Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Anticipative Criminal Investigation pp 385–448Cite as

Counterterrorism Measures Affecting Criminal Investigation in the United States

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Directly after the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11th 2001, the US adopted measures to prevent future terrorist attacks. The principal piece of legislation that has contributed to the realization of anticipative criminal investigation concerns the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The provisions that touch upon criminal investigative authority are analyzed. Furthermore, developments in the case law are described where the threat of terrorism has influenced new trends in the interpretation of constitutional limits on criminal investigative powers. Moreover, an important part of the Chapter is dedicated to focusing upon national security investigative powers in the prevention of terrorism, which have also been made possible for criminal investigative purposes. Relevant legislation, case law and the internal policy of the Department of Justice and the FBI are analyzed. On the basis of these different developments touching upon the fields of criminal procedure, constitutional interpretation and national security law, the specific characteristics of the anticipative criminal investigation, as it has taken shape in the United States, are identified.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cole and Lobel 2007, 1. As also emphasized by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales: “[p]revention is the goal of all goals when it comes to terrorism because we simply cannot and will not wait for these particular crimes to occur before taking action.” Alberto Gonzales, U.S. Attorney General, Remarks at the World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh on ‘Stopping Terrorists Before They Strike: The Justice Department's Power of Prevention’ (August 16 2006), available at: http://www.justice.gov/archive/ag/speeches/2006/ag_speech_060816.html (accessed 30 August 2011).

  2. 2.

    The moments of inquiry were April 1995, May 1995, August 1996, September 2001 and January-March 2002. In September 2001 66% of interviewees were “willing to give up liberties in order to crack down on terrorism,” whereas before 9/11 this percentage varied between 52 and 59%. The inquiry between January and March 2002 showed that 78% considered themselves to be “more willing to give up certain freedoms to improve safety and security” than before 9/11. Etzioni 2004, 18.

  3. 3.

    E.g.: Testimony of Attorney General John Ashcroft before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 24 September 2001: “We were attacked for our nation’s values. We will not allow our values to become victims. The Justice Department will never waiver in our defense of the Constitution nor relent our defense of civil rights.” See also: Dinh 2002, 401.

  4. 4.

    Compare e.g. Judge Richard Posner. See: Donohue 2008, 4.

  5. 5.

    O’Harrow Jr 2002, 18.

  6. 6.

    See e.g.: Position paper Barack Obama 2008.

  7. 7.

    Nevertheless, in some other aspects the Obama Administration’s approach towards countering terrorism did constitute a change: the enhanced interrogation techniques adopted under Bush have been condemned, the Iraq policy substantially changed and, instead of strongly relying on the ‘executive power’, Obama seeks Congressional approval for his policy. Despite his efforts to seek a solution for the Guantanamo Bay detainees, Obama has not yet succeeded in closing Guantanamo Bay.

  8. 8.

    Defined in Chap. 1 as investigative activities that are aimed at the prevention of terrorism by intercepting their planning and resulting in the collection of information that may be used in criminal proceedings. See Chap. 1, Sect. 1.4.

  9. 9.

    Cole and Lobel 2007, 30 and 31. See also: Dycus et al. 2007A, 83–86 and White 2004, 7 and 14.

  10. 10.

    Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 2004, 339. For an explanation of these four failures see Ibid. 339-360.

  11. 11.

    Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 2004, 399-428. For an overview of the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Report: Progress Report 2011, 3-6 and 9-10.

  12. 12.

    Schulhofer 2005, 14-15.

  13. 13.

    Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 69 S.Ct. 894 (1949), dissenting opinion of Justice Jackson joined by Justice Burton, 911. Recently Judge Richard Posner breathed new life into this phrase by using it in the context of counterterrorism policy: Posner 2006.

  14. 14.

    Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States 2004, 425.

  15. 15.

    Cole and Lobel 2007, 12 and Report of the Office of the Inspector General 2003, The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Efforts to Improve the Sharing of Intelligence and Other Information, ii.

  16. 16.

