Personal Privacy: The Patriot Act Takes a Beating in Federal Court
By: Patrick J. Kish | Click to read full article
A huge blow was delivered to the Patriot Act on September 26, 2007 by a federal judge. Two provisions of the Act were considered unconstitutional because they would allow search warrants to be issued without showing probable cause.
U.S District Court Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, as amended by the Patriot Act, “now permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without providing probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.”
The ruling was delivered in a lawsuit by Portland attorney, Brandon Mayfield against the federal government. Mayfield had been mistakenly targeted as being linked by the FBI to the Madrid train bombings that killed 191 people in 2004. Mayfield claimed that secret searches of his home and office under the Foreign Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendments guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Judge Aiken agreed, reportedly criticizing the government.
“For over 200 years, this Nation has adhered to the rule of law-with unparalleled success. A shift to a Nation based on extra-constitutional authority is prohibited, as well as ill-advised.” she wrote.
The federal government eventually apologized and settled part of the lawsuit for $2 million and claimed that a fingerprint was “misread.” But as part of the settlement, Mayfield retained the right to challenge parts of the Patriot Act.
The Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, known as the USA Patriot Act, is an act of Congress which President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. The Act expanded the authority of U.S. law enforcement agencies for the stated purpose of fighting terrorism in the United States and abroad.
The Act has been criticized from its inception for weakening protections of civil liberties. In particular, opponents have criticized its authorization of indefinite detentions of immigrants; “sneak and peek” searches through which law enforcement officers search a home or business without the owner’s permission or knowledge; the expanded use of “National Security Letters”, which allow the FBI to search telephone, e-mail and financial records without a court order.
By asking her to dismiss Mayfield’s lawsuit, Judge Aiken said the U.S. Attorney General was “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.”
Americans’ emotional distress following 9/11 made it possible to push through an obviously flawed piece of legislation, regardless of the actual intent. Opposition of the current edition of the Patriot Act seems to be making strides in amending the Act. Based on the haphazard way in which it was designed, our personal rights and privacy deserve a complete review and overhaul.
