University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name U.S. v. Daoud NS-IL-0002
Docket / Court 1:12-cr-00723 ( N.D. Ill. )
State/Territory Illinois
Case Type(s) National Security
Special Collection Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- All Matters
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- Internet Metadata
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- Telephony Metadata
Case Summary
On September 15, 2012, the government initiated criminal prosecution of Adel Daoud in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon after arresting Daoud the day before. The government charged Daoud with attempting to damage and destroy a building by means of explosion, in violation of 18 U.S. ... read more >
On September 15, 2012, the government initiated criminal prosecution of Adel Daoud in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon after arresting Daoud the day before. The government charged Daoud with attempting to damage and destroy a building by means of explosion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2332a(a)(2)(D) and 844(i). Daoud allegedly attempted to bomb a bar in Chicago with a fake bomb provided by an FBI sting. In August, 2013, the government added the charge of soliciting a crime of violence, murder for hire, and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 373(a), 1958(a), and 1512(a)(1)(A), respectively. Daoud allegedly attempted to solicit someone to murder the undercover agent with whom he had dealt.

This case is in this Clearinghouse because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh District addressed the tension between the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the evidentiary investigation required by the test laid out in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), for determining the legality of a warrant. The Frans test allows a defendant to challenge a search warrant on the ground that it was procured by a knowing or reckless falsehood by the officer who applied for the warrant. More details on the underlying criminal litigation are provided at the end.

The government notified the defendant, pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1806(c) and 1825(d)-sections of FISA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.-that it intended to present evidence at his trial derived from electronic surveillance that had been conducted under the authority of the Act.

Daoud responded through counsel with a motion seeking access to the classified materials submitted in support of the government's FISA warrant applications in order to determine the legality of the warrant to obtain access to Daoud's communications. The defense counsel sought to show that the evidence obtained or derived from the electronic surveillance was based on information that was unlawfully acquired or that the surveillance was not made in conformity with an order of authorization or approval, both being grounds for suppression. The defense counsel argued that it would be too difficult to conduct a Franks hearing without the classified materials that the government relied on in obtaining the warrant. Anticipating this difficulty, the drafters of FISA devised a solution: the judge makes the additional determination, based on full access to all classified materials and the defense's proffer of its version of events, of whether it's possible to determine the validity of the Franks challenge without disclosure of any of the classified materials to the defense.

In response to the defendant's motion, the government filed a heavily redacted, unclassified response, accessible to Daoud and his lawyers, and a classified version, accessible only to the district court, accompanied by an unclassified statement by the Attorney General that disclosure of the classified material, or an adversarial hearing with respect to it, "would harm the national security of the United States." The harm was detailed in a classified affidavit signed by the FBI's Acting Assistant Director for Counterterrorism.

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the district court studied the classified materials to determine whether they should be shown to the defendant's lawyers, who had the necessary level of security clearances. On January 29, 2014, Judge Coleman ordered the materials to be turned over to the defense counsel. Judge Coleman acknowledged the unprecedented nature of the disclosure of FISA materials to a defense counsel, but held that "the adversarial process is integral to safeguarding the rights of all citizens," and that "the supposed national security interest at stake is not implicated where defense counsel has the necessary security clearances," Judge Coleman ruled that "the probable value of disclosure and the risk of nondisclosure outweighed the potential danger of disclosure to cleared counsel." United States v. Daoud, 2014 WL 321384 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2014). The order, though interlocutory, was appealable immediately, and the government appealed.

On June 16, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Seventh District reversed the district court's order. Judge Richard Posner, writing for the court, held that Judge Coleman had failed to to conduct a proper ex parte in camera review to determine whether the defense counsel was entitled to the FISA material. Judge Ilana Rovner filed a concurring opinion. In addressing the Franks issue, Judge Posner wrote, "Thirty-six years after the enactment of FISA, it is well past time to recognize that it is virtually impossible for a FISA defendant to make the showing that Franks requires in order to convene an evidentiary hearing, and that a court cannot conduct more than a limited Franks review on its own. Possibly there is no realistic means of reconciling Franks with the FISA process. But all three branches of government have an obligation to explore that question thoroughly before we rest with that conclusion." United States v. Daoud, 2014 WL 2696734 (7th Cir. June 16, 2014).

Here are additional details on the criminal case:

The first indictment arose out of an investigation that began in May 2012 when Daoud, an 18-year-old American citizen and resident of Hillside, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago, joined an email conversation with two undercover FBI employees posing as terrorists who had responded to messages that he had posted online. The ensuing investigation, based in part on a series of surveillance warrants, yielded evidence that Daoud planned "violent jihad"-terrorist attacks in the name of Islam-and had discussed his plans with "trusted brothers." He expressed interest in committing such attacks in the United States, utilizing bombmaking instructions that he had read both in Inspire magazine, an organ of Al Qaeda that is published in English, and through internet searches. One of his FBI correspondents put him in touch with an undercover agent (a "cousin") whom the correspondent represented to be a fellow terrorist. After meeting six times with the "cousin," Daoud selected a bar in downtown Chicago to be the target of a bomb that the agent would supply him with. The agent told him the bomb would destroy the building containing the bar, and warned him that it would kill "hundreds" of people. Daoud replied: "that's the point."