    The full name of this Act is: Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001; USA PATRIOT Act, October 26, 2001, 107 Pub. L. No. 56, 115 Stat. 272, (2001) Enacted H.R. 3162; 107 Enacted H.R. 3162.

  17. 17.

    National Security Strategy, May 2010. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf (accessed March 21, 2011), 20.

  18. 18.

    Vervaele 2005, 207.

  19. 19.

    The USA PATRIOT Act makes amendments to criminal law as well as to the national security law on a federal level. Many states implemented the USA PATRIOT Act on a state level through Fellow Patriot Acts, although some states were reluctant to adopt all the provisions of the federal Act due to concerns about the compatibility with civil rights. Vervaele 2005, 207.

  20. 20.

    Sidel 2004, 10. Citing from: Attorney General Ashcroft, “Attorney General Ashcroft Speaks about the Patriot Act” (prepared remarks, Boise, Idaho, August 25, 2003).

  21. 21.

    E.g. the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), see Sidel 2004, 10.

  22. 22.

    USA PATRIOT Act of October 26 2001 and Hitz 2002, 772. Except for the provisions that are dealt with in this Chapter, the USA PATRIOT Act also provides for stricter immigration laws (under Title IV of the Act), such as the refusal of entry into the US for any immigrant who supports terrorism through, for example, speech or writing and the removal of immigrants upon terrorism grounds, while the terms ‘terrorism’ and ‘engaging in terrorist activity’ are expanded in the Act. Furthermore, the Act grants authority to the Attorney General to detain aliens charged with a criminal or immigration violation when that individual is involved in terrorist activities or other activities that threaten national security (Lobel 2002). The Act also redefines and expands the term ‘domestic terrorism’ and some terrorism offences (Title VIII of the Act) and provides for more stringent money-laundering laws (Title III). Lastly, the USA PATRIOT Act provides for compensation regulations for terrorism victims (Title VI). Many of the PATRIOT Act’s provisions do not only aim to combat terrorism, but are primarily applied in criminal and administrative cases (Schulhofer 2005, 3-4).

  23. 23.

    Since the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 a FISA Court order is required for the surveillance authorities that were previously authorized without a warrant under the Terrorist Surveillance Program.

  24. 24.

    Counterintelligence and Security Enhancements Act (1994), Public Law 103-359 and amending Title III, 18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(b)(ii) to relax the roving surveillance provision (introduced in 1986): Public Law 105-272, § 604(a)(1).

  25. 25.

    Public Law 109-177, 109th Congress, section 107(a).

  26. 26.

    See Sect. 5.2.2.1.1. In addition, in the context of a national security investigation ‘sneak-and-peek’ searches were already broadly authorized under FISA.

  27. 27.

    Mart 2008, 481.

  28. 28.

    Notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court has rescinded the consequences of violations of the knock-and-announce rule in Hudson v. Michigan (2006) (See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.2.1.4). See also: Donohue 2008, 235.

  29. 29.

    Although a delayed notice was already included in the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act and was also accepted under certain conditions by the Courts of the Ninth, Second and Fourth Circuit. See: Donohue 2008, 235 and Duncan Jr 2004, 12-24.

  30. 30.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 213(2)(b)(1).

  31. 31.

    18 U.S.C. § 2705(a)(2) (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986).

  32. 32.

    Cole and Dempsey 2006, 210.

  33. 33.

    Section 114(a), USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.

  34. 34.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 203(2)(b)(2).

  35. 35.

    Considering the covert nature of the seizure, this newly created possibility has been defined as ‘sneak-and-steal’. See: Shumate 2006.

  36. 36.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 203 (2)(b)(3).

  37. 37.

    Cole and Dempsey 2006, 209. The Justice Department determined this period by relating to other statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(d) (providing that the judge who authorizes an order for Title III surveillance shall notify the persons whose communications have been intercepted at the latest 90 days after the termination of the surveillance). Smith, 2003, 437.

  38. 38.

    Section 114(a), USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005.

