Feds May Have To Reveal FISA Phone Records In Murder Case
from the well-this-interesting dept
There's been a lot of focus elsewhere concerning the FISA rulings that were leaked, showing that the government is scooping up the details of pretty much every phone call. However, a case concerning some guys who were trying to rob an armored truck may lead to some interesting revelations related to what the government collects. Daryl Davis, Hasam Williams, Terrance Brown, Toriano Johnson, and Joseph K. Simmons were charged with trying to rob a bunch of armored Brink's trucks, in which one of the robberies went wrong and a Brink's employee was shot and killed. As part of the case against the group, the DOJ obtained call records. However, during discovery, the government refused to hand over call records for July of 2010, claiming that when they sought them from the telco, the DOJ was told that those records had been purged. Terrance Brown's lawyer is now claiming that since it appears the NSA has sucked up all of this data for quite some time, it would appear that the government should, in fact, already have the phone records from July 2010, which he argues would show that he was nowhere near the robbery when it happened.Defendant Brown urges that the records are important to his defense because cell-site records could be used to show that Brown was not in the vicinity of the attempted robbery that allegedly occurred in July 2010. And, relying on a June 5, 2013, Guardian newspaper article that published a FISA Court order relating to cellular telephone data collected by Verizon,1 Defendant Brown now suggests that the Government likely actually does possess the metadata relating to telephone calls made in July 2010 from the two numbers attributed to Defendant Brown.The court agrees that, under the law, the government may need to produce those records.
Here, Defendant asserts that, under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), due process requires the production of the July 2010 telephone records because they are anticipated to be exculpatory in that they are expected to show that Defendant Brown was not physically located at the scene of the alleged attempted Brink’s truck robbery in July 2010.That order was actually issued Monday, only giving the government until yesterday to comply. At the time of posting, the government's reply has not yet shown up in PACER, though it may pop up soon. I'm guessing that they'll try to either get some sort of extension or explain why those records are somehow inaccessible -- but it could get interesting.
In view of Defendant Brown’s Motion and the requirements of FISA, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the Government shall respond to Defendant Brown’s Motion and, if desired, shall file an affidavit of the Attorney General of the United States.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: criminal cases, discovery, doj, nsa, nsa surveillance, phone records, terrance brown
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And you still think they do it to keep you safe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Cookies are a delicious alternative and everyone knows what cookies go best with.
I welcome more NSA stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This site is called TechDirt. The stories on the NSA spying are EXACTLY what this site should talk about.
You complain that most of the time this site talks about unrelated things and as soon as some Dirt is dug up relating to Tech you hassle it for discussing it.
Piss Off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they're demonstrably not using the captured data to protect us from actual criminals, what on earth are they doing with it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Now imagine MPAA getting Google's log of your history!
So while perhaps exculpatory here, the far more common use of Google/Verizon/NSA data will be INculpatory.
And yet you kids can't see why I rail about ALL computerized surveillance including Google's! I'm actually on your side in being against Google ratting you out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now imagine MPAA getting Google's log of your history!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now imagine MPAA getting Google's log of your history!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Now imagine MPAA getting Google's log of your history!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Now imagine MPAA getting Google's log of your history!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now imagine MPAA getting Google's log of your history!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Now imagine MPAA getting Google's log of your history!
Nobody says otherwise.
But you don't rail against ALL computerized surveillance. You only rail against Google. Constantly and obsessively. You seem quite in favor of some forms of computerized surveillance, in fact, when it comes to battling copyright infringement.
While we may agree on some points such as our aversion to surveillance by Google, your comments over a long period of time have made it very clear that you don't consider yourself to be on "our" side (whatever that is). You consider yourself to be our enemy.
Well, in fairness, you consider yourself to be the enemy of the fictional stereotypes you think we are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Phones
The quickest way to get caught committing a crime is to tell someone about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: The Phones
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That in & of itself should be illegal. If my phone's dead &/ or at home charging, how would that incriminate me? At worst, it can't provide an alibi, not that it could've to begin w/ unless I actually called someone at that time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The guy could be guilty. He could also be telling the truth that he wasn't there. Let's let due process do it's thing. If he's guilty and walks, that sucks. But that's better, IMO, than him being innocent while not being able to show some exculpatory evidence because the NSA would prefer to keep their secret surveillance secret for longer.
Presumed innocent until proven guilty. Let due process work. Make the prosecution do it's job of proving guilt. Let the defendant show his evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Devils Advocate
Certainly going forward, clever criminals are likely to make sure their phone is elsewhere when a crime is being committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devils Advocate
The clever ones have been doing this for a long time. The fact that you can be tracked through your cell phone has been widespread knowledge for years.
Fortunately, there are very few clever criminals. The really clever ones realize that there are much more profitable and safer ways to earn a living than breaking the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devils Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Devils Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Devils Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devils Advocate
They get their friends to rewrite the law and collect bonuses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Devils Advocate
"Earn a living" is not the American dream. The American dream is about leeching several thousand livings out of people struggling to make do.
And of course, part of the sport is not contributing equally to the global community, instead smuggling your money out into "investments" and tax havens, either by flat out breaking of the law, or by buying the law.
Crime pays, particularly big crime. And there are a lot of shelves not accessible for mere "honest wages".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devils Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Devils Advocate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You guys know where the burden of proof is, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I left my coat in a bar last night - could someone ask the NSA which bars I was in so I can go and get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This part is interesting
This court is going to determine whether the surveillance was lawful! And if the AG doesn't bother to file this affidavit, it will be in open court!
It would be crazy if it all comes down to some random bank robbery suspect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless the phones are surgically implanted into the accused.
New alibi, commit a crime, use a burner and have someone else drive your phones around the other side of town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exonerating or incriminating?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public Records
I do not expect the official transcript of that hearing to be available for some time yet. Typically those transcripts are not released immediately. I would want to refer to the transcript to see exactly what Director Mueller testified to in today's public hearing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
K.?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back in the day ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait! Wait! This is an example of a term I learned here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]