, ”he said.