BR 14-01 Opinion and Order (FISC 2014)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on January 22, 2014.
Download PDF
TOP SECRET//51//NOFORN UNJTED STATES FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT WASHINGTON, D.C. Undef fu!fil IN l{E APPLICATION OF THE FEDERAL BUHEAU OF JNVESTJGATION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF TANGIBLE THINGS Docket No. BR 14-01 OPINION AND ORDER On January 22, 2014, filed n Petition pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1861(f)(2)(A) and Rule 33 of the Foreign JntcJJigcnce Survernance Court (uFJSC" or "the Court") Rules of Procedure "to vacate, modify, or reaffirm" a production order issued anuary 3, 2014 (''Petition"). Aflcr conducting t11e initial rcvie'"' required by Section 1861(f)(2)(A)(ii) and FISC RuJe 39, the Court detel'mined that the Petition is not frivolous and issued a Scheduling Order pursuant to FISC Rule 39(c) on January 23, 2014. Pursuant to lhe Scheduling Order, the United States filed its Response to the Petition on February 12.1 2014 (''Response 0 ). The Petition is now ripe !ot review. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes TOP SECllE'Il',lSlJJNOJtOHN TOP SECRtiTJ/SJ/!NOPORN lhat the Petition provides no basis for vacating or modifying the production ol'der. Accordingly, that order is affinraed and remains in full force and effect until it expires by its own terms on March 28, 2014. J. BACKGROUND On January 3" 2014, this Court issued a Primary Order approving the Government's application pursuant to Section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, codified al 50 U.S.C. § 1861, as amended ("F.ISA"), for orders requiring the production to the National Security Agency ("NSA"), in bulk and on an ongoing basis, of non-content call detail records or "telephony metadata" created by "January 3 Primary OrderJ'). certain telecommunications carrier~ Jan. 3 Primary Order at 3. 1 served with one of the resulting production 01·ders on the snme date and has complied with the order, as it 11as with previous orders requiring the bulk production of telephony metadata. ~Pet. Jan. 3, 2014 "Secondary Order'' issued at 2; id. Exh. 1 (copy of The Primary 0l'dcr and Secondary Order expire on March 28, 2014, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. See Jan. 3 P1imary Order at18; Pct. Exh. 1 (Secondary Order) at 4. FISA permits the recipient of a production order issued undcl' Section 1861 to 1 The January 3 Primary Order is available in redacted form at http://www/uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/br14-0l-primary-order.pdf. TOP 81:SCllETOSl//~OI;OR"J Page 2 TOP SeCR~T#Sl//~lOPORN "challenge the legality of that order by filing a pctition with this Court. 50 U.S.C. § 11 186l(f)(2)(A)(i); see also FISC Rule 33(a).2 It further provides that "[a] judge considering a petition lo modHy or set aside a production order may grant such petition only if the judge finds that such order does not meet the requirements of this section or is otherwise unlawful." 50 U .S.C. § 1861 (f)(2)(B). If the judge docs not modify 01· set aside the production order, the judge must "immediatcJy affirm such order, and order the recipient to comply therewith." k:L; see also FISC Rule 41(b). The judge must also pl'Ovide a "written statement ... of the reasons" for modifying, setting aside, or affhming the produclion order. 50U.S.C.§1861{£)(2)(a)(iii); FISC Rule 41(a). Klayman v. Jn its Petition Obama. Civil Action No. 13-0851 (RJL) (D.D.C. June 6, 2013), a suit in which the plaintiffs assert, among other things, that a production order issued lo Verizon by this Court in Docket No. BR 13-80, is 2 Such a petition must be filed 11 under seal." 50 U.S.C. § 1861(£)(5). After it is filed, the petition must "immediately" be assigned to one of the three FISC judges who reside within 20 miles of the District of Columbin. 50 U.S.C. § 1861 (f)(2)(A)(ii); see aJso ftlSC Ruic 38(a). \ Vilhin 72 hours, the assigned judge must conduct an initial review of lhe petition. 50 U.S.C. § 186l(f)(2)(A)(iii); sec also FISC Rule 39(a). If the assigned judge concludes that the petition is frivolous, he or she must ''immediately deny the petition and affirm the production order." 50 U.S.C. § 1R61 (f)(2)(A)(ii); see also FJSC Rule 39(b). If the assigned judge determines that the petition is not frivolous, the judge must "promptly consider the petition." 50 U.S.C. § 1861 (f)(2)(A)(ii); see also FISC Rule 39(c). 1 TOI' s1~c1u;;T//Slt/NOFORN Pagc3 TOP SECRlIT//61//NOFORN unconstitutional. See Pet. at 2. On December 16, 2013, Judge Richard J. Leon issued a Memorandum Opinion in Klayman, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 2 to the Petition, holding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim that the bulk collection of call detail records authorized by the production order issued to Verizon in FJSC Docket No. BR 13-80 is "an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment." ~kb (citing Klayman v. Ohama. 957 F. Supp. 2d 1, 41 (D.D.C. 2013)). Judge Leon ordered that the Government cease collection of /1 any telephony mctadata associated with {the plaintiffs'] personal Verizon accounts" and destroy any such metadata in its possession, but he stayed the order pending appeal. ~.UL (citing Klayman. 957 F. Supp. 2d at 43). the Petition ''arises entirely from Judge Leon's Memorandum fOpinionj/' and, specifically, his conclusion Hrnt Supreme· Court's decision in Sffdth v. Mar}rland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979), is "jnapplicable to the specific activities mandated by the [Section] 1861 order at issue in the Klayman litigation.'' llL at 3-4. 'nits Petition th(lt this Court may have "considered and rejected" Judge Leon's analysis in issuing the January 3, 2014 production order, but that the Secondary Onie Judge Leon's decision and tha docs not refer to not been provided with the Court's TOP 6ECRETN81//NOFOUN Pagc4 TOP SECRET/lSI//NOFOUN underlying legal anaJysis." kL at 4. asks this Court to "vacate, modify, or reaffirm the current production order in light of the Memorandum Opinion issued in Klayman." ld.3 it is complying with the production order and "will continue to comply fully \·vi th that order unless otherwise directed by the Court." ~ The Government asserts in its Response that [t]hc Primary Order in the above-captioned docket number makes dear that the Court, in entertaining and ultimately ruling upon the Government's application, carefully considered not only the opinions entered by Judges Eagan and McLaughlin of this Court in docket numbers BH 13-109 and BR 13~158, respectively,[''I and the decision issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in American Civil Liberties Union v. Clapper, [959] F. Supp. 2d [724j . , . (Dec. 27, 2013), but (llso [Judge Leon's Memorandum Opinion in Klayman]. 