  39. 39.

    Section 114 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2006.

  40. 40.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 216(c)(2).

  41. 41.

    18 U.S.C. § 3127(3), which read, before the amendments of the USA PATRIOT Act of October 26, 2001: “(…) records or decodes electronic or other impulses which identify the numbers dialed or otherwise transmitted on the telephone line to which such device is attached.”

  42. 42.

    18 U.S.C. § 3127(4), before the USA PATRIOT Act amendments.

  43. 43.

    Schulhofer 2005, 86 and footnote 28, 149.

  44. 44.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 216(c)(3).

  45. 45.

    Schulhofer 2005, 86 and Smith 2003, 440-443.

  46. 46.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 217(1).

  47. 47.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 217(2).

  48. 48.

    As follows from a letter to the House of Representatives from the Assistant Attorney General Jamie E. Brown of May 13, 2003, answering questions of the House of Representatives about the USA PATRIOT Act implementation and related matters. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, May 13, 2003, 24.

  49. 49.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 219.

  50. 50.

    The Department of Justice, ‘The USA Patriot Act: Myth vs. Reality’, available at:

    http://www.justice.gov/archive/ll/subs/add_myths.htm (accessed July 29, 2011), sec. 219.

  51. 51.

    Roth 2009, 2795-2796.

  52. 52.

    See in more detail about Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968), Sect. 5.3.2.1.1.1

  53. 53.

    Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968), 1879.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., 1881.

  55. 55.

    Roth 2009, 2800-2802.

  56. 56.

    United States v. Ramos, 629 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010). The First Circuit Court upheld the District Court’s Judgment of 2008: United States v. Ramos, 591 F.Supp.2d 93 (D.Mass. 2008).

  57. 57.

    United States v. Ramos, 591 F.Supp.2d 93 (D.Mass. 2008), 103.

  58. 58.

    Ibid. and see Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868 (1968), 22.

  59. 59.

    United States v. Ramos, 591 F.Supp.2d 93 (D.Mass. 2008), 103.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., 104.

  61. 61.

    United States v. Ramos, 629 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2010), 67-68.

  62. 62.

    See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.2.1.1.1.

  63. 63.

    Macwade v. Kelly, 460 F.3d 260 (2nd Cir. 2006).

  64. 64.

    See Sect. 5.3.2.1.1.1 (Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 124 S.Ct. 885 (2004), 427).

  65. 65.

    Crocker 2008, 248.

  66. 66.

    In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 157 (2nd Cir. 2008). Decision on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), which court held that US citizens abroad, who are subjected to search activities on behalf of the US government, can bring Fourth Amendment challenges.

  67. 67.

    In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in East Africa, 552 F.3d 157 (2nd Cir. 2008), 167.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., 172-173.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., 176. The Second Circuit also considered that the ex parte, in camera evaluation of the evidence submitted by the government in opposition to El-Hage’s suppression motion was appropriate in light of national security considerations.

  70. 70.

    Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (2006).

  71. 71.

    Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 126 S.Ct. 1943 (2006).

  72. 72.

    Kinports 2009, 660.

  73. 73.

    Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515 (2006), 118.

  74. 74.

    Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 126 S.Ct. 1943 (2006), 403 and 406.

  75. 75.

    Antkowiak 2007, 575.

  76. 76.

    Antkowiak 2007, 569. For the recent diminishment of Fourth Amendment protections by the Supreme Court (with regard to probable cause, individualized suspicion and the exclusionary rule) and socio-politically inspired proposals for alternatives under the Fourth Amendment see: Slobogin 2007. See also: Sydejko 2006 and Winter 2006.

  77. 77.

    See: Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative 2003 and Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative 2006.

  78. 78.

    Progress Report 2011, 3.

  79. 79.

    Section 206 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.

  80. 80.

    18 U.S.C. § 2518(11)(b)(ii) (2007). See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.2.1.2.

  81. 81.

    Section 108 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and see Yeh and Doyle 2006, 17.

  82. 82.