On September 14, 2012, Daoud parked a Jeep containing the bomb in front of the bar. In a nearby alley, in the presence of the agent, he tried to detonate the bomb. Nothing happened, of course, because the bomb was a fake. Daoud was immediately arrested. It was while in jail a month later that, according to the second indictment, he tried to solicit someone to murder the undercover agent with whom he had dealt.

The criminal proceedings are ongoing.

Jessica Kincaid - 07/21/2014


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Unreasonable search and seizure
General
Confidentiality
Search policies
Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues
Plaintiff Type
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Causes of Action None on record
Defendant(s) Adel Daoud
Plaintiff Description The plaintiff was the U.S. government. The defendant was Adel Daoud, a U.S. citizen, charged with attempting to damage and destroy a building by means of explosion and soliciting a crime of violence, murder for hire, and witness tampering.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Links Guest Post: New Resource — Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse FISA Archives
Just Security
Posted: Jun. 26, 2014
By: Margo Schlanger
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
1:12−cr−00723 (N.D. Ill.) 07/15/2014
NS-IL-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Criminal Complaint 09/15/2012
NS-IL-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant's Motion for Notice of FISA Amendments Act Evidence Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881e(a), 1806(c) 05/22/2013
NS-IL-0002-0007.pdf | Detail
Government's Sur-Reply to Defendant's Motion of Notice of FISA Amendments Act Evidence Pursuant to §§ 1881(e)(a) and 1806(c) 08/08/2013
NS-IL-0002-0011.pdf | Detail
Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of FISA-Related Material and to Suppress the Fruits or Derivatives of Electronic Surveillance and any Other Means of Collection Conducted Pursuant to FISA or Other Foreign Intelligence Gathering 08/09/2013
NS-IL-0002-0008.pdf | Detail
Government's Consolidated Response to Defendant's Pretrial Motions 08/26/2013
NS-IL-0002-0009.pdf | Detail
Motion for Discovery in Support of Defendant's Previously Filed Motion for Notice of FISA Amendments Act Evidence Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. §§ 1881e(a), 1806(c) (Dkt. #42) 09/18/2013
NS-IL-0002-0013.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum Opinion and Order 01/29/2014 (2014 WL 321384) (N.D. Ill.)
NS-IL-0002-0002.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: Bloomberg Law
Order [of USCA regarding notice of appeal 97] 03/20/2014
NS-IL-0002-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of the United States and Short Appendix 03/31/2014
NS-IL-0002-0010.pdf | Detail
Opinion [Reversing District Court's Order] 06/16/2014 (755 F.3d 479)
NS-IL-0002-0005.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Final Judgment [Reversing District Court's Order] 06/16/2014
NS-IL-0002-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Classified Opinion Explaining June 16 Opinion] 07/14/2014 (761 F.3d 678)
NS-IL-0002-0004.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: U.S. Court of Appeals website
Judges Coleman, Sharon Johnson (N.D. Ill.)
NS-IL-0002-0002 | NS-IL-0002-9000
Kanne, Michael Stephen (Seventh Circuit, N.D. Ind.)
NS-IL-0002-0004 | NS-IL-0002-0005 | NS-IL-0002-0006
Keys, Arlander (N.D. Ill.) [Magistrate]
NS-IL-0002-9000
Posner, Richard A. Court not on record
NS-IL-0002-0003 | NS-IL-0002-0004 | NS-IL-0002-0005 | NS-IL-0002-0006
Rovner, Ilana Kara Diamond (Seventh Circuit, N.D. Ill.)
NS-IL-0002-0004 | NS-IL-0002-0005 | NS-IL-0002-0006
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Haxall, Bolling W. (Illinois)
NS-IL-0002-9000
Jonas, Barry (Illinois)
NS-IL-0002-9000
Ridgway, William (Illinois)
NS-IL-0002-0009 | NS-IL-0002-0010 | NS-IL-0002-0011 | NS-IL-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Cody, MiAngel C. (Illinois)
NS-IL-0002-9000
Durkin, Thomas Anthony (Illinois)
NS-IL-0002-0007 | NS-IL-0002-0008 | NS-IL-0002-0013 | NS-IL-0002-9000
Herman, Joshua G. (Illinois)
NS-IL-0002-0007 | NS-IL-0002-0008 | NS-IL-0002-0013 | NS-IL-0002-9000
Roberts, Janis D. (Illinois)
NS-IL-0002-0008 | NS-IL-0002-0013 | NS-IL-0002-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -