Remember folks, the police can still search your house in violation of the 4th amendment. The only thing the legal system (EDIT: er, the criminal justice system

Remember folks, the police can still search your house in violation of the 4th amendment. The only thing the legal system (EDIT: er, the criminal justice system) currently does is let your defense attorney keep them from using that evidence against you. Assuming you have an attorney who is being paid enough to go to suppression hearings. http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1588 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1588 If you don't have charges filed against you, then you don't have an opportunity to challenge the validity* of the FISA court warrant and jurisprudence around how warrants are issued makes it into the public record to be debated by law students, legislators, much less an appeals court or SCOTUS. All you can hope to do is file a civil suit under a statute like 42 USC 1983 (see https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983 and thank you mikecb) It seems, looking through the civil complaint (https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/wikimedia_v2c_nsa_-_complaint.pdf https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/wikimedia_v2c_nsa_-_compla...) that in this case, wikimedia actually only filed for an injunction to stop collection and pay attorney's fees on the basis of 28 USC 2412. (*Most warrant requests in general get issued, but that is not because judges are rubber stamps, rather because prosecutors try to avoid wasting a judge's time. But I'm not sure we have the info to say that about the FISA court. Judges are human and an institution without the perspective imposed by public discourse will only become more and more susceptible to its biases)