Previous 1 / 50 Next

FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 14-30217 v. D.C. No. 3:10-cr-00475-KI-1 MOHAMED OSMAN MOHAMUD, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted July 6, 2016 Portland, Oregon Filed December 5, 2016 Before: Harry Pregerson, Carlos T. Bea, and John B. Owens, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Owens

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

U.S. v. Mohamud

Case Law

Country

United States

Country Location

Latitude: 39.778231903243785

Longitude: -100.8801256788983

Country Location (linked Case Law): United States

Decision Date: Dec 5, 2016

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Affirmed Lower Court

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Law or Action Upheld

Keywords

Data Protection and Retention
Privacy
Terrorism

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Case Number: No. 14-30217

Case Summary: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an Oregon District Court ruling that the incidental collection of a U.S. citizen's activities online under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) did not violate the Appellant's Fourth Amendment rights protecting a citizen from unreasonable search and seizure. The Appeals Court also held that the District Court properly rejected the Appellant's entrapment defense. The monitoring a foreign national's email account from inside the U.S. revealed emails between the foreign national and the Appellant, Mohamed Osman Mohamud which led the government to obtain a FISA warrant to monitor the defendant's account. The FBI subsequently carried out an undercover operation in which they arranged for Mohamud to believe he was to detonate a bomb at the Portland Christmas tree lighting ceremony. The Court reasoned that because the collection of Mohamud's communications was incidental to lawful surveillance of a foreign national outside the U.S. under Section 702 which surveillance was outside the scope of the Fourth Amendment, there was no violation of Mohamud's Fourth Amendment rights either on the incidental collection of emails or when it used the emails to obtain an FISA warrant to surveil Mohamud and his activities.

Case Significance: The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source URL: Columbia Global Freedom of Expression

Primary Documents

US v Mohamed.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

U.S. v. Mohamud

Primary Documents

Notifications