3 Prior to t'he filing of 'no holder of records who ha[dJ received an Order to produce bu Ik telephony metadata'' or any other tangible things pursuant to Section 1861 "ha( d] challenged the legality of such an Order." In J~e Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Thing§, Docket No. BR 13-109, 2013 WL 5741573, at *S (F.ISA Ct. Aug. 29, 2013) (herein~fter 11 Aug. 29, 2013 Amended Op."). " ~Aug. 29, 2013 Amended Op., 2013 WL 5741573 (Eagan, J.); In He Application of the FBI for nn Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things. Docket No. BR 13-158, ·Memorandum (FISA Ct. Oct. 11, 2013) (McLaughlin, J.), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscou rts/courts/fisc/br13-l 58~mcmo- 131018.pdf (hcrcinaf tcr "Oct. 11, 201.3 Mem.''). TOP 8ECRET/JSl//NOFOUN Page 5 TOP 6ECRET/l61//:N'OPORN J{esponse at 3 (citing Jan. 3 Primary Order at 2 n.1).5 In light of that statement, the Government asserts that "it is appropriate for the Court to affirm its January 3, 2014 Secondary Order and to order coirtpliancc with that production order." Td. ANALYSIS JI. 10t contest that the production order at issue here is consistent with the l'equirements of Section 1861. See Petition at 2-4. The only question raised in the Petition is whether the production order is unlawful under the Fourth Amendment in light of Judge Leon's December 16 opinion in Klayman. ~ id. at ,1. 1l is true, as the Government observes in Hs Response, that the Comt stated in the January 3 Primary Order that it had carcfuJly considered Judge Leon's opinion in KJayman before issuing the requested production orders. See Jan. 3 Primary Order at 2 n.1. Nevertheless, las fiJed a Petition under Section 1861 (f), the undersigned Judge must consider U1e issue anew. A. Standjng. Before turning to the Fourth Amendment issue raised the Court must first address the question of standing. In chalJenging the production order, 5 The Government apparen until J did not share the Primary Order w i t h had filed its Petition. ~Pet. at 4. TOI.. SECJtJi;T/fSI#NOFORN Pagc6 TOP 8ECRET/,lSI//NO;FORN 10t its own Fourth Amendment rights, but those of its customers. See Pct. at 3-4. Litigants ordinarily cannot assert the rights of third parties in an Article III court. ~Jn Re Directives Pursuant to Section 1058 of l~ISA. 551 F.3d 1004, 1.008 (PISA Ct. Rev. 2008) (citing Hinck v. United Sates. 550 U.S. 501, 510 n.3 (2007), and Warth v. Seldin. 422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975)). But, as the Foreign Intelligence SurveilJancc Court of Review cxplain~d in addressing D simiJar challenge brought under a similar but nm·v expired provision of FISA, "that prudential limitation may in particular cases be relaxed by congressional action." kL (citing Warth, 422 U.S. at 50:1 ).6 "Thus, if Congress, either exprc$sfy or by fair implication, cedes to a party the right to bring suit based on the legal rights or interests of others, that party has standing to stte; provided, however, that constitutionnl standing requirements arc satisfied." g,h (citing Warth. 422 U.S. at 500-01). To have standing under Article III of the Constitution, "the suitor must plausibly 6 In In Re Directives. the Court of Review concluded that a service provider that had received a "directive" pursuant to the Protect America Act ("PAA")- a nowexpircd provision of FISA that was codified at 50 U.S.C. § 1805a-c- had standing to assert the Fourth Amendment rights of its cuslomel's in a petition filed '\Nith the FISC. 551 F.3d at 1008-09. The PAA authorized the Executive Branch to direct communications service providers to assist it in acquisitions targeting persons located outside the United States. Jd. at 1006. It also provided that the recipient of a directive "'may challenge the legality of that directive in a petition to the FJSC. kL (quoting now-expired 50 U.S.C. § J805b(h)(l)(A)). 111 'fO p s1·;cm~T//8l!/NOFOUN Page 7 TOP SECRET/}SI//NOFOitN allege that it has suffered an .injury, which was caused by the defendant, and the effects of which can be addressed by the suit." Id. (citing Warth, 422 U.S. at 498-99). The Court is satisfied has Article Ill standing here. 1.ikc 'faces an injury in the nature of t·hc burden that it must shoulder" to provide the Government with call detail records. Id. That injury is "obviously (lnd indisputably caused by the JG]ovemmcnt" through the challenged Secondary Order, and this Court is capable of redressing the injury hy vttcating or modifying the order. ~id. The Court is also satisfied that Congress ha s the recipient of a Section 1861 production order, the right to bring Cl chaJlcnge in this Court to enfotce the rights of its customers. As noted above, FISA 8tatcs that the recipient of a Section 1861 production order "may challenge the legality of that order by filing a petition" with the FJSC. 50 U.S.C. § 1861(f}(2)(A)(i). As with the similar provision at issue .in In Re Dfrectiycs. Sedion 1861(f) "does nothing to circumscribe the types of claims oi illegality that can be brought:'' ln Re Directives, 551 F.3d at 1009 (discussing nowexpired 50 U.S.C. § 1805b(h)(1)(A)), the PAA provision. described nbove in note 6). Indeed, it provides that this Court may modify or set aside a production ol'der "if the judge finds that such order docs not meet the requirements of this section or is TOP S:l&CUETJ,lSINNU~OllN Page 8 TOP 5ECUETNSI//NOFORN otherwise unlawful." thus suggesting that Congress intended to permit the recipients of production orders to bring a range of challenges. 50 U.S.C. § 186l(f)(2)(B) (emphnsis added). The Court therefore concludes that Section 1861.(f) "grants an aggrieved service provider a 1·ighl of action and extends that right to encompass claims brought by it on the basis of [its] customers' rights." Jn Re Directives. 