Ford v. Peery, No. 18-15498 (9-28-20)(Fletcher w/Molloy; dissent by R. Nelson). The 9th grants a writ. In a first-degree murder case, the state prosecutor, in rebuttal closing, argued that the presumption of evidence no longer applies: the defendant had a fair trial, got to cross examine, and could present evidence. Defense counsel objected but was overruled by the court. In Darden v. Wainwright, 477 US 168 (1986), the Court held that such “over” statements amounted to prosecutorial misconduct in violation of due process. Applying the test of various factors established in Hein v. Sullivan, 601 F.3d 897 (9th Cir. 2010), the panel here concluded that the misstatement was prominent; the court failed to correct; and defense counsel did not invite such error nor could respond; the evidence itself was not overwhelming: it was circumstantial and problematic. Further, the jury had deadlocked.  So, the 9th found a due process violation. As for AEDPA, the panel held that it was an unreasonable application of Chapman and harmlessness. The state court had failed to even consider Darden.

Dissenting, R. Nelson accuses the panel of adopting broad supervisory power over the state court rather than the narrow legal standard of deference under AEDPA.

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/28/18-15498.pdf

Case o' The Week: Oh What Busts We Do Unweave, When Special Agents First Deceive - Ramirez, Ruses, and Deceit

“[A] private person has the right to expect that the government, when acting in its own name, will behave honorably. When a government agent presents himself to a private individual, and seeks that individual's cooperation based on his status as a government agent, the individual should be able to rely on the agent’s representations.”

  United States v. Stefan Ramirez, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 30635, *17-*18 (quoting SEC v. ESM Gov't Sec., Inc., 645 F.2d 310, 316 (5th Cir. 1981)), decision available here).

The Honorable Judge Kim Wardlaw

(Discussed in the context of a search challenge -- although sadly apropos in our current times as well. .  .)

Players: Important decision by Judge Wardlaw, joined by Chief Judge Thomas. Dissent by Judge Collins. Big win for ED Cal AFPD Peggy Sasso.

Facts: A child-porn investigation focused on an address where Ramirez, his mother, and others lived. Id. at *5. The FBI got a warrant to search the residence and Ramirez’s car if it was at the premises. Id. at *6.

  On the day of the search, Ramirez went to work by 6:00 a.m, but the Special Agents didn’t mosey over to the house until 9:20 a.m. Id. at *7.  FBI Agent Joshua Ratzlaff therefore decided to create a ruse, because he wanted to talk to Ramirez as part of the search. Id. at *6. SA Ratzlaff lied, said that the home had been burglarized, and insisted the police needed Ramirez to return home. Id. After roping Ramirez’s mother into this ruse, SA Ratzlaff eventually convinced Ramirez to come home. Id.

  After he returned to the house, Ramirez was interrogated by armed agents, confessed, and was charged with distribution of child porn. Id. at *8. The district court denied the motion to suppress, and Ramirez appealed after a conditional plea.

Issue(s): “The agents in this case obtained the legal authority to detain Ramirez for officer safety and brought his vehicle within the scope of their search warrant by falsely claiming to be police officers investigating a burglary at Ramirez's home. Whether the district court erred by denying Ramirez’s motion to suppress turns on whether the agents’ use of this ruse violated the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at *11.

Held: “[T]he agents had no authority to seize Ramirez or search his car when they arrived to execute the warrant, because neither was at the residence. The agents manufactured the authority to seize them by falsely claiming to be police officers responding to a burglary to lure Ramirez home. By luring Ramirez home, the agents’ successful deceit enabled them to obtain incriminating statements from Ramirez and evidence from his car and person. . . . . We hold that, under the particular facts of this case, the agents’ use of deceit to seize and search Ramirez violated the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at *4.

Of Note: Sun gonna rise, birds gonna sing, cops gonna lie. Ramirez is a thoughtful analysis of when cops can reasonably use deceit – and, importantly, when they cannot.

  Judge Wardlaw describes two categories of law enforcement deceit. Id. at *14. Deceit is generally lawful when a ruse hides the cop’s identity as law enforcement, and facilitates a search and seizure that is within its lawful authority. Id. (discussing uncovercover operations as permissible deception).

  The second (unreasonable) category of law enforcement deceit is “when the government agent is known to the suspect as such, and invokes the trust or cooperation of an individual to search or seize items outside what is lawfully authorized.” Id. at *16. In other words, cops can’t identify themselves as cops and trick citizens into responding to fake emergencies – like the burglary in Ramirez.

  A seminal case on cop deceit: worth a very close read.

How to Use: Ramirez is the gift that keeps on giving. After its Fourth Amendment ruling, the Court holds that Ramirez’s statements were tainted by the illegality of the initial seizure and must also be suppressed. Id. at *31.

  Turn to Ramirez when seeking to suppress a confession springing out of an illegal search or seizure.                                             

For Further Reading: In our view, Fresno FBI Agent Joshua Ratzlaff’s deceit in Ramirez is Brady / Giglio info that the ED Cal USAO must reveal in future cases. Thanks to a new statute, Brady disclosure will soon be required through an individual judicial order in every case. See “House Passes Durbin, Sullivan Due Process Protections Act,” article here.  

  “This bill requires a federal judge in criminal proceedings to issue an order confirming the obligation of the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence.” See Congressional summary of bill here. 

  The majority of the Northern District of California District Judges have already issued Brady disclosure orders upon AFPDs’ motions for Brady / Giglio cut-off dates.

The Hon. Charles R. Breyer

See, e.g., United States v. Willie Williams, CR 19-00341 CRB (N.D. Cal.) Dkt. Nos. 88 and 92 (Hon. Judge Charles Breyer granting Brady / Giglio cut-off upon motion of Senior Litigator Dan Blank and AFPD Sophia Whiting); see also Defense Motion at Dkt 88, pages 8-9 (collecting Brady / Giglio cut-off orders in the Northern District of California).

  The NorCal District Court should now issue a district-wide Brady order in anticipation of imminent arrival of the Due Process Protections Act.

 

 

Image of The Honorable Judge Kim Wardlaw from https://twitter.com/ladailyjournal/status/927995680081182722

 Image of the Honorable Charles R. Breyer from https://twitter.com/theusscgov/status/807272270464958464 

 

Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org

 

.

.

Case o' The Week: Qazi like fox - Qazi and Du Bo Challenges to the Indictment

Du Bo shot with pro se spin earns defense nice Rehaif win.  

United States v. Qazi, 2020 WL 5553323 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2020), decision available here.

Players: Decision by Judge Hunsaker, joined by Judge Wardlaw and visiting CJ Cook. Nice win for former CD Cal AFPD Michael Tanaka.

 Facts: Omar Qazi represented himself pro se against felon-in-possession charges. Id. at *1. He filed a pretrial motion seeking dismissal of the indictment, for (among other things) failure to state an element. Id. (He did not identify the missing element.) Id. That motion was denied, he went to trial, and was convicted. Id.

  While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided Rehaif, where “the Supreme Court recognized for the first time that the defendant’s knowledge of his felon status is a required element under Section 922(g).” Id. at *2.

Issue(s): “In this circuit an indictment missing an essential element that is properly challenged before trial must be dismissed. United States v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177, 1179 (9th Cir. 1999). There is no dispute that pro se defendant Omar Qazi’s indictment was missing a required element. The question is whether Qazi properly challenged his indictment pre-trial, thereby triggering the Du Bo rule.” Id. at *1 (emphasis in original).

Held: “Following our well-established obligation to construe pro se filings liberally, we hold that Qazi did properly challenge his indictment, and we direct the district court to dismiss his indictment, as we must.” Id.

 Of Note: Make a proper and timely challenge to deficient indictment in the Ninth, and you get automatic reversal on appeal (with no harmless error hurdles to clear). That rule conflicts with several other circuits, and has prompted some grumbling dissents here in the Ninth. Id. at *2 (reviewing Du Bos, dissents, and concurrences).

  Grizzled Apprendi vets will remember back in the early days of that decision, Du Bo presented a real defense conundrum: challenge a deficient indictment before trial, and the AUSA would just cure a missing element with a quick trip to the grand jury. Wait, however, to bring the indictment challenge at trial, after jeopardy had attached, and your motion would be rejected as untimely.

  Maybe our clients should have fired us, and filed pro se, broad Apprendi motions that complained of missing elements, but did not identify which element was not alleged? Id. at *4 (discussing the possibility that Qazi was in a better position as a pro se litigant than he would have been in had he been represented by counsel).

 How to Use: How specific does a Du Bo pretrial challenge to the indictment have to be? Good question, and one that many defense counsel have wrestled with. Here, Qazi complained the indictment failed to allege “all of the elements of a Federal Crime” – but didn’t specify that the missing element was his knowledge that he was a felon. Id. at *3. That was specific enough – for a pro se litigant. Id. at *4.

  If mulling a Du Bo challenge to a deficient indictment, read the Qazi discussion on specificity. The Qazi pro se challenge may not be quite specific enough for a motion made by counsel, but at least the opinion marks rough boundaries for this requirement.                                             

For Further Reading: Tributes have been pouring in all weekend, on the remarkable legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Gender equality, choice and reproductive rights, and legendary dissents number among her many legal landmarks. See Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s biggest cases: Equal pay, Bush v. Gore and insider trading, available here.

  What was the Justice’s legacy in criminal law issues? One interesting area is the Sixth Amendment right of Confrontation. Justice Ginsburg famously penned the Bullcoming decision, on the Crawford ramifications of lab reports in criminal cases. See SCOTUS blog here.  

 Justice Ginsburg’s unlikely pal, Justice Scalia, joined her in an exegesis of how prosecutors can still prove their cases, while honoring Confrontation Clause rights, in Part IV of Bullcoming. See decision here. 

 Will the Court’s Crawford coalition maintain a majority when both Justices Scalia and Ginsburg are replaced on SCOTUS? Much depends on the Senate, between now and January 3. 

 

 

Image of “Pro Se” from https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/17/18-10483.pdf

 

Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org

 

.

US v. Qazi, No. 18-10483 (9-17-20)(Hunsaker w/Cook & Wardlaw). The defendant, pro se, challenges the indictment charging him as a prohibited possessor of a firearm for failure to contain an essential element. The 9^th agrees that under Rehaif v US, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019)(knowledge of felony status), the indictment omitted the knowledge requirement. Under circuit precedent, US v. Du Bo, 186 F.3d 1177 (9^th Cir. 1999), the indictment must be dismissed as structural error. The 9^th comments that the defendant, proceeding pro se, challenged the statute pre-Rehaif broadly for failing to state all the elements. If he had counsel, the challenge would likely not have occurred under precedent. Who knows? The pro se challenge was broad, and because it is pro se, needs to be liberally construed.

This opinion notes (n.1) that the 9^th’s structural error Du Bo rule conflicts with other circuits, which employ a harmless analysis.

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/17/18-10483.pdf

Von Tobel v. Benedetti, No. 18-15892 (9-14-20)(Siler w/Bybee & R. Nelson). The 9th affirms denial of a petitioner’s claim involving juror misconduct.  Misconduct there was: the juror, before deliberations, conversed with a neighbor – a police officer – who said that the defendant wouldn’t be there if he hadn’t done something wrong. The state courts found this was misconduct, but that it was not egregious. The juror said he followed instructions, kept an open mind, and so forth. Since it was not egregious, the burden was on the petitioner to show probable prejudice. The petitioner could not meet the burden. In federal court, petitioner argued this was contrary to clearly established federal law. The 9th found there was no clearly established Supreme Court opinion that would either presume prejudice or that the burden of showing prejudice should not fall on the petitioner. Under AEDPA’s deferential standard, the Nevada’s Supreme Court’s decision was not contrary to federal law or an unreasonable application.

Tough loss for Kim Sandberg, Jonathan Kirshbaum, and Ryan Norwood, AFPDs, Nev. (Las Vegas).

