Whether a secret FISA-authorized computer search violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on general warrants, whether the Fourth Amendment imposes use restrictions on non-responsive evidence of regular crimes obtained from a FISA search, whether denying a Franks hearing on the FISA warrant requires suppression, whether lack of access to the FISA application violates due process, whether FISA contradicts legal traditions

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) Does a secret, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”) authorized computer search violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against general warrants when the government searches every file on a hard drive in the name of national security? (2) Does the Fourth Amendment impose use restrictions on non-responsive evidence of regular, nonnational security crimes, obtained from a FISA computer search? (3) Whether the District Court’s Denying Gartenlaub a Franks Hearing on the secret FISA Warrant Requires Suppression of the Fruits of that Warrant? (4) Does the fact that Gartenlaub wasn’t allowed to investigate, and adversarially challenge, the secret FISA search warrant application and materials used against him violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments’ fundamental criminal procedure protections? (5) Did the District Court err in denying Gartenlaub’s post-trial motion for a judgment of acquittal because the jury never heard the secret FISA evidence, and Gartenlaub never got to challenge it or argue it to the jury, thereby giving the Jury an insufficient picture of the evidence to convict?