    See 50 U.S.C. § 1805(c)(1)(B) (2009).

  83. 83.

    Section 108(b)(3) USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and 50 U.S.C. § 1805(c)(3).

  84. 84.

    Public Law 111-141, Feb. 27, 2010, 124 Stat. 37, 111th Congress, An Act ‘to extend expiring provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 and Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 until February 28, 2011.’ Except for the provision for roving surveillance, also the seizure of certain business records and the lone wolf provision has been extended.

  85. 85.

    PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, S.990, 112th Congress, 1st Session.

  86. 86.

    See 50 U.S.C. § 1805(d)(1) and (2). To compare: under Title III the maximum period of surveillance is thirty days, extensions to this period being very limited. 18 U.S.C. § 2518(5).

  87. 87.

    50 U.S.C. § 1824(d).

  88. 88.

    50 U.S.C. § 1805(d)(2).

  89. 89.

    Section 105 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 amending 50 U.S.C. § 1842(e).

  90. 90.

    50 U.S.C. § 1801(b) heading and under (C).

  91. 91.

    Schulhofer 2005, 41.

  92. 92.

    See section 128(a) of the USA PATRIOT ACT Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2005.

  93. 93.

    50 U.S.C. § 1842(d)(2)(C).

  94. 94.

    Section 214(2) of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, amending 50 U.S.C. § 1842(c)(2).

  95. 95.

    Section 214(3) of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, striking subsection 50 U.S.C. § 1842(c)(3). See for this requirement Sect. 5.2.2.3.1.

  96. 96.

    As to the unamended language of 50 U.S.C. § 1862(b)(2).

  97. 97.

    Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.

  98. 98.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(a)(1).

  99. 99.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(a)(3) and section 106(a)(3) Reauthorization Act.

  100. 100.

    Section 106(a)(2) USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act of 2005.

  101. 101.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(b)(2).

  102. 102.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(c)(1).

  103. 103.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(c)(2).

  104. 104.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(c)(2)(D).

  105. 105.

    See e.g. Mart 2008, 438.

  106. 106.

    Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (Doe I).

  107. 107.

    Doe v. Gonzales, 386 F.Supp.2d 66 (D.Conn. 2005) (Doe II).

  108. 108.

    Doe v. Ashcroft, 334 F.Supp.2d 471 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), 475.

  109. 109.

    Ibid., 513.

  110. 110.

    Ibid., 524.

  111. 111.

    Ibid., 475 and 526.

  112. 112.

    Doe v. Gonzales, 386 F.Supp.2d 66 (D.Conn. 2005) (Doe II), 79-80.

  113. 113.

    Section 106(e) Reauthorization Act of 2005.

  114. 114.

    Yeh and Doyle 2006, 8.

  115. 115.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(f)(2)(A).

  116. 116.

    Mart 2008, 440.

  117. 117.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(f)(2)(A)(ii) and § 1861(f)(2)(B).

  118. 118.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(f)(2)(A).

  119. 119.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(f)(2)(C)(i).

  120. 120.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(f)(2)(C)(ii).

  121. 121.

    50 U.S.C. § 1861(f)(2)(C)(iii).

  122. 122.

    Yeh and Doyle 2006, 9-10.

  123. 123.

    Doe v. Gonzales, 449 F.3d 415 (2nd Cir. 2006).

  124. 124.

    Doe v. Gonzales, 500 F.Supp.2d 379 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (Doe III).

  125. 125.

    Ibid., 386.

  126. 126.

    Ibid., 425.

  127. 127.

    Doe v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2008).

  128. 128.

    Doe v. Mukasey, 549 F.3d 861 (2nd Cir. 2008), 878.

  129. 129.

    Ibid., 878.

  130. 130.

    Ibid., 883.

  131. 131.

    Ibid., 884.

  132. 132.

    Doe v. Holder, 665 F.Supp.2d 426 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

  133. 133.

    Doe v. Holder, 703 F.Supp.2d 313 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), 316.

  134. 134.

    Ibid., 316.

