Make a legal outline that outlines the relevant law

Kladimir Gav Butin (KGB), a Russian citizen studying history and political theory at George Washington University, is still bitter about the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Determined to take down the United States, KGB sends an email to a friend of his who works for the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (which conducts much of Russian’s foreign intelligence operations). Before coming to the US, KGB and his friend would often talk about doing everything in their power to destroy the United States. In his email, KGB offers, on behalf of Russia, to steal classified information of the U.S. government. The friend simply responded “Great.” Excited, KBG asks his girlfriend, who works for the CIA, to provide him classified information relating to the U.S.’s dealings with Russia since the 2014 Crimean crisis. When the girlfriend refused, KGB took the girlfriend’s security badge, snuck into the CIA building, stole a classified file relating to actions taken by the U.S. government against Russia post Crimea, and emailed the information to his friend. Unknown to KGB, the CIA has the entire incident on camera, in which it was able, to a 50% match, identify KGB as the likely culprit.The CIA alerts the Department of Justice Counter Espionage section, which handles all espionage prosecutions, of the incident, and together the CIA and Counter Espionage section—through the Attorney General—file a FISA application with the FISC to wiretap KGB’s phone and review all his emails. The application states that KBG is a Russian citizen studying in the United States and that the government wants to place a wiretap on KGB’s cell phone and review KGB’s email account, RussiaKillsTheUS@gmail.com. In addition, the application outlines the break-in of the CIA office and the 50% likelihood of KGB being the culprit, and further states that “the surveillance is needed to gain additional evidence to determine whether to prosecute KGB for espionage”; the application further states that the government “wants to determine where KGB (or whomever the culprit is) is sending the classified information, considering that the information he stole related to classified intelligence information about Russia.”Review chapters 20 and 21, including the statutory definitions of key terms in FISA outlined in Rosen. You are a clerk for FISC Judge Boller. He asks you to make a legal outline that outlines the relevant law and analyzes whether he should approve the application to conduct electronic surveillance of KGB according to the state of law (1) before the Patriot Act was passed and In Re Sealed Cases was decided and (2) after the Patriot Act was passed and In re Sealed Cases was decided. 
The Outline should be organized based on the questions asked and should have headings that clearly walk through each step of the analysis. Indicate the applicable legal rules by typing, “Rule:” before the rule. Do the same for “Analysis” and “Conclusion.” The outline need not be in complete sentences; bullet points are

ANSWER

Before the Patriot Act and In re Sealed Cases:

I. Requirements for Electronic Surveillance A. Rule: Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 1. Requires a court order based on probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance. 2. Applies to foreign intelligence surveillance.

II. Standard for Approving Electronic Surveillance A. Rule: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 1. Established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). 2. Provided the standard for approving electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence cases.

III. Analysis A. Does the government have probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance? 1. Yes, the application outlines the break-in of the CIA office and the 50% likelihood of KGB being the culprit. B. Does the surveillance satisfy the standard under FISA for foreign intelligence cases? 1. Yes, the application states that the surveillance is needed to gather evidence for potential espionage prosecution and determine the recipient of classified information related to intelligence about Russia.

IV. Conclusion A. Based on the requirements of Title III and the standard set by FISA, the government has met the necessary criteria for the court to approve the application to conduct electronic surveillance of KGB.

After the Patriot Act and In re Sealed Cases:

I. Changes to Electronic Surveillance Requirements A. Rule: USA Patriot Act of 2001 1. Expanded the government’s authority to conduct electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence cases. B. Rule: In re Sealed Case decision 1. Upheld the constitutionality of the expanded authority under the Patriot Act.

II. Analysis A. Does the government have probable cause to conduct electronic surveillance? 1. Yes, the application outlines the break-in of the CIA office and the 50% likelihood of KGB being the culprit. B. Does the surveillance satisfy the standard under the Patriot Act for foreign intelligence cases? 1. Yes, the expanded authority under the Patriot Act and the upheld constitutionality in In re Sealed Case provide sufficient legal basis for the government to conduct electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence cases.

III. Conclusion A. Based on the changes made by the Patriot Act and the constitutionality upheld in In re Sealed Case, the government has met the necessary criteria for the court to approve the application to conduct electronic surveillance of KGB.