A refugee from Uzbekistan accused of conspiring with terrorists filed a motion Wednesday protesting the government’s use of warrantless wiretaps of his phone calls and e-mails.

Defendant Jamshid Muhtorov, of Aurora, represented by the federal public defender’s office and the American Civil Liberties Union, said the surveillance based on a controversial federal law was unconstitutional.

Prosecutors acknowledged for the first time ever in a federal criminal case that it used warrantless wiretaps in its investigation against the Uzbekistan native.

Warrantless wiretapping was initiated after passage of a 2008 amendment to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that allows agents to tap phone calls and e-mails without a specific warrant if it targets a foreigner living overseas.

In October, prosecutors filed notice that they intend to use evidence at trial based on the controversial surveillance tool. Muhtorov was arrested in early 2012 and is accused of providing support to a designated terror group based in Uzbekistan.

The evidence against Muhtorov consists largely of e-mails and telephone calls with a representative of the Islamic Jihad Union. According to a criminal complaint, Muhtorov said he was willing to die for the group’s cause. He is not accused of planning a terror attack on American soil, and he has said he is innocent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such surveillance. A case brought against the government was thrown out last year because plaintiffs couldn’t show they had been the subject of warrantless eavesdropping. In the majority opinion in that case, Justice Samuel Alito wrote if the government told a defendant about evidence gathered by warrantless wiretaps, “the affected person may challenge the lawfulness of the acquisition.”

“For five years the government insulated this statute from judicial review by concealing from criminal defendants how the evidence against them was obtained, but the government will not be able to shield the statute from review in this case,” said Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU of Colorado.

Muhtorov’s attorneys argue that the FISA Amendments Act violates the Fourth Amendment because it permits the government to collect and access the international communications of U.S. residents in bulk, without individualized court review.

“The FISA Amendments Act affords the government virtually unfettered access to the international phone calls and e-mails of U.S. citizens and residents,” said ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer.

“We’ve learned over the last few months that the NSA has implemented the law in the broadest possible way, and that the rules that supposedly protect the privacy of innocent people are weak and riddled with exceptions,” Jaffer said. “Surveillance conducted under this statute is unconstitutional, and the fruits of this surveillance must be suppressed.”

The President’s Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies, which released its report last month, found that surveillance under the law does not sufficiently protect the privacy of U.S. citizens or residents and should be subjected to a number of significant restrictions – including a bar on the government’s use of evidence obtained through such surveillance in criminal proceedings like Muhtorov’s, according to a news release by the ACLU.

Kirk Mitchell: 303-954-1206, denverpost.com/coldcases or twitter.com/kmitchelldp