551 F.3d at 1009 (reaching the same conclusion regarding the similar language of the PAA). B. The Fourth Amendment. Turning now to the merits of the Fourth Amendment issue, this Court finds Judge Leon's analysis in Klayman to be unpersuasive and concludes that it provides no basis for vacating or modifying the Secondary Order issue~anuary 3, 2014. The Fourth Amendment provides that: 111e right of the people to be secure in thefr persons, houses., papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no \!\,Tarrants shalJ issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, nnd particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized. U.S. Const., Amend. IV. For purposes of the Fourth Amendment, a "'search" occurs when the Government violates a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, see Srnith, 442 U.S. at 740 (citing cases), or when the Govemmt'nt physicaJJy intrudes on a protected area for the purpose of acquiring information, United States v. Jones, 132 S. TOP SRC.HET/JSl/,LNOFOUN Page 9 TOP SECRETl/Bl//NOFORN Ct. 945, 951 (2012). 1. Smitlr v ..Mm·i1tand and its Progeny. In Smith, investigators acting without a warrant caused the telephone company to install a pen register at its offices to record the numbers dialed on the home phone of Smith, who was suspected of robbing and then harassing a woman through anonymous phone calls. Smith. 442 U.S. at 737. The pen register confirmed that the calls had originated from Smith's phone. ~ The dialing information was used to obtain a '-\'arrant to search Smith's home, and he was later convicted. Id. at 737-38. The Supreme Court rejected Smith's claim that the use of the pen register violated the Fourth Amendment, holding that it was not a search. kt at 745..46. The Court explained that: [w]hen he used his phone, {Smith] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [Smith] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed. Id. at 744. The Court observed that it "consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. !di at 743-44 (citing other cases applying the same third-party disclosure 11 principle). Other courts have relied on Smith in concluding that the Fourth TOP SECRETNSl/JNOFORN Page 10 TOP 6ECRET,t/6IJ/NOFOllN Amendment does not apply to "trap and trace" devices, which £unction like pen registers but record the originating numbers of incoming cal1s, or to information such as the date, time, and duration of calls. See, e.g., United States v. Reed. 575 F.3d. 900, 914 (9th Cir. 2009); United Sates Telecom Ass'n v. FCC, 227 F.3d 450, 454, 459 (D.C. Cir. 2000); United States v. Hallmark, 911. f.2d 399, 402 (10th Cir. 1990). produces to NSA as part of the telephony mctadata The information program is indistinguishable in nature from the information at issue in Smith and its progeny. It includes dialed and incoming telephone numbers and other numbers pertaining to the placing or routing of calls, as well as the date, time, and duration of calls. Sec Pct. Exh. l (Secondary Order) <it 2.7 It do~s llQJ include the "contents" of any commwiications ns defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2510; the nan'le, address,, or financial -- jnformation of anv~ subscriber or customer; or cell site location information. See id. Accordingly1 lwo judges of this Court (in addition to the judge who issued the January 3 Primary Order in this docket) and two federal district courts have recently concluded 7 The Secondary Order states that "[t]elephony metadata includes comprehensive communications routing information1 jncluding but not limited to session identifying information (e.g., originating and terminating telephone numbct·, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMS!) number, International Mobile station Equipment ldenti~y (IMEI) number, etc.), ttunk identifier, telephone calling cilrd numbers, and time and duration of caJ1." Pet. Exh. 1 (Secondary Order) at 2 (HaHcs jn original). TOP 81~Cl~ETl/Sll/NOFORN Page J l TOP SBCRET/181//NOFORN that ,Smilh is controlling with respect to the bulk telephony meladata produced to NSA. ~Clapper. 959 F. Supp. 2d at 749-52 (Pauley, J.)i United States v. Moalin. Case No. 10cr4246 JM, 2013 WL 60795'18, at *7-*8 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (.Miller, ].)i Oct. 11, 2013 Mem. at 4-5 (McLaughlin, J.); Aug. 29, 2013 Amended Op., 2013 WL5741573, at*2-*3 (Eagan, J.). 2. Judge Leo11 s Analysis in Klaw1111n.. 1 Judge Leon acknowledged in Klayman that "what metadata is has not changed over time. As in Smith, the types of information at issue [here] are relaHvely limited: phone numbers dialed, date, time, and the like." 957 F. Supp. 2d at 35 (italics in origina1). He nevertheless declined to follow Smith, providing four reaso11s why, in his view., the NSA telephony metadata program "is so different from a simple pen register that Smith is of little value in assessing whether [it] constitutes a Fourth Amendment search/' Idt at 32. First, Judge Leon asserted that the pen register in Smith lasted only thirteen days, with no indication from the Supreme Court "that it expected the Government to 1·etain those limited phone records once the case was over." Id. The NSA prog1·am1 on the other hand., 1'involves the creation and maintenance of a historical database containing/ive years' worth of data/' and might "go on for as Jong as America is combating terrorism, which realistically could be forever!" Id. (italics and TOP SECRE'fi/SIHNOFOl~I Page 12 TOP 68CRBTNSl//NOPORN exclamation point in original). Second, Judge Leon asserted, "the relatio11ship between the police and the phone company in Smith is nolhing compared to the relationship that has apparently evolved over the last seven years beh\1een the Government and the telecon1 companies." Id. (Ha lies in original). 