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/14/18-15892.pdf

US v. Garcia, No. 19-10073 (9-10-20)(Wardlaw w/Siler & M. Smith). The 9th suppresses evidence. The police conducted a warrantless search of a home, handcuffed the defendant, took him outside, and then ran his record. The police then learned he was in SR. So, back into the house they went, searched it, and found meth. The police tried to justify the first search for supposedly safety of others. The 9th didn’t buy it and sent it back to see if attenuation worked. That is, did the fact that he was on SR make it justifiable? Again, no. The actions of the police, the flagrancy, and the acts all lead to suppression.

Congrats to AFPD Jamie Moore, CHU, Az FPD (Phoenix).

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/10/19-10073.pdf

US v. Herrera, No. 19-50181 (9-9-20)(Hunsaker w/Wardlaw & Cook). This opinion considers an issue of first impression: Is the State counted as a victim for the number of victims fraud enhancement? The answer is “yes,” so long as the loss was counted in the relevant conduct.

The defendant ran an unemployment scheme where he defrauded the State and Federal Government of millions. He opened companies, recruited participants, and then had them file for unemployment benefits which he took. He was informed on and the scheme, with a co-defendant, was exposed.

The 9th held that the State was a victim for the number of victims enhancement based on the text of the guidelines. The guidelines used the word “includes” in listing who could be considered victims. State entities or agencies were not listed. But the use of “includes” was not exhaustive. Guideline amendments and restitution statutes also lend support. Lastly, other circuits have concluded that a State can be a victim for the number of victims adjustment. The limiting feature is that the loss must be included in the relevant conduct.

The 9th held the Court misspoke when it said a 16-level adjustment for loss when all the calculations showed an 18 level and it was clear that was what was being discussed. The review was under plain error.

The 9th found the defendant supervised and directed another person. Thus, there was no error in applying a leader enhancement. 

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/09/19-50181.pdf

US v. Asuncion, No. 18-30130 (9-4-20)(Chhabria w/Fletcher & Rawlinson). This is a sad case, illustrating that timing can be everything. The 9th affirms a mandatory life sentence under 841(b)(1)(A) as the defendant was found to have two prior “felony drug sentences” under 802(44).  The sentences of the defendant’s priors were under a year (!) under a state (Wash) guideline system. The max though was 5 years. The state court had “broad open-ended discretion” in sentencing. This differs from the recent case, Valencia-Mendoza, 912 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2019), where a guideline sentence for a drug offense was under a year but the court had sharply constricted ability to do anything but impose a guideline sentence. The defendant here was sentenced under a state guideline system that had subsequently been narrowed and required specific findings. Timing is everything.

Timing is also everything in the First Step Act. The defendant was sentenced prior to enactment in December 2018. If it was subsequent, under his record, with only one federal serious drug felony, he would “only” face a mandatory 15 years. The 9th holds that the defendant, who was sentenced in May 2018, is “ineligible for resentencing, a conclusion that follows inescapably from the statute’s text.” All the circuits that have considered this issue has come to the same conclusion: 1st, 3d, 6th, 7th, and DC; see also the 4th and 5th with interpreting identical language in another section.

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/04/18-30130.pdf

Case o' The Week: Footnotes Matter - Garcia and Fourth Amendment Attenuation (Intervening Circumstances)

"Recent events have reminded us of the devastating consequences that can follow when armed officers take the residents of a home by surprise. See Darcy Costello & Tessa Duvall, Minute by Minute: What Happened the Night Louisville Police Fatally Shot Breonna Taylor, Louisville Courier J. (May 29, 2020), https://tinyurl.com/y3ytxuju ." 

Ms. Breonna Taylor

United States v. Javier Garcia, 2020 WL 5417153, at *8 &n.6 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2020), decision available here.

 Players: Decision by Judge Wardlaw joined by Judges M. Smith and visiting Circuit Judge Siler.

  Big win for (former) ND Cal CJA Attorney Jamie Moore, in an appeal from a hard-fought district court case by ND CJA counsel Tom Ferrito.  

 Facts: Salinas cops saw a suspicious guy enter a building: they apprehended him outside minutes later. Id. at *2. Despite having already arrested their original suspect, the cops then did a “protective sweep” of the apartment. They dragged sleeping occupant Garcia outside, in cuffs. Id. 

  After learning Garcia’s name they discovered that he was on supervised release with a search condition. Id. A search of the apartment revealed meth, he was charged in federal court, and a San Jose D.J. refused to suppress. Id. 

