Chapter 22 - Organization and Coordination of Investigations

This chapter reviews material on coordination of investigation between different agencies.  We have seem much of this material before.

Attorney General’s Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Terrorism Enterprise Investigations [Domestic Security Guidelines] -

These guidelines are aimed at situations where crimes have or may have occurred.

These provide a useful view of how information that does not merit a full investigation is handled. They also detail how a terrorism investigation can also be done as a RICO investigation, depending on the nature of the crimes involved.

The guidelines constantly remind us that the FBI claims that it does not act on information that would be protected under the first amendment, but the guidelines authorize significant authority to investigate such activity (political protests, etc.) to make sure they are just political speech.

Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI National Security Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection

These guidelines are aimed at preventing terrorist acts and national security threats.

The guidelines provide the framework for data mining and other techniques we discussed in previous chapters.

Legal force of guidelines

These are not regulations, they are only internal guidance documents.  They have no legal force and cannot be enforced in judicial proceedings.

Chapter 23 - Surveillance Abroad

Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957)

What are the ‘‘Insular Cases’’?

Did Justice Black find that the US constitutional requirements for a jury trial applied to US citizens abroad?

How did Justice Harlan limit his concurrence?  What crimes would he agree with Black on and which did he think could be tried

Thinking about the exclusionary rule

What evidence does it exclude?

Is the rule in the constitution?

Where did it come from?

What is the purpose of the exclusionary rule?


What does this mean?

What does it deter?


Why does it not matter for foreign police?

What about alternatives?

Damage claims?

Disciplining officers who violate rights?

What is wrong with these?

Is there a good faith exception to the exclusionary rule in the US?

When is it usually applied?

The exclusionary rule in foreign searches - US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, (494 US 259 (1990) - 642

What are the facts?

What is the legal challenge?

How does the language of the 4th amendment differ from the language of the 5th and 6th amendments?

Why does the court say this change in language is significant?

What does it tell us about when and who the 5th and 6th amendments apply to?

What did Congress authorize to deal with French attacks on US vessels in 1798?

Why does this tell us that the 1798 Congress, which had a good idea of what the founders intended, did see the 4th amendment applying outside the US to foreign nationals?

What does Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 (1904), tell us about the application of the constitution in US held territory?

What rights would apply in such territory?

What are these rights?

Was this at issue in the Guantanamo detainee cases?

What was the issue in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950)?

How did the court rule in Johnson?

How does the court distinguish Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957)

How would a universal application of the US Constitution affect our ability to use the military abroad?

Could Congress just suspend the Constitution to allow wars?

Why did Justice Kennedy say he concurred?

What did the dissent say?

Justice Blackmun wrote: American agents acting abroad generally do not purport to exercise sovereign authority over the foreign nationals with whom they come in contact.

What does this mean? 

Is this the key to understanding the foreign/domestic constitutional application questions?

What did Harbury v. Deutch, 233 F.3d 596 (D.C. Cir. 2000), tell us about the application of the 5th amendment to torture of foreign nationals done abroad?

How does the Detainee Treatment Act change that?

Does it apply to everyone?

What does Little v. Barreme, 2 Cranch 170 (1804) tell us about the enforceability of the Act by a tortured foreign national?

Should this still be the law?

Does this interfere with the president's foreign policy if he thinks torture is necessary?

United States v. Bin Laden, 126 F. Supp. 2d 264 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)

Remember - Truong, which the court relies on, is no longer good law.

What events are being investigated?

What are the two suppression requests?

Is this a US citizen?

Does FISA address foreign searches?

What does this court assume that means? No limits or usual 4th amendment tests?

Had warrantless searches been done in the past?

What is the biggest problem with a warrant requirement for a foreign search?

Could this be cured by using a US judge?

What practical problems might that entail?

When does the court say that the appropriateness of the search will be reviewed by a judge?

What is the foreign intelligence exception that the court is applying?

Who does this apply to?

How does the court apply the requirement from Truong?

Do you think this would still apply, given the rejection of Truong for domestic searches?

Who has to authorize the search?

Do they have to do it personally?

How far can this be delegated?

Does the government claim the foreign intelligence exception for the electronic surveillance?

What is the justification for the surveillance?

Does the court accept this?

Why not?

What could the government have done to cure the problem with the electronic surveillance?

What did the government say were complicating factors that made the electronic surveillance difficult?

Did the court find that the government was acting in good faith?

What does the court look at to decide if the search of the residence was reasonable?

What is the standard for reasonableness for drug dealers in United States v. Barona, 56 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 1995)?

What if the foreign courts are more flexible than the US courts?

The court distinguished cases where the US agents were in a joint venture with the local police, in which case there would be more scrutiny - what would this amount to after Bin Laden?

What if the US has signed an agreement with the foreign government to use its legal process, then fails to?

Should this be the basis for excluding the evidence if it would otherwise be admissible?

Does the Silver Platter doctrine apply to foreign police or governments?

How would the joint venture limitation apply?

What is the "shocks the conscience" exception to the silver platter doctrine?

What was shocking about United States v. Fernandez-Caro, 677 F. Supp. 893 (S.D. Tex. 1987)?

Has this been accepted in many cases?

Is this an issue in the Guantanamo detainee trials?