  135. 135.

    Ibid., 317, referring to CIA v. Sims, 471 U.S. 159, 105 S.Ct. 1881, 178 (1985).

  136. 136.

    Doe v. Holder, 04 Civ. 2614, 30 July 2010, 2 (Available at: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2010/08/Doe-vs-Holder_NSL.pdf, accessed 23 November 2010).

  137. 137.

    Nakashima 2010.

  138. 138.

    See: Mart 2008, 443-444 and ACLU v. United States Department of Justice (ACLU I), 265 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2003) and ACLU v. United States Department of Justice (ACLU II), 321 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2004).

  139. 139.

    ACLU v. United States Department of Justice (ACLU I), 265 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2003) and ACLU v. United States Department of Justice (ACLU II), 321 F. Supp. 2d 24 (D.D.C. 2004). As it was stated in the latter case: the Court considered itself “mindful of the “long-recognized deference to the executive in national security issues.”

  140. 140.

    See Sects. 6.3.1 and 7.3.2.1.

  141. 141.

    See FISA Annual Reports to Congress, 2005 and 2010, available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#rept (accessed August 1, 2011).

  142. 142.

    Section 106(g) Reauthorization Act 2005.

  143. 143.

    Section 106(b) Reauthorization Act 2005.

  144. 144.

    PATRIOT Sunsets Extension Act of 2011, S.990, 112th Congress, 1st Session.

  145. 145.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 203(b)(1). This section of the Patriot Act amends section 2517 of Title 18 U.S.C. (Title III): “Any investigative or law enforcement officer, or attorney for the Government, who by any means authorized by this chapter, has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may disclose such contents to any other Federal law enforcement, intelligence, protective, immigration, national defense, or national security official to the extent that such contents include foreign intelligence or counterintelligence (as defined in section 3 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. § 401a) or foreign intelligence information (as defined in subsection (19) of section 2510 of this Title), to assist the official who is to receive that information in the performance of his official duties. Any Federal official who receives information pursuant to this provision may use that information only as necessary in the conduct of that person’s official duties subject to any limitations on the unauthorized disclosure of such information.”

  146. 146.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 203(d)(1).

  147. 147.

    A definition of foreign intelligence information was already provided in FISA (50 U.S.C. § 1801(e)). This definition has not been changed (see Sect. 5.2.2.3.1). The definition as now adopted in Title III and the National Security Act of 1947 slightly differs from the FISA definition, as the latter distinguishes between US persons and non-US persons, requiring that the information concerning US persons shall be necessary for the ability of the United States to protect against the enumerated threats. In the Guidelines concerning FBI operations (covering both the intelligence and law enforcement counterpart) foreign intelligence has been defined as “information relating to the capabilities, intentions, or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations or foreign persons, or international terrorists” (Mukasey Guidelines for FBI Operations (2008), 8 (para A(3)), which is clearly less tailored than the statutory definitions.

  148. 148.

    Section 203(b)(2) and 203(d)(2), including this definition respectively in 18 U.S.C. § 2510(19) and 50 U.S.C. § 403-5d.

  149. 149.

    50 U.S.C. § 401a(2) and (3), amended by the section 902 of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. As a consequence of this amendment the definition of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence was extended to include also international terrorist activities.

  150. 150.

    Kris 2006, 523.

  151. 151.

    Rule 6(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the Patriot Act Amendments.

  152. 152.

    Rule 6(e)(3)(D) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (2009).

  153. 153.

    Section 203(a)(V). The definition of intelligence, foreign intelligence and counterintelligence can be found in the National Security Act of 1947: 50 U.S.C. § 401a. “Intelligence includes foreign intelligence and counterintelligence. (…) Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities. (…) Counterintelligence means information gathered, and activities conducted, to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted by or on behalf of foreign governments or elements thereof, foreign organizations, or foreign persons, or international terrorist activities.”

  154. 154.

    Kris and Wilson 2007, 21–3.

