Resolution resolved: The United States federal government should substantially curtail its domestic surveillance. Violations

Domestic security surveillance has different legal standards

Tunheim 8 JUDGES: John R. Tunheim, United States District Judge. OPINION BY: John R. Tunheim UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MOHAMED ABDULLAH WARSAME, Defendant. Criminal No. 04-29 (JRT) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA 547 F. Supp. 2d 982; 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31698 April 17, 2008, Decided lexis

In United States v. United States District Court (Keith), 407 U.S. 297, 299, 92 S. Ct. 2125, 32 L. Ed. 2d 752 (1972), the Supreme Court addressed the "delicate question of the President's power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without [**26] prior judicial approval." The Court held that such judicial approval is necessary to satisfy the Fourth Amendment in conducting domestic security surveillance, but it specifically declined to address the scope of the President's surveillance power with respect to foreign intelligence. Id. at 323-24. However, Keith took care to explain that HN33Go to this Headnote in the case.the specific statutory requirements for electronic surveillance of "ordinary crime" under Title III 11 -- including the requirement [*993] of probable cause to believe an individual has, is, or is about to commit a crime -- were not constitutionally mandated in the context of domestic security surveillance for national security purposes. Id. at 322. Noting that HN34Go to this Headnote in the case.domestic security surveillance involves different policy and practical considerations from surveillance of "ordinary crime," Keith stated that "the focus of domestic surveillance may be less precise than that directed against more conventional types of crime." Id. Thus, the appropriate Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of reasonableness: "Different standards may be compatible with the Fourth Amendment if they are reasonable both in relation to the legitimate need of Government for intelligence information [**27] and the protected rights of our citizens." Id. at 322-23.