'J'he pen register in Smith involved the phone company's response to a "one time, targeted request for data regarding an individual," whereas the NSA program involves the daily production of metadata, in bulk. Id. at 33. While people might expect phone companies to JI occasionally provide information to law enforcement," Judge Leon expressed doubt that "citi~ens expect a.11 phone companies to conduct what is effectively a joint intelligence-gathering operation with the Govemment."' Ms Third, Judge Leon asserted, "the a1most. Orwe1Iian technology" that enables the Government to store and analyze phone metadata following its acquisition is "unUke anything that could have been conceived in 1979." Id. According to Judge Leon, the Government uses the "most advanced nvenly-first century tools, allowing it to 'store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future/" and to do so cheaply and surreptitiously, thus evading the /11 ordinary checks that constrain. abusive law enforcement practices: limited police ... resources and community TOP SECRIBT//81/INOFOR.1\l Page 13 TOP SECRET/i6IJ/NOFORN hostility/" Id. (quoting !ones. 132 S. Ct. at 956 (Sotomayor, J., concurring)). Fourth, and "most importantly,," according to Judge Leon/the nahtrc and quantity of the information contained in people's telephony metadata [today] is much greater" than it was at the time of Smllh. kL at 34 (italics in original). Because more people use phones (and, in particular, cellular telephones) and use them more frequently now than in 1979, Judge Leon asse1ted that the "the metadata fro1n each person's phone 'reflects a wealth of detail about her familial, political, p1·ofessionaJ, religious, and sexual associations,'" that "could not have been gleaned from a data collection in 1979." !di at 36 ((1uoting ~ 132 S. Ct. at 955 (Sotomayo1~ J., concmring)). "Records that once would.have revealed a few scattered tiles of information about a person now reveal an entire mosaic-a vibrant and constantly updating picture of the person's Jife." ld. (citing United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544, 562-63 (D.C. Cir. 2010), aff'd sub nom United States v. Tones. 132 S. Ct. 945 (2012)). 3. Smith Remains Controlling Notwithslanding Klaw11an. This Court respectfully disagrees with Judge Leon's reasons for deviating from Smith. To begin with, Judge Leon. focused largely on what happens (and ,.vhat could happen) to t'he telephony metadata after it has been acquired by NSA - e.g., how long the metadata could be retained and how the Government could analyze it using TOI) 8ElCRETN81//NOJroR.N Page 14 TOP SECRBTNSl//NOFORN sophisticated technology. Smith and the Supreme Court's other decisions applying the third-party disclosure pdnciple make clear that this focus is misplaced in assessing whether the production of telephony metadata constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Smith reaffirmed that the third-party disclosure principle-i.e., the rule that "a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties," Smith. 442 U.S. at 743-44 (citing cases)- applies regardless of the disclosing person's assumptions or expectations wUh respect to what will be done with the information following its disclosure. ·n1e Supreme Court emphasized: "This Court has held repeatedly that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it wilJ be used only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed." Smith. 442 U.S. at 744 (quoting United States v. MHler, 425 U.S. 435, 443 (1976)) (emphasis added). Because the disclosing person assumes the risk of further disclosure by the third party, the Court exp1ained it is "'unreasonable" for him uto expect his * •• records to remain private."' Jd. The Supreme Court's other thfrd-party disclosure cases are also dear and consistent on this point. ~Miller. 425 U.S. at 443 (citing United States v. White. 401 U.S. 745, 752 (1971); Hoffa v. United States. 385 U.S. 293, 302 (1966); TOP 8ECRET!.'81NNOFOR.~ Page 15 TOP SBCRET/lSil/NOFORN Lopez v. United States. 373 U.S. 427 (1963)); see also S.E.C. v. Jerry T. O'Brien. Inc,, 467 U.S. 735, 743 (1984) ("It is established that, when a person communicates information to a third party even on the understanding that the communication is confidential, he cannot object if the third party conveys that information or records thereof to law enforcement authorities.") (emphasis added).8 Applying this rationale, the Supreme Court rejected Smith's contention that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the dialing information for the incliminating phone calls because they were local calls for which the phone company would not have recorded such .information in the ordinary course of business: The fortuity of whether o.r not the phone company in fact elects to make a quasi-permanent record of a particular number dialed does not in our view, make any constitutional difference. Regardless of the phone company's election, petitioner voluntarily conveyed to it information that it had the facilities for recording and that it was free to record. In these circumstances, petitioner assumed the l'isk that the information would he Bond v. United States. 529 U.S. 334 (2000), cited by Judge Leon, see 957F. Supp. 2d at 33 n.47, did not involve the disclosure of information to a third party and does not support a different approach here. In Bond. the Supreme Court held that a Jaw enforcement agent conducted a search of a bus passenger's carry-on bag by squeezing it in an effort to determine what was inside. kL at 338-39. The Court explained that while a bus passenger might expect others to touch or move a carry-on bag he places in the overhead compartment, he does not reasonably expect that others "will feel the bag in an exploratory manner." Id. Unlike the passengel' in Bond, who ''sought to preserve privacy by ·using an opaque bag and placing that bag directly above his seat," id. at 338, a telephone usel' who is making a call fully divulges to the phone company the numbers he dials. 8 TOP SECRWF//-81.'/NOFORN Page 16 TOP SBCRBT!l-Sl#NOFORN divulged to police. Smith. 442 U.S. at 745. If a person ·who voluntarily discloses information can have no reasonable expectation concerning limits on how the recipient will use or handle the information, it necessarily follows that he or she also con harbor no such expectation with respect to how the Govermnent wilJ use or handle the information after it has been divulged by the recipient. Smith itseJf makes clear that once a person has voluntarily conveyed dialing information to the telephone company, he forfeits his right to privacy in the information, regardless of how it might be later used by the recipient or the Government. See liL AccordinglyJ Judge Leon's concerns regarding NSA' s retention and analysis of the caH detail records are irreleva1:1t in determining whethet a Fourth Amendment search has occuned. For the smne reason, Judge Leon's assertions regarding citizens' expectations with respect to the "relationship ... between the Government and the telecom companies,"~ Klayman. 957 F. Supp. 2d at 32-33, also provide no basis for departing from Smith. Under Smit11, MiJler. and the other third-party disclosure cases cited above, any such expectations or assumptions on the part of telephone users who have disclosed their dialing information to the phone company have no bearing on the TOP SECRETN8YA\10I?OHN Page 17 TOP SBCRBT/JSI//NOFOUN question whether a search has occurred. See Smith, 442 U.S. at 744.9 Judge Leon's assertions regarding the nahtre and quantity of telephony metadata acquired by NSA likewise foil to justify deviating from the dear holding of Smj th. Judge Leon acknowledged that the types of information acquired by NSA in the telephony metadata program are "'limited" to "phone numbers dialed, date, time, and the like." 957 F. Supp. 2d at 35. He nevertheless stressed that phones today, and, in particular, ceH phones, are not just telephones, but "multi-purpose devices'' that can be used to access Internet content., and as maps, music players, camerns, text messaging 9 The hvo decision8 cited by Judge Leon on this point are not to the contrary. See Klayman. 957 F. Supp. 2d at 33. U.S. Dep't of Iustice y. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989), is not a Fourth Amendment case at all. And Ferguson y. City of Charleston. 532 U.S. 67 (2001.), is distinguishable. There.. the Court addressed a program involving the nonconsensuaJ urine testing of pregnant women for illegal drugs by a state hospital, which shared positive results with police. See id. at70-73. The Court examined the relationship between the hospital and the police not in determining whether the udne tests constituted searches within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment (the Court stated that they "indisputably" did, .kL at 76), but .in assessing whether the purpose of the progran1 was law enforcement or something different. See id. at 82-85. At issue here is whether the NSA telephony metadata program involves a search in the first place. Furthermore, Judge Leon's suggestion that the NSA telephony metadata program, like the drug testing program in Ferguson. entails "the service provider['s] collect[ion of] information for law enforcement purposes," Klayman. 957 F. Supp. 2d. at 33, is incoi-rect. As he acknowledges earlier in his opinion, the information produced to NSA consists of "telephony metadata records ... which the companies create as part of their business of providing telecommunications services to customers." Id. at 15 {emphasis added). TOP SECRET/lS.l/fNOFOI~ Page 18 TOP SECRBT/JSl//NOFORN devices1 and even as "lighters for people to hold up at rock concerts."' M.t at 34. Judge Leon asserted that people today therefore have an "entirely different relationship" ·with their telephones than they did when Smith was decided. Id. at 36. But none of these additional functions generates any information that is being collected by NSA as part of the telephony metadata program, which as discussed above, involves only non-content records concerning the placing and routing of telephone calls. Accordingly, such changes are irrelevant here. 10 Judge Leon also repeatedly emphasized the total quantity of telephony metadata obtained and retained by NSA. 11 That focus is likewise misplaced under settled 30 Judge Leon also noted thal "telephony metadata" for cell phones also "'can reveal the user's location" but stated that "'[his] decision ... does not turn on whether the NSA has in fact collected that data as part of the bulk telephony metadata program" Id. at 36 n.57 (italics in original). The metadata produced in this matter does not include cell site 1ocation information or Global Positioning System ("GPS") data. See Jan. 3 Primary Order at 4; Pet. Exh. 1 (Secondary Order) at 2. 11 See Klayman. 957 F. Supp 2d. at 30 (articulating question presented as "whether plaintiffs have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is violated when the Government indiscriminately collects their metadata along with the metadata of hundreds of mi11ions of other citizens" without particularized suspicion) (emphasis added)i id. at 33 ("'The notion that the Government could collect similar data on hundreds of mi1Iions of people and retain that data for a five-year period, updating it with new data every day in perpetuity, was al' best-, in 1979, the stuff of science fiction.") (-emphasis added);~ at 33 n.48 ("The unpreceder1ted scope and technological sophistication of the NSA' s program distinguish it not only from t·he Smith pe11 register, but also from metadata collections performed as part of routine criminal (continued ...) TOP SECUETl/Sl/JNO:li!ORN Page 19 TOP SECRET//SI//NOFORN Supreme Court precedent. The Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that Fourth Amendment rights are "personal rights" that "may not be vicariously asserted." See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-34 (1978) (citing cases; citations and internal quotation marks omitted); accord Minnesota v. Carter. 525 U.S. 83, 88 (1998). Accordingly, the aggregate scope of the collection and the overall size of NSA' s database are immaterial in assessing whether any person's reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated such that a search under the Fourth Amendment has occurred. To the extent that the quantity of the metadata collected by NSA is relevant, it is relevant only on a user-byuser basis. The pertinent question is whether a particular user has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the telephony metadata associated with his or her own calls. For purposes of determining whether a search under the Fourth Amendment has occurred, it is irrelevant that other users' information is also being collected and that the aggregate amount acquired is very large. Cf. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. l, 13 (1973) (grand jury subpoena not "rendered unreasonable by the fact that many others were subjected to the same compulsion"). Properly viewed on a user-by-user basis, the NSA telephony metadata program continued) investigations.") (emphasis added); id. at 34 (citing statistics regarding the number of phones and cell phones in use today, as compared to 1979). 