  155. 155.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 504(a)(1) and 504(b)(1): Federal Officers may consult with Federal law enforcement officers “to coordinate efforts to investigate or protect against—(A) actual or potential attack or other grave hostile acts of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (B) sabotage or international terrorism by a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; or (C) clandestine intelligence activities by an intelligence service or network of a foreign power or by an agent of a foreign power.” See 50 U.S.C. § 1806(k)(1) and § 1825(k)(1).

  156. 156.

    USA PATRIOT Act, sec. 504(a)(2) and 504(b)(2) and 50 U.S.C. § 1806(k)(2) and § 1825(k)(2).

  157. 157.

    Swire 2004, 1330.

  158. 158.

    The FISA court is granted jurisdiction to evaluate proposed minimization procedures: 50 U.S.C. § 1805(a)(4) and § 1824(a)(4).

  159. 159.

    See Kris and Wilson 2007, Appendix E: ‘Department of Justice Intelligence Sharing Procedure (March 6, 2002), Memorandum to the Director of the FBI, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Counsel for Intelligence Policy and United States Attorneys, from the Attorney General Ashcroft.

  160. 160.

    In re All Matters Submitted to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, 218 F.Supp.2d 611 (Foreign Int. Surv. Ct. 2002), 615.

  161. 161.

    Ibid., 621.

  162. 162.

    Ibid., 622.

  163. 163.

    Ibid., 622.

  164. 164.

    Ibid., 624.

  165. 165.

    Ibid., 625.

  166. 166.

    In re: Sealed Case, 310 F.3d 717 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2002), 721.

  167. 167.

    Ibid., 723-724.

  168. 168.

    Ibid., 727.

  169. 169.

    Ibid., 732-733.

  170. 170.

    Ibid., 732.

  171. 171.

    Ibid., 735.

  172. 172.

    Ibid., 734.

  173. 173.

    Ibid., 746.

  174. 174.

    Executive Order 13470 (2008), 73 Fed. Reg. 45325 (July 30, 2008), sec. 1.7(g)(1), explicitly prescribes the issuance of such guidelines to regulate the gathering, analyzing, producing and dissemination of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence.

  175. 175.

    See Sect. 5.3.2.3.

  176. 176.

    Jones 2009, 63-165.

  177. 177.

    The investigative policy of the DoJ has not changed since the Obama Administration took office: to date, Attorney General Holder has not decided to adopt new guidelines.

  178. 178.

    ‘Department of Justice Intelligence Sharing Procedures (6 March 2002), Memorandum from the Attorney General Ashcroft (Section I: Introduction and Statement of General Principles).

  179. 179.

    Memorandum of Understanding Between the Intelligence Community, Federal Law Enforcement Agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security Concerning Information Sharing, 4 March 2003. Available at: (http://fas.org/sgp/othergov/mou-infoshare.pdf) (accessed 27 December 2009). Henceforth: Memorandum of Understanding on Information Sharing (2003).

  180. 180.

    Memorandum of Understanding on Information Sharing (2003), 1.

  181. 181.

    Ibid., 4.

  182. 182.

    Ibid., 5.

  183. 183.

    The Attorney General’s Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise ad Terrorism Enterprise Investigations, Office of the Attorney General, Washington D.C., 2002, 20530. Available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/generalcrimes2.pdf (accessed 27 December 2009). Henceforth: Ashcroft Guidelines 2002.

  184. 184.

    Ashcroft Guidelines 2002, 2. And see: Donohue 2008, 249.

  185. 185.

    Ashcroft Guidelines 2002, preamble.

  186. 186.

    See Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.2.3.2.

  187. 187.

    Ashcroft Guidelines 2002, 1.

  188. 188.

    Ibid., 2.

  189. 189.

    Ibid., 2.

  190. 190.

    Ibid., 17.

  191. 191.

    Department of Justice, other Federal agencies and state or local criminal justice agencies, Ibid., 20-21.

  192. 192.

    Ibid., 21-22.

  193. 193.

