Posted originally on the CTH on January 24, 2025 | Sundance

A few interested sites are noting a recently published decision in the U.S. v. Hasbajrami case in Brooklyn, New York, where Eastern District Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall identified the misuse of FISA-702 “backdoor searches” regarding defendant, Agron Hasbajrami.

Hasbajrami plead guilty to charges of attempting to provide material support to a terrorist organization, alleging that he intended to travel to the Federally Administered Tribal Area of Pakistan, where he expected to join a terrorist organization, receive training, and ultimately fight against U.S. forces and others in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, after his guilty plea, while he is serving time in prison, prosecutors admitted some of the evidence against him came as a result of privacy violations, unlawful FISA-702 searches.

Hasbajrami sought to have the evidence against him thrown out on 4th amendment grounds (fruit of the poisoned tree) and withdraw his guilty plea. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied Hasbarjami’s blanket evidence suppression motion for the exclusion of all FISA Section 702 collection in his case but did not weigh in on whether the warrantless Section 702 database queries were constitutional, instead remanding the case back to Judge Hall for a review of that question.

Judge DeArchy Hall received the case again and reviewed all of the government motions against the request to suppress the evidence.  What results is a very well-constructed explanation and opinion of how FISA-702 was misused in the case [SEE 60-pg Opinion HERE].

The judge determined that U.S. government officials did factually violate the technical rules and procedures for the use of FISA-702 searches, and the DOJ should have gone to court to obtain a warrant to look at Hasbajrami’s private communication. In essence, yes, the 4th amendment protections of Hasbajrami were violated.  However, the issue of overturning the resulting evidence becomes a matter of legal distinction.

The defendant, who admitted guilt (twice) did not claim the evidence was a result of misuse or a wrongful approach in searching the NSA’s library, from which FISA-702 search results are determined (a structural flaw in the defense motion).  The defendant filed a suppression motion on the issue of his 4th amendment rights being violated.  The judge opinion holds that the FBI’s Section 702 queries violated the Fourth Amendment; however, the court ultimately denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the resulting evidence on separate grounds.

The value in the ruling by Judge Hall, is a few fold:  First, it is an excellent review of the FISA-702 origin and all of the constitutional arguments that surround the controversial law.  Second, the ruling clearly shows that FISA-702 searches are currently being used unlawfully and continually by government officials.  Third, the ruling clearly shows how “backdoor” 702 searches are violations of the Fourth Amendment. [Albeit in this case, of no value to the argument put forth by Hasbajrami.]

[SEE CASE RULING HERE]

All this and a few bucks will buy you a cup of coffee.

The ruling essentially underpins the reality that government officials are using their access to the complete library within the NSA collection and storage database to conduct searches of U.S. communication that removes the constitutional protections of the 4th amendment.

Mr Agron Hasbajrami was ensnared by this surveillance process and admitted his guilt thereafter.

However, the issue is not Hasbajrami’s intent, or even his guilt.  The issue that surrounds us is this constant surveillance state and the tens-of-millions of searches that are done on the private papers of American citizens.

In essence we have a domestic surveillance state looking for suspect people who are operating against the interests of government.

Mr. Hasbajrami was caught wanting to join a terrorist organization.  However, as we have witnessed in the cold and brutal reality of the J6 roundup, that same “terrorist organization” may well be defined as your local “patriot group” or “parent’s advisory committee.”