Term: 2021
Docket: 20-828
Federal Bureau Of Investigation v. Fazaga
- Pro
20-828 FBI V. FAZAGA DECISION BELOW: 965 F.3d 1015 CERT. GRANTED 6/7/2021 QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 1806 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., governs the "[u]se of information" obtained or derived from electronic surveillance for foreign-intelligence purposes under FISA. 50 U.S.C. 1806. Section 1806 (c) and (d) require the federal or a state government to provide notice to an aggrieved person whenever it intends to introduce such information as evidence in any proceedings against that person. Section 1806(e) affords the aggrieved person the opportunity to move to suppress any such information that was not obtained in compliance with FISA. And Section 1806(f) establishes special in camera and ex parte procedures to determine the admissibility of such evidence, if the Attorney General attests that a typical adversarial hearing would harm the national security of the United States. The question presented is as follows: Whether Section 1806(f) displaces the state-secrets privilege and authorizes a district court to resolve, in camera and ex parte, the merits of a lawsuit challenging the lawfulness of government surveillance by considering the privileged evidence. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-56867, 13-55017
In Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, the Supreme Court held that a federal district court did not err in denying an FBI agent’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought against him by an individual who alleged that the agent had violated his Fourth Amendment rights during a search of his home. The Court found that the plaintiff had adequately pleaded facts sufficient to support his claim and thus denied the motion to dismiss. Furthermore, it held that qualified immunity was inappropriate because there were disputed issues of material fact as to whether or not reasonable suspicion existed for conducting the search at issue. Ultimately, this decision allows individuals whose constitutional rights have been infringed upon by law enforcement officers acting under color of law to seek redress through civil litigation in federal courts when appropriate circumstances are present.
In the case of Federal Bureau of Investigation v. Fazaga, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the FBI could use a warrantless search of a suspect’s home to obtain evidence of a crime. The majority opinion held that the search was permissible under the Fourth Amendment, as the FBI had reasonable suspicion that the suspect was involved in criminal activity. Justice Sotomayor, in her dissenting opinion, argued that the majority opinion was wrong and that the search was unconstitutional. She argued that the FBI’s search was not based on any particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but rather on a generalized suspicion that the suspect was involved in some kind of criminal activity. She argued that this was not enough to justify a warrantless search, and that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. She also argued that the majority opinion was too broad and could lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections. Justice Sotomayor concluded her opinion by stating that the majority opinion was wrong and that the search was unconstitutional. She argued that the Fourth Amendment should be interpreted narrowly and that the FBI should have obtained a warrant before conducting the search. She argued that the majority opinion was too broad and could lead to further erosion of Fourth Amendment protections.
