b6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b7C
UNITED STATES
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT 7
WASHINGTONb?7A
b7C

- OPINION
The applications before the Court seek authority under the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act (PISA) to install pen register end/or trap and trap devices upol i433 Abl

?l b3
and to acquire related business records from ll :32;
?33 b7C
b?7E

 

 

 

August 20, 2018, Public Release EFF V. DOJ 16-CV-02041 Document 11, page 1 of 4

Ensem?

The Court has approved the applications in their entirety. This opinion brie?y

i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

explains the Court?s rationale for approving the request f0 7 This isi b1
b3
opinion is not intended to serve as a comprehensive analysis of the issueUnder 50 U.S.C. 1861, the Government may apply to this Court for an order
requiring the production ?of any tangible things (including books, records, papers,
documents; and other items)??in connection with certain typeset-foreign intelligeneeand - -
- b1
international terrorism investigations. The . b3
5" b?iA
5 ma

 

 

 

August 20, 2018, Public Release EFF V. DOJ 16-CV-02041 Document 11, page 2 of4

 

bl

b7A
b?7E

 

 

 

 

 

[he Supreme

 

Court noted in Smith v. Maryland, 442 735 (1979), that the applicability of the
Fourth Amendment depends on Whether the person invoking its protection can claim a
?justi?able, reasonable? or ?legitimate? expectation of privacy that has been invaded
by government action. Smith, 442 US. at 740.

At issue in Smith was the use of a pen register to record the numbers dialed from

a telephone in the petitioner 5 home The ?pen register was installed by the telephone

 

cornpany on telephone cornpany preperty at the reqhest oi' the police The Supreme
Court squarely re] ected the notion that the petitioner had a legitimate expectation of
privacy regarding the numbers that he dialed on his home phone:

This Court consistently has held that a person has no
legitimate expectation of privacy in information he
voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . When he used his
phone, petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical
information to the telephone company and ?exposed? that
information to its equipment in the ordinary course of

?bnsinessr ?ln?so doing'petitioner assumedthe risk that the
company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.

Smith, 442 US. at 743?744.

 

 

The rationale in Smith is also applicable here. 

b?7A
b7E

 

 

 

 

ALigust 20, 2018, Public Release EFF V. DOJ Document 11, page 3 of 4



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i- 77777 777777777 . bl
and, therefore, no Fourth Amendment to b3
I - b?7A
keep thai information from being turned over to the Government. b7E
Entered the ?35
as:

 

 

 

COLLEEN TEL 
Presiding Judge, US. Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Court

i, Karen E. Sutton, Cierk, .
FISC, certify th at this document 

is a true and corr :31 con
of the original?yy?g?? 4

August 20, 2018, Public Release EFF V. DOJ 16-CV-02041 Document 11, page 4 of 4?