  Garcia appealed and won in the Ninth: the case was remanded for findings on the second search. Id. at *3. 

  On remand, the district court again upheld the search, concluding that the search condition was an attenuating and intervening circumstance. Id. Garcia appealed again.

Issue(s): “The question before us today is whether, despite these facts, suppression of the evidence found in Garcia's home, and other evidence derived from that evidence, is not required because, under the attenuation doctrine, the officers’ discovery of the suspicionless search condition broke the causal chain between the Fourth Amendment violation and the discovery of the evidence.” Id. 

  “[T]he key question this case presents is whether the officers’ discretionary decision to conduct a full investigatory search of Garcia's home was significantly directed by information they learned during their initial unlawful entry. And because the Government bears the burden of showing attenuation . . . it was the responsibility of the Government to introduce evidence on this point.” Id. at *6.

Held: “[T]he Government did not present any evidence regarding the officers’ reasons for entering Garcia’s home the second time, much less evidence sufficient to show that this decision had nothing to do with what they saw inside the home minutes earlier, during their unconstitutional search.” Id. at *6 (emphasis in original).

  “The officers did not enter Garcia's home with blinders on. And the record shows that in the few minutes between the two searches, the officers’ motives for entering the home abruptly changed from non-investigatory to investigatory. Yet the Government offers nothing more than its say-so to explain this sudden shift. That is not enough to avoid suppression. Cf. United States v. Bocharnikov, 966 F.3d 1000, 1007 (9th Cir. 2020) (Chhabria, J., concurring) (“To rule in the government's favor on this appeal would have required us to bend over backwards, doing the government's work for it. Federal prosecutors should not need that kind of help from the courts, nor should they expect to receive it.”). In the absence of evidence showing that the officers’ decision to conduct the second search was untainted by what they saw during the initial unlawful entry, we conclude that the Government has not met its burden of showing that the discovery of the suspicionless search condition was a sufficient intervening circumstance.” Id. at *7.

  “We conclude that the evidence found in the search was not sufficiently attenuated from the constitutional violation.We therefore hold that the district court erred by denying Garcia's motion to suppress, and we reverse his conviction.” Id. at *2.  

 Of Note: Armed officers storming a residence and taking sleeping residents by surprise – sound familiar? 

  In a most-notable footnote, Judge Wardlaw warns of the “devasting consequences” of this law enforcement approach, and refers us to a story about the homicide of Breonna Taylor. See id. at *8 & n.6.

 How to Use: This great opinion carefully distinguishes the Supreme Court’s Strieff decision. Particularly important is Judge Wardlaw’s refusal to equate supervision search conditions (probation, parole, supervised release) with the arrest warrant in Strieff, for the attenuation analysis. Id. at *5.

  An “attenuation” must read.

 For Further Reading: For an in-depth account on the tragic killing of Breonna Taylor, and a moving description of her life story, listen to the two-part NYT “Daily” podcast available here. 

 

Image of Breonna Taylor from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-53111709

Image of Breonna Taylor mural from https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/06/us/breonna-taylor-mural-trnd/index.html

 

Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender, N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org

 .

Case o' The Week: If not found we can rely, reverse conviction and re-try! - Valencia-Lopez, FRE 702, Daubert, and gov't "expert" reliability

Pick a peck of pot and peppers . . . .

 

and try the case again.

 United States v. Valencia-Lopez, 2020 WL 4814139 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2020), decision available here.

Players: Decision by Judge Bennett, joined by Judge Hawkins. Dissent by Judge Owens. 

 Admirable win and very important FRE 702 victory for D. Arizona AFPD J. Ryan Moore.

Facts: Valencia-Lopez was stopped at the border when he drove a commercial truck into the US. Id. at *1. Hidden among the cargo of bell peppers was 6,000 kilos of marijuana. Id. Valencia-Lopez explained that he was seized at gunpoint in Mexico, told to drive (re-loaded) truck across the border, and that he and his family would be killed if he did not comply. Id. at *2. 

  The government noticed ICE “Expert” Hall for trial, who was provisionally allowed over the defense’s pretrial objection. Id. 

  At trial, the district court denied the defense’s renewed objection, and refused defense voire dire. Id. The court made no reliability findings. ICE “Expert” Hall testified that the likelihood that a drug trafficking organization would trust a large load to a threatened driver was “[a]lmost nil, almost none.” Id. 

  Valenicia-Lopez also testified, and was convicted. Id. at *3.

 Issue(s): “Valencia-Lopez argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting Agent Hall's testimony without adequately performing its gatekeeping role under Daubert and [FRE] 702. . . . Valencia-Lopez does not challenge the district court’s finding that Agent Hall's testimony was relevant. We thus look only to whether the district court appropriately determined that the testimony was reliable.” Id.

 Held: “It did not.” Id. at *4.

  “The issue is not whether Agent Hall had knowledge and experience sufficient to allow him to testify as an expert on the modus operandi of drug cartels. He did. Nor is the issue whether he had sufficient ‘background for his opinions.’ Rather, the issue is whether he provided a reliable basis for his opinion that the likelihood of drug cartels using coerced couriers is ‘[a]lmost nil, almost none.’ As explained above, he did not.” Id. at *6.

  “We . . . vacate Valencia-Lopez's convictions and remand for a new trial.” Id. at *8.

 Of Note: Valencia-Lopez is an extraordinary “experts” decision. The opinion confirms what we’ve been shouting since the Daubert Trilogy hit: “qualifications ain’t reliability.” 

  In fact, Judge Bennett goes so far as to emphasize that this core reliability finding is arguably more important when dealing with cop experts, such as this case: “Daubert and Kumho Tire may be harder to apply when the expert testimony is ‘experience-based’ rather than ‘science-based.’ But any such difficulty cannot simply lead to a ‘that goes to weight, not admissibility’ default, as here. Indeed, we see a strong argument that reliability becomes more, not less, important when the ‘experience based’ expert opinion is perhaps not subject to routine testing, error rate, or peer review type analysis, like science-based expert testimony. The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that reliability is the lynchpin—the flexibility afforded to the gatekeeper goes to how to determine reliability, not whether to determine reliability.” Id. at *4.

  Valencia-Lopez is a thoughtful, well-supported opinion, and one of the most important FRE 702 decisions in years: a must read.

 How to Use: Judge Bennett gives a big thumbs-up to Daubert voir dire at trial. Id. at *5 & n.6. The Ninth doesn’t (yet) hold whether a district court must hold an evidentiary hearing or permit voir dire. Id. The Court does, however, give a hearty nod of approval to trial voir dire as “a recommended method for the district court to conduct a reliability determination.” Id. 

  D.J.’s routinely dodge pretrial Daubert pretrial evidentiary hearings or trial voir dire of government “experts.” Use Valencia-Lopez to advocate for these critical gatekeeping procedures.                                           

For Further Reading: It was a week of very different memos, in Washington D.C.

Last week, thirty-two black, D.C. AUSAs signed a ten-page memo sent to U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin, seeking changes to increase fairness and minimize nonlegal influences and biases. See Washington Post Article here. 

By contrast, a very different OMB memo last week conveys President Trump’s direction to federal agencies to “cease and desist” funding for certain types of race and diversity training. See ABC news article here. 

  

Image of bell peppers and marijuana from https://wayofleaf.com/cannabis/101/is-cannabis-a-vegetable-or-fruit

 

Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender N.D. Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org

 

 

US v. Moalin, No. 13-50572 (9-2-20)(Berzon w/Nguyen & Zouhary). In a FISA metadata case, the 9th affirmed the convictions against 4th Amendment challenges. The case involved collection of metadata from US citizens and others derived from foreign intelligence surveillance. The 9th concludes that the govt may have violated the 4th Amendment and did violate FISA when it collected information from millions of Americans. However, under the facts of this case, where the defendants were made aware, suppression was not warranted. The 9th emphasizes that notice must be given. For those with FISA matters, this case provides an overview, analytical approach, and requirements.

Numerous amici weighed in, including the FPDs, NACDL, Media and Privacy groups.

The decision is here:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2020/09/02/13-50572.pdf