United States v. Dhirane
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
896 F.3d 295 (2018)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Al-Shabaab was an organization that engaged in terrorist activities in the Horn of Africa region, primarily in Somalia. The United States Department of State designated al-Shabaab as a foreign terrorist organization. Supporters of al-Shabaab participated in a chat room called the Group of Fifteen (the Group). Members of the Group pledged to make payments to support al-Shabaab’s operations. Muna Osman Jama and Hinda Osman Dhirane (defendants) were naturalized American citizens and members of the Group. Dhirane and Jama kept track of the members of the Group’s pledge commitments and distributed the money to coconspirators in Kenya and Somalia. The government (plaintiff) gathered evidence of Dhirane and Jama’s activities through electronic surveillance authorized by a warrant issued under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The government collected transcripts of incriminating conversations of Dhirane and Jama. Dhirane and Jama were indicted and charged with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and 20 substantive counts of providing material support in the form of money to a designated foreign terrorist organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1). Prior to trial, the government filed a notice of intent to present evidence gathered during the surveillance authorized by the FISA warrants. Dhirane and Jama moved to suppress this evidence, which they argued was unlawful and should be available for review by their counsel. The court conducted an in camera and ex parte review of the evidence and denied Dhirane’s and Jama’s motion, concluding that the warrants were properly issued and admissible. The court found both Dhirane and Jama guilty. Dhirane and Jama appealed, arguing that the court erred in denying their motion to suppress evidence obtained pursuant to warrants issued under the FISA and that the court applied an incorrect legal standard to conclude Mohamed and Abdullahi were part of al-Shabaab.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Niemeyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.