Oregon Standoff Latest - Prosecutors Say No National Security Surveillance in Case

Prosecutors in the case of the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge filed court papers saying defense suggestions that national security apparatus was used to conduct surveillance is "mere speculation."

Defense lawyers in the case had asked the judge to order prosecutors to disclose whether the government had used an executive order that extended the power of intelligence agencies to intercept emails, cell phone calls, and other communications.

"Although this case is complex for many reasons, the discovery provided to date reflects evidence obtained using only regular criminal investigation authorities," Assistant United States Attorney Ethan Knight wrote in his filing.

"There is nothing in this case suggesting that any evidence in this investigation was collected by the U.S. Intelligence Community using non-criminal intelligence authorities."

Attorney Amy Baggio, who represents Joseph O'Shaughnessy, had written in her own filing that based on several things, it was a question worth pursuing.

She pointed out that in material turned over to the defense many of the 26 defendants had been labeled "domestic terrorists" and that, in applying for a warrant, several of the defendants had committed a federal crime of terrorism.

Baggio also wrote that 17 of the 26 defendants have notes in the FBI's National Crime Information Center indicating that they have "possible ties with terrorism.

In his response, Knight details the many ways that eh says the FBI gathered information in the case.

"Law enforcement officers monitored television news and public social media platforms while the defendants publicly incriminated themselves," he wrote. "Law enforcement obtained criminal search warrants for automobiles, online accounts, and digital devices seized at the Refuge or incident to arrest.

"They obtained court orders for pen register/trap and trace devices. They obtained court orders for information concerning stored electronic communications."

Knight says that the government so far has turned over approximately 43,700 pages and roughly two terabytes of discovery materials including, "evidence obtained while monitoring the defendants as they broadcasted their crimes on television news, on YouTube, and on other social media platforms. The discovery contains video obtained during aerial surveillance by law enforcement officers, the results obtained from cameras placed on telephone poles, and statements of witnesses interviewed by FBI agents."

Knight concludes by saying, ""because there is absolutely nothing to indicate that this investigation or prosecution involved anything other than a normal, albeit high-profile, domestic criminal investigation," the defense motion for a hearing on the issue should be denied.

Judge Anna Brown, who is presiding over the case has not yet ruled.