11 ( ••• TOP SECRET/ISl//NOFORN Page 20 TOP SECRBT/ISI//NOFORN is consistent with Supreme Court precedent, \·Vhich time and te.clmology have not affected. United States v. Miller, the principal precedent relied upon by the Court in Smith. was, notably, a case involving the compelled production of records of customer activities. TI1e Court held that a ban]:< customer had no legitimate expectation of privacy in three-and-a-half months worth of bank records acquired from two banks. Miller, 425 U.S. at 443. The records in question consisted of checks, deposit slips, monthly statements, and finandal statements and were turned over to police investigators pursuant to a grand Jury subpoena. Id. at 438. Invoking the same principle that would later be retied upon in Smith, the Court explained that the documents in question "contain[ed] only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in t·he ordinary course of business." Id. at 442. The Court further stated that "[t]he depositor takes the risk, in 1·evealing his affairs to another, that the infonnation will be conveyed by that person to the Govemment.11 ht at 433. It is far from clear to this Court that even years' worth of non-content call detail records \-vould reveal more of the details about a telephone user's personal life than. several months' worth of the same person's bank records. Indeed, bank records are likely to provide the Government directly with detailed information about a customer's personal life - e.g., the names of the persons withwhom t·he customer has ha.cl financial TOP 8ECRET//.Sl//NOFO.RN Page 21 TOP 6BCR8T/,£SI#NOPORN dealings, the sources of his income, the amounts of money he l1as spent and on what forms of goods and services, the charities and political organizations that he supports that call detail records simply do not, by themselves, provide. Mil~ which was decided in 1976, substantially undermines Judge Leon's conclusion that Smith does not apply to the NSA telephony metadata program because the metadata from each pe1·son's phone reveals so much about a person "that could not have been gleaned from a data collection in 1979," when Smith ·was decided. See Klayman. 957 F. Supp. 2d at 36. Many more personal details could immediately and directly be obtained from bank records such as those in the production approved by the Court in Mi11er without raising Fourth Amendment concerns. Moreover, it must be emphasized that the non-content telephony metadata at issue here is particularly limited in nature and subject to strict protections that do not apply to run·of-the-rnill productions of similar information in criminal investigations. The call detail records acquired by NSA do not include subscriber names or addresses or other identifying information. See Pct. Exh. 1 (Secondary Order) at 2. Rather, such jnformation can be determined by the Government for any particular piece of metadata only by resorting to other investigative resources or tools, such as grand jury subpoenas or national security Jette:rs. Furthermore, pursuant to thjs Court's Primary 01·der, the TOP SECRETNSJl~OJ!ORN Page 22 TOP SECRETl/SJ//NOFORN metadata can only be accessed for analytical purposes after NSA has established a i-casonable articulable suspicion ("I~AS") that the number to be used to query the data the "seed" - is associated with one of the terrorist groups listed in the Order. See Jan. 3 Primary Order at 6-9 & nn. 8-9. Each query is limited to metadata within two (formerly three) "hops" of the seed. See kL at 11-12; Feb. 5, 2014 Order Granting Government's Motton to Amend the Court's Primary Order Dated January 3, 2014 ("Feb. 5 Order'')., at 3-4, 9. 12 These protections further undercut Judge Leon's reliance on the perceived intrusiveness of the telephony metadata program as a basis for deviating from Smith. 13 12 The February 5 Order is available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/br-14-01-order.pdf. As originally issued by the Court, the January 3 Primary Order - like pt·edecessor ordcl's- required certain designated NSA officials to make the requisite 13 HAS determinations. See Jan. 3 Primary Order at 7. Also like predecessor orders,. the January 3 Primary Order permitted the query results to include the metadata for numbers within three "hops" of the querying seed. See kL at 10-11. The Court recently granted lhe Government's motion to amend the January 3 Primary Order to preclude NSA, except in the case of an emergency, from que1'Ying the repository of telephony metadata without first having obtained a determination by this Court that the RAS standatd is satisfied for each querying seed. See Feb. 5 Order at 3-4, 9. The Court also granted the Government's request to limit query results to metadata for numbers "\·\1ithin two "'hops'' of the querying seed. ~id. Whether the RAS determination requirement is applied with or without direct judicial involvement, it sharply restricts the Government's access to and use of the collected telephony metadal'a. The same is true of the restriction on the scope of query results_, whether the limit is tvm or three 11hops." Indeed, because these restrktions limit (continued ...) TOP SECRET/JSI//.NOFOR.~ Page 23 · TOP SECRET//-Sl!JNOFORN 4. United States v. lom~s Does Not Support a Differ·enl. Conclusion. The Supreme Court's more recent decision in~ provid.es no basis for departing from Smith with respect to the Government's acquisition of non-content telephony metadata. In Ion.es, law enforcement officers acting without a valid warrant surreptitiously attached a GPS device to the defendant's Jeep and used it to track his locaUon for 28 days. Jones. 132 S. Ct. at 948. The district court denied Jones' motion to suppress in large pal't, holding that the GPS evidence acquired while the vehicle was on public roads was admissible under United States v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276, 281 (1983) (use of radio beeper lo track defendant's car on public roads did not violate any reasonab1e expectation of privacy). See id. Following Jones' conviction, the comt of appeals reversed on this point, holding that the use of the GPS device over 28 days was a search under the Fourth Amendment. Maynard. 615 F.3d at 558. ln doing so, the court of appeals concluded that Knotts was not controlling and adopted a novel mode of analysis. See id. at 556-66. Hather than assessing the likelihood that Jones' discrete movements over the 28 days had 13 ( ••• continued) NSA to looking fo1· information on specific terrorist groups and not other persons, the vast majority of the metadata acquired by NSA is never reviewed by any person. See In Re.Application of the FBI for an Order Requiring the Production of Tangible Things, 2013 WL 5741573, at *8 n.23. TOI> SECRET/,J.Sl//NOFOllN Page 24 TOP SBCRBT/JSI//NOFORN individually been exposed to the public, the court of appeals - applying a "mosaic" analysis similar to the one later used by Judge Leon in Klayman- considered whether his movemertts, viewed in the aggregate, were so exposed. See kb at 562. Because it was extremely unlikely that any single member of the public would actually observe the collective whole of Jones' movements over the course of the GPS tracking, the court of appeals concluded that Jones had a reasonable expectation of privacy that had been vio~ated by the tracking. See id. at 560 ("[T]he whole of a person's movements over the course of a month is not actually exposed to the public because the Hkelihood a stranger would observe all those movements is not just remote, it is essentially nil."). The court of appeals denied the Government's petition for rehearing en~ with four judges dissenting. See Uni.ted States v. Tones. 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010). 111e Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals, but on different grounds. The Court held in Justice Scalia's majority opinion that the officers' conduct constituted a search under the Fourth Amendment because the information at issue was obtained by means of a physical intrusion on the defendant's vehicle, a constih1tionally-protected area. Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 949, 953. The Court declined to address the question whether u.se of the GPS device., without the physical intrusion, impinged upon a reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefoxc did not pass on the court of appeals' novel TOP SECRET/JSl//NOFORN Page 25 TOP SECRBT/}61//NOPORN "mosaic" analysis of that question. kL. at 953-54. The Court cited Smith, but only in passing. See kh at 950. The Court's opinion does not support Judge Leon's conclusion that a modern telephone user has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the metadata relating to his calls, which is disclosed to the telephone company for the purpose of completing calls, or that the larger number of calls made in today's world undermines Smith's holding. Judge Leon relied instead on the two concurring opinions in Jones. To be sure, those opinions express the view that the p1~ecise, pervasive monitoring by the Government of a person's location might trigger Fourth Amendment protection even without any physical intrusion. See Tones, 132 S. Ct. at 955-56 (Sotomayor, J., concurring); id. at 962-64 (AJito, J., concurring in the judgment). They also signal that five Justices of the Court may be ready to endorse a new mode of analysis similar to the "mosaic" theory adopted by the court of appeals in Maynard. See id. But the concurring opinions in~ nevertheless fail to support deviation from Smith in connection with the NSA telephony metadata program. Of course, the majority opinion in Jones is controlling, and, as discussed above, that opinion does not even reach the reasonable-expectation-of-privacy issue. Moreover, although the two concurring opinions address privacy, they suggest distinct TOP 8ECRl~TNSl//:NOl?OltN Page26 TOP SBCRBTl/81//NOPORN analytical approaches and thus can hardly be read as having adopted a single, coherent principle 01· methodology for lower courts to apply. Justice Sotomayor' s approach - on which Judge Leon appears to have modeled much of his analysis in I< layman. 957 F·. Supp. 2d at 36 - looked to "whether police conduct collected so much information that it enabled police to learn about a person's private affairs 'more or less at will."' Orin S. Ken, "The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment," 111 Mich. L. Rev. 311, 328 (Dec. 2012) (quoting Jones. 132 S. Ct. at 955-56 (Sotomayor., J., concurring)). Justice Alito' s opinion, in which .three other justices joined, focused instead on "whether the investigation exceeded society's expectations for how the poHce would investigate a patticular crime." .kL (citing 132 S. Ct. at 964 (Alito, J., concurl'ing in the judgment)).14 These distinct approaches to the expectation-of~privacy question undercut Judge Leon's suggestion that the five concurring Justices in Jones can be viewed as a~ facto majority on the issue. ~Klayman. 957 F. Supp. 2d at 31 (stating that "five justices found that law enforcement's use of a GPS device to track a vehicle's movements for nearly a month violated Jones's reasonable expectation of pl'ivacy"). Furthermore, Justice Ali to' s opinion, in which three other Justices joined, does Notably, each of these approaches also differs from the court of appeals' methodology, which, as discussed above, focused on whether Jones' movements over nearly a month would have been observed by a single member of the public. See Maynard. 615 F.3d at 560. 14 TOP SECRE'f//SI/JNOFORN Page 27 TOP SECRETNSl/JNOPO~'f\.J not mention Smith at all. See~ 132 S. Ct. at 957-64 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment). And although Justice Sotomayor stated in her concurring opinion that "it may be necessa1y to reconsider"' the third-party disclosure prindple applied in Smith and Miller. which she described as ill suited to the digital age," she expressly stated 11 that it was unnecessary for the Court to undertake such a reexamination in~. See id. at 957 (Sotomayor, J., concurring) (""Resolution of these difficult questions in this case is unnecessary ... because the Government's physical intrusion on Jones' Jeep supplies a narrower basis for dedsion."). 15 15 Both the opinion of the Supreme Court in~ and Justice Sotomayor's concurring opinion mention a brief passage in Knotts reserving the question whether t·he tracking of a person's location might become so pervasive or abusive as to requfre a different approach. See~ 132 S. Ct. at 952n.6i id. at 956 n.