## Facts

- Four defendants in Southern California were involved in sending and arranging transfers of approximately $10,900 to individuals associated with al-Shabaab, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
- The government investigated the defendants using foreign-intelligence tools and later introduced evidence at trial that included recorded calls, financial records, and related testimony.
- The NSA operated a bulk telephony-metadata program under FISA § 215 that collected call-detail metadata (numbers dialed, time, duration) on a large scale, without collecting call content.
- Metadata analysis contributed to the investigative focus on Moalin and preceded the government’s pursuit of FISA authorization for content interception of his communications.
- The existence and scope of the bulk metadata program became publicly known in 2013; Moalin then learned metadata collection had been used in investigating him.
- Defendants were convicted in the Southern District of California of material-support and money-laundering offenses, and Moalin later sought a new trial and suppression based on the metadata program and related notice arguments.

## Issues

1. Whether the NSA’s bulk telephony-metadata collection exceeded the authorization of FISA § 215’s “relevance” requirement.
2. Whether bulk collection of telephony metadata violated the Fourth Amendment, and if so whether suppression of trial evidence was required.
3. Whether the Fourth Amendment requires notice when the prosecution uses or discloses information obtained or derived from foreign-intelligence surveillance, and whether any notice failure warranted relief.
4. Whether alleged Brady violations, evidentiary errors, or insufficiency of the evidence required reversal.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the NSA bulk telephony-metadata program exceeded the scope of FISA § 215 and therefore violated FISA.
- The court assumed the program may also have violated the Fourth Amendment, but held suppression was not warranted because the trial evidence was not tainted by the metadata collection.
- The court held the Fourth Amendment requires notice to a defendant when the government intends to use or disclose information obtained or derived from surveillance conducted under foreign-intelligence authorities, but found no prejudice on these facts.
- The court rejected challenges based on Brady, evidentiary rulings, and sufficiency of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- FISA § 215 authorizes compelled production of records only within the statute’s “relevance to an authorized investigation” limit; bulk, indiscriminate collection untethered to a specific investigation exceeds that authority.
- Even when surveillance is unlawful, suppression requires a sufficient causal connection between the illegality and the evidence introduced at trial; absence of taint defeats “fruit of the poisonous tree” suppression.
- When the prosecution intends to use, disclose, or introduce information obtained or derived from surveillance of a defendant conducted under foreign-intelligence authorities, the Fourth Amendment requires notice adequate to permit litigation of legality and remedies.
- Brady relief requires materiality; nondisclosure warrants reversal only when it undermines confidence in the verdict.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ruled that the pre-2015 NSA bulk telephony-metadata program was unauthorized by FISA § 215, recognized a Fourth Amendment notice requirement for foreign-intelligence-derived evidence in criminal cases, and nevertheless affirmed the defendants’ terrorism-related convictions because the admitted trial evidence was not tainted and any notice failure caused no prejudice.


United States v. Moalin, 973 F.3d 977 (9th Cir. 2020)