An Uzbek man in Colorado is the first person to challenge warrantless collection of specific evidence in a criminal case against him. The Supreme Court effectively shut down less-specific petitions last year. The US government argues such data collection is authorized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Amendments Act.

Nearly a year ago, the Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that even groups that have substantial reasons to believe that their communications are being surveilled by government intelligence agencies—such as journalists, activists, and attorneys with contacts overseas—have no standing to sue the federal government. The reason? They can't prove that they have been actively surveilled.

That was a major catch-22 since those who were being watched weren't exactly going to be told about the surveillance.

But that changed in October 2013 when the Justice Department altered its policy, stating that when prosecutors used warrantless wiretaps against criminal defendants, the defendants must be told. The first such person to receive such a notification was Jamshid Muhtorov, an Uzbek human rights activist who now lives in Colorado as a political refugee and permanent resident. He first came to the US in 2007.

In 2012, Muhtorov was charged (PDF) with conspiracy to provide material support to a Islamic Jihad Union, identified by the US as a terrorist organization.

Muhtorov and his counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a new motion against the government in his pending criminal case. In his 69-page brief, he argues that the “fruits of the [FISA AA] surveillance” be suppressed on the grounds that his Fourth Amendment rights, protecting against unreasonable search and seizure, were violated.

"The FISA Amendments Act affords the government virtually unfettered access to the international phone calls and e-mails of US citizens and residents,” ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said in a statement. “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. Surveillance conducted under this statute is unconstitutional, and the fruits of this surveillance must be suppressed."