PDA

View Full Version : Judge Rules Provisions of Patriot Act Unconstitutional


Webmaster
09-06-2007, 11:02 AM
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 6, 2007; 1:56 PM

A federal judge today struck down portions of the USA Patriot Act as unconstitutional, ordering the FBI to stop issuing "national security letters" that secretly demand customer information from Internet service providers and other businesses.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark antiterrorism law violates the First Amendment and the separation of powers because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process.

Marrero wrote in his 106-page ruling that Patriot Act provisions related to NSLs are "the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values."

The decision has the potential to eliminate one of the FBI's most widely used investigative tactics. It comes amid widespread concern on Capitol Hill over reported abuses in the way the FBI has used its NSL powers.

NSLs allow agents in counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations to secretly gather Americans' phone, bank and Internet records without a court order or a grand jury subpoena. Although the FBI has had such power for many years, the Patriot Act, enacted in October 2001, significantly expanded its ability to issue the letters.

Marrero ruled that only some of the NSL provisions were unconstitutional, but found that it was impossible to separate those provisions from other parts of the law. He therefore struck down the FBI's ability to issue NSLs altogether.

Marrero delayed enforcement of his order for 90 days to give the government a chance to appeal. The Justice Department did not immediately respond to the ruling.

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified only as John Doe, who was prohibited under the law from publicly revealing that he had received an NSL. The Washington Post identified the plaintiff in 2004 as George Christian, an employee of the Library Connection Inc. in Windsor, Conn.

Anthony Romero, the ACLU's executive director, said the ruling "is yet another setback in the Bush administration's strategy in the war on terror and demonstrates the far-reaching efforts of this administration to use powers that are clearly unconstitutional."

The ruling marks the second time that Marrero has struck down the Patriot Act's NSL provisions. In 2004, the judge found the law unconstitutional because it silenced NSL recipients and gave them no recourse through the courts.

As the government was appealing that ruling, Congress passed new legislation in 2005 that was aimed at solving the problems identified by Marrero. But the judge, responding to an amended complaint by the ACLU, ruled today that "several aspects of the revised nondisclosure provision of the NSL statute violate the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers."

An internal FBI audit earlier this year found that the bureau potentially violated the law or agency rules more than 1,000 times while using NSLs to collect data about domestic phone calls, e-mails and financial transactions in recent years. Those findings followed an earlier audit by the Justice Department's inspector general, which found a much smaller number of violations in a narrow sampling.

More than 19,000 NSLs were issued in 2005 seeking 47,000 pieces of information, mostly from telecommunications companies, according to the government.

from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/06/AR2007090601438.html?hpid=topnews

Webmaster
09-27-2007, 07:17 AM
By Seattle Times staff and news service reports

PORTLAND — A federal judge has struck down two provisions of the USA Patriot Act, ruling they are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause.

U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as amended by the Patriot Act, wrongly allowed the executive branch to conduct surveillance in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

"For over 200 years, this nation has adhered to the rule of law — with unparalleled success," Aiken wrote in her opinion. "A shift to a nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised."

The ruling in Oregon follows a separate finding Sept. 6 by a federal judge in New York, who struck down provisions allowing the FBI to obtain e-mail and telephone data from companies without a court-issued warrant.

The decision also comes amid renewed congressional debate over the government's broad powers to conduct searches and surveillance in counterterrorism cases.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Wednesday night that the administration "will consider all our options" in responding to the ruling.

The Oregon ruling resulted from a lawsuit filed by Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield, who was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid, Spain, train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004.

The federal government apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million after admitting a fingerprint was misread. As part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act, which greatly expanded the authority of law enforcers to investigate suspected acts of terrorism.

Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his house and office under FISA violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed.

The U.S. Attorney General's Office sought to have the lawsuit dismissed. But Aiken ruled against the Justice Department lawyers, saying they were "asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. This court declines to do so."

Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, praised the judge, saying she "has upheld both the tradition of judicial independence, and our nation's most cherished principle of the right to be secure in one's own home."

He said the Justice Department is required to show probable cause before conducting a criminal search that is expected to lead to prosecution. According to Rosenthal, this is the first time a federal judge has ruled against these specific provisions of the Patriot Act.

Mayfield, a Muslim convert, was taken into custody on May 6, 2004, because of a fingerprint found on a detonator at the scene of the Madrid bombing. The FBI said the print matched Mayfield's. He was released about two weeks later, and the FBI admitted it had erred in saying the fingerprints were his and later apologized.

Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in the case.

The Associated Press, Washington Post and Seattle Times reporter Hal Bernton contributed to this report.

source: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003906509_patriot27.html