* (Sotomayor, J., concurring). The respondent in Knotts had argued that "the result of a ruling for the Government will be that 'twenty-four hour surveillance of any citizen of this country will be possible without judicial knowledge or supervision."' Knotts. 460 U.S. at 283 (quoting Brief for Respondent). In response, the Supreme Court asserted that "the 'reality hardly suggests abuse,"' and that "if such dragnet-type .law enforcement practices as respondent envisions should eventually occm·., there will be time enough then to determine whether different constitutional principles may be applicable." Id. (quoting Zurcher v. Stanford Daily. 436 U.S. 547, 566 (1978)). Contrary to Judge Leon's conclusio.n, see Klayman. 957 F. Supp. 2d at31-32 & n.46, this passage from Knotts also fails to support his decision to depar'l' from Smith. Unlike Knotts (and Jones), this matter does not involve the electronic tracking of location at all, much less the sort of "twenty-four hour" tracking envisioned by the respondent in Knotts. Instead, this case, like Smith. involves the production of call detail records created by the phone company based .on data submitted to it by callers. (continued ...) TOP SECRISTNSI/JNOFOUN Page 28 TOP 6ECRBT/,lSJl/NOFORN Smith directly applies to the call detail records produced as part of the NSA telephony mctadata program and remains binding even after Ion~. Judge Leon s 1 efforts to distinguish Smith are unpersuasive, and his analysis in Klayman is also difficult to reconcile with other Supreme Court decisions, such as Rakas and Carter. which1 as discussed above, hold that Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be vicariously asserted. The broader adoption of Judge Leon's approach would raise numerous difficult questions requiring the reexamination of a range of settled Fourth Amendment precedents. See Kerr, "The Mosaic Theory of the Fourth Amendment," 111 Mich. L. Rev. at 328-43; see also Jones. 132 S. Ct. at 954 (asserting that Justice Alito's expectation~of-privacy analysis would lead to "thorny probl.ems''). 16 Any such overhaul 15 ( ••• continued) . Smith. which is directly applicable to such information, docs not state or suggest that application of the third-party disclosure principle depends upon the quantity of dialing information disclosed by a caller or turned ovel' the Government. Indeed, any such statement or suggestion would be contrary to the logic of the decision - that by voluntarily disclosing dialing information to the phone company, a caller forfeits any legitimate expectation of privacy therein. Smith, 442 U.S. at 744 (citing MiBer. 425 U.S. at 442-44)). A Hueshold question is which standard should govern.; as .discussed above, the court of appeals' decision in Maynard and the h-vo concurrences in Tones suggest three different standards. See Kerr, "The lvfosaic Theory of lhe Fourth Amendment/' 111 Mich. L. Rev. at 329. Another question is how to group Government actions in assessing whether the aggregate conduct constitutes a search. See lli For example, ''[w]hich surveillance methods prompt a mosaic approach? Should courts group across 16 (continued ... ) TOP SECIUtT!/81.'ANOFOUN Page29 TOP 6];CRETll8I!/NO~OR~ of Fourth Amendment Jaw is for the Supn~me Court, rather that\ this Court, to initiate. While the concurring opinions in Ione8 ma}' signal that some or even most of the Justices are ready to revisit certain settled Fourth Amendment principles, the decision in ~itself breaks no new ground cc.mcerning the third-party disclosure doctrine generally or Smith specifically. 'fhe concurring opinions notwithstanding, Jones simply cannot be read as invit·jng the lower courts to rewrite Fourth Amendment Jaw in this area. This Court concludes that where the acquisition of non-content call detail records such as dialing information is concerned, Smith rcmllins controlling. 17 IIJ. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, asks this Court to modify or set aside the Secondary Order is~ucd to it on January 3, 2014, the Petition is denied. 16 ( ...continucd) survcifJance methods? 1f so, how?" Id. Sti11 another question is hmv to analyw the reasonableness of mosaic searches, which "do not fit an obvious doctrinal box for determining reasonableness." .l!1 Courts adopting a mosaic theory would also have to determine whether, and to what extent, the exclusionary rule applies: Does it extend over all of the mosaic or only the surveilJance that crossed the line to trigger a search?" Idt al 329-30. /1 Because this Court concludes that Smith i~ controlling and that the telephony metadata program involves no search under the Fourth Amendment, the Court need not address the question of reasonableness. See Klayman, 957 F. Supp. 2d at 37-42 (holding that plaintiffs a1·e likely to succeed in showing searches that Judge Leon concluded are effected by NSA telephony metadata program are unreasonable). 11 TOP SECRKfJ.1Sl/JNOFOR~ Page 30 TOP s:scnET/,!SINNOJiORN Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1861(f)(2)(B)., the Secondary Order is affirn1cd, directed lo continue to comply with the Secondary Order unti] it expires by its own terms. Since last summer, tht~ Government has declassified and made public subst~ntial details regarding the NSA telephony metadata program. Among other things, substantial portions of this Court's January 3 Primary Order and aII predecessor orders have been publicly released. In light of those disclosures and the ongoing public debate regarding this program, both the Governmcn ubmit memoranda (or a joint memorandum) stating their views with respect to whether this Court can or should unseal the Petition, the Government's Response, and this Opinion and Order, and whether appropriately redacted versions of these documents should be published pursuant to FJSC Rule 62(a). Such memoranda are to be submitted, under seal, no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 10, 2014. SO ORDERED, this 20th day of March, 2014. ~f!f!td1/l/!r- ]udge, United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court TOP SRCRET//SIJ~OFOl~~l Page 31
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