    The Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection, Issued and classified by John Ashcroft on October 31, 2003 (declassified by AG Gonzales on August 2, 2007), available at: http://ftp.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fbi/nsiguidelines.pdf (accessed 17 December 2009).

  194. 194.

    The Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection 2003, 1.

  195. 195.

    Ibid., 2.

  196. 196.

    Ibid., 3.

  197. 197.

    Ibid., 3.

  198. 198.

    Ibid., 3-4.

  199. 199.

    Ibid., 4.

  200. 200.

    Ibid., 9-10.

  201. 201.

    Ibid., 24.

  202. 202.

    Ibid., 25.

  203. 203.

    Ibid., 26.

  204. 204.

    See Executive Order 12333 and 50 U.S.C. § 401a(4).

  205. 205.

    See also: Becker 2005, 63.

  206. 206.

    Introduction (2-3) of The Attorney General’s Guidelines for Domestic FBI Operations (2008) (henceforth: Mukasey Guidelines for FBI Operations 2008).

  207. 207.

    Mukasey Guidelines for FBI Operations 2008, 6 (under A).

  208. 208.

    Ibid., 6-7 (para A).

  209. 209.

    Ibid., 16 (para II).

  210. 210.

    Ibid., 9 (para II(A)).

  211. 211.

    Ibid., 19-20 (para II(A)(3) and (4)).

  212. 212.

    Ibid., 7 (para II).

  213. 213.

    Ibid., 21 (para II(B)(3)).

  214. 214.

    Ibid., 18 (para II).

  215. 215.

    Ibid., 21 and 32 (para II(B)(4)(a) and V(A)(11)-(13)).

  216. 216.

    Ibid., 22 (para II(B)(4)(b)).

  217. 217.

    Ibid., 18 and 23 (para II and II(C)).

  218. 218.

    Ibid., 25 (para III(A)).

  219. 219.

    Ibid., 29 (para IV).

  220. 220.

    Ibid., 35 (para VI(B)(1)).

  221. 221.

    Ibid., 35 (para VI(B)(2)).

  222. 222.

    Ibid., 35 (para VI(C)).

  223. 223.

    Ibid., 45 (para VII(S)(2)).

  224. 224.

    Ibid., 37-38 (para VI(D)(1)).

  225. 225.

    Ibid., 37-38 (para VI(D)(2)).

  226. 226.

    ‘Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), December 16, 2008 (unclassified) (henceforth: DIOG FBI (2008).’ Available at: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/diog.htm (accessed 9 February 2010).

  227. 227.

    See: http://foia.fbi.gov/foiaindex/diog.htm (accessed 9 February 2010).

  228. 228.

    DIOG FBI (2008), preamble, XI.

  229. 229.

    Ibid., 26.

  230. 230.

    Ibid., 27.

  231. 231.

    Ibid., 27-28.

  232. 232.

    Ibid., 29-30.

  233. 233.

    Ibid., 31.

  234. 234.

    Ibid., 37.

  235. 235.

    Ibid., 40.

  236. 236.

    Ibid., 76.

  237. 237.

    Ibid., 85.

  238. 238.

    Ibid., 85.

  239. 239.

    Ibid., 94.

  240. 240.

    Ibid., 95-96.

  241. 241.

    Pubic Law 108-458-Dec. 17, 2004.

  242. 242.

    Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, sec. 1001(a).

  243. 243.

    Ibid.

  244. 244.

    Ibid., sec. 1021.

  245. 245.

    Ibid., sec. 2001 (a) and (c).

  246. 246.

    Baker 2007A, 246-247 and 259 and Progress Report 2011, 12-13.

  247. 247.

    See in particular: Risen and Lichtblau 2005.

  248. 248.

    See also Baker 2007A, 87-89.

  249. 249.

    Report of the Offices of the Inspectors General on the President’s Surveillance Program 2009, 6.

  250. 250.

    50 U.S.C. 36 § 1809(a).

  251. 251.

    See in more detail: Cooper Blum 2009, 285-286.

  252. 252.

