Case: United States v. Nicholson

1:96-cr-00448 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Filed Date: Nov. 5, 1996

Closed Date: 1997

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On November 5, 1996, the U.S. charged the defendant with espionage, attempted espionage, and conspiracy to commit espionage, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 794. The U.S., represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office, filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On November 18, 1996, the defendant was arrested. The defendant moved for recusal of judge. On February 3, 1997, Judge James C. Cacheris denied the defendant's motion and held that: (1) recusal was not re…

On November 5, 1996, the U.S. charged the defendant with espionage, attempted espionage, and conspiracy to commit espionage, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 794. The U.S., represented by the U.S. Attorney's Office, filed the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. On November 18, 1996, the defendant was arrested.

The defendant moved for recusal of judge. On February 3, 1997, Judge James C. Cacheris denied the defendant's motion and held that: (1) recusal was not required on basis that judge had issued Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) orders; (2) recusal was not required on basis that judge received ex parte information during FISA proceedings; and (3) recusal was not required even though defendant planned to challenge constitutionality of FISA court's authority to order physical searches without conventional warrants. United States v. Nicholson, 955 F. Supp. 582 (E.D. Va. 1997).

The defendant moved to suppress evidence derived from searches or seizures conducted pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). In the course of the investigation that led to Defendant's arrest and indictment, Defendant's home, office, car, safe deposit box, and personal effects were subject to electronic surveillance and physical searches conducted under FISA, 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801 et seq.

On February 14, 1997, Judge Cacheris denied the defendant's motion to suppress. Judge Cacheris held that: (1) as a matter of first impression, physical searches authorized under FISA do not violate Fourth Amendment provision against searches and seizures; (2) FISA does not violate due process clause of Fifth Amendment; (3) FISA does not deny defendant right to counsel provided for in Sixth Amendment; (4) surveillance conducted pursuant to FISA does not violate equal protection clause of Fifth Amendment; (5) FISA does not violate separation of powers doctrine by having Article III judges adjudicate search requests; and (6) FISA does not violate the political question doctrine. United States v. Nicholson, 955 F. Supp. 588 (E.D. Va. 1997).

All other documents, except the docket, have been sealed.

Summary Authors

Jessica Kincaid (6/16/2014)

People


Judge(s)

Cacheris, James Chris (Virginia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Chesnut, Robert (Virginia)

Shapiro, Jonathan (New York)

Turley, Jonathan (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

O'Grady, Liam (Virginia)

Judge(s)

Cacheris, James Chris (Virginia)

Attorney for Defendant

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

1:96-cr-00448

Docket

USA v. Nicholson

Aug. 14, 1997

Aug. 14, 1997

Docket
66

1:96-cr-00448

Memorandum Opinion

U.S. v. Nicholson

Feb. 3, 1997

Feb. 3, 1997

Order/Opinion

995 F.Supp. 995

102

1:96-cr-00448

Memorandum Opinion

U.S. v. Nicholson

Feb. 14, 1997

Feb. 14, 1997

Order/Opinion

955 F.Supp. 955

Docket

Last updated March 25, 2024, 3:03 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Virginia

Case Type(s):

National Security

Special Collection(s):

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act -- All Matters

Key Dates

Filing Date: Nov. 5, 1996

Closing Date: 1997

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The U.S.

Plaintiff Type(s):

U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Harold Nicholson, Private Entity/Person

Case Details

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Unreasonable search and seizure

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Criminal Conviction

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Conditions of confinement

Extradition

Over/Unlawful Detention

Search policies

Terrorism/Post 9-11 issues

Torture

Totality of conditions