    Bloom and Dunn 2006.

  253. 253.

    Report of the Offices of the Inspectors General on the President’s Surveillance Program 2009, 21-29. This report was drafted as a result of the established oversight by the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, requiring the Inspectors General to review the program. See Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008, Public Law 110-261-July 10, 2008, 122 Stat. 2472, sec. 301(c).

  254. 254.

    In re Directives Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 551 F.3d 1004 (FISA Ct. Rev. 2008), 1016.

  255. 255.

    FISA Amendments Act 2008, Sec. 702(a) (50 U.S.C. § 1881(a)).

  256. 256.

    Ibid., Sec. 702(b) (50 U.S.C. § 1881(a)).

  257. 257.

    Ibid., sec. 702(g) and (i) (50 U.S.C. § 1881(a)).

  258. 258.

    50 U.S.C. § 1801(h)(3).

  259. 259.

    DIOG FBI (2008), 115.

  260. 260.

    See: Report of the Offices of the Inspectors General on the President’s Surveillance Program 2009, 18-19.

  261. 261.

    Report of the Offices of the Inspectors General on the President’s Surveillance Program 2009, 32.

  262. 262.

    The Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (the non-disclosure requirement was included in 1986), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, the Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970, which included NSL authority since 1996, and the National Security Act of 1947, amended in 1994 in order to include NSL authority. See in more detail on NSL authority in these Acts: Report of the Office of the Inspector General 2007, A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of National Security Letters, 11-15.

  263. 263.

    FISA Annual Report to Congress 2010, available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/doj/fisa/#rept (accessed 1 August 2011). For an overview of the amount of FISA Court orders and NSLs for the years 1979-2010, composed on the basis of annual and general reports, see: ‘Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court Orders 1979-2010’, Electronic Privacy Information Center, available at: http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html (accessed 29 July 2011). See also: Nieland 2007, 1202.

  264. 264.

    Section 505 USA PATRIOT Act 2001.

  265. 265.

    DIOG FBI (2008), 114-115.

  266. 266.

    Section 505(a)(1), (b)(1) and (c)(1)-(3) USA PATRIOT Act 2001.

  267. 267.

    See footnote 262 of this Chapter.

  268. 268.

    Report of the Office of the Inspector General 2007, A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of National Security Letters, 8-9.

  269. 269.

    Section 505(c) USA PATRIOT ACT 2001.

  270. 270.

    Nieland 2007, 1214 and Mart 2008, 456-457.

  271. 271.

    Sections 115 and 116 USA PATRIOT Act Amendments Act of 2005.

  272. 272.

    Section 116(a) USA PATRIOT Act Amendments Act of 2005.

  273. 273.

    According to a review in 2006 at least 97% of issued NSLs were still accompanied by the non-disclosure requirement. Report of the Office of the Inspector General (2008), A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of National Security Letters, Assessment of Corrective Actions and Examination of NSL usage in 2006, 124.

  274. 274.

    Section 5 USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.

  275. 275.

    This was last concluded in the Report of the Office of Inspector General 2010, A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Use of Exigent Letters and Other Informal Requests for Telephone Records.

  276. 276.

    Catledge v. Mueller, 323 Fed.Appx 464, 2009 WL 1025980 (7th Cir. 2009).

  277. 277.

    Ibid., 465 and 467.

  278. 278.

    Compare Bassiouni v. CIA, 392 F.3d 244, (7th Cir. 2004) and Bassiouni v. FBI, 436 F.3d 712 (7th Cir. 2006), as dealt with in Chap. 5, Sect. 5.3.1.4.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pels Rijcken & Droogleever Fortuijn N.V., PO Box 11756, 2502 AT, The Hague, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands

    Dr. Marianne F. H. Hirsch Ballin

Authors
  1. Dr. Marianne F. H. Hirsch Ballin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hirsch Ballin, M.F.H. (2012). Counterterrorism Measures Affecting Criminal Investigation in the United States. In: Anticipative Criminal Investigation. T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-843-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation