US Judges rule portions of the Patriot Act Unconstitutional

[ChamberedRound]

News regarding the ruling from a NY Federal Judge:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep29.html

and also from an Oregon Federal Judge regarding the Mayfield Case:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/

Each article, respectively, is quoted below.

Key Part of Patriot Act Ruled Unconstitutional
Internet Providers' Data at Issue

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 30, 2004; Page A16

A federal judge in New York ruled yesterday that a key component of the USA Patriot Act is unconstitutional because it allows the FBI to demand information from Internet service providers without judicial oversight or public review.

The ruling is one of several judicial blows to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies in recent months.

In a sharply worded 120-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero found in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit on behalf of an unidentified Internet service provider challenging the FBI's use of a type of administrative subpoena known as a national security letter. Such letters do not require court approval and prohibit targeted companies from revealing that the demands were ever made.

Marrero, whose court is in the Southern District of New York, ruled that the provision in the Patriot Act allowing such letters "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge" and violates free-speech rights by imposing permanent silence on targeted companies. Writing that "democracy abhors undue secrecy," Marrero ruled that "an unlimited government warrant to conceal . . . has no place in our open society."

"Under the mantle of secrecy, the self-preservation that ordinarily impels our government to censorship and secrecy may potentially be turned on ourselves as a weapon of self-destruction," Marrero wrote. ". . . At that point, secrecy's protective shield may serve not as much to secure a safe country as simply to save face."

The judge ordered the Justice Department to halt the use of the letters but delayed the injunction by 90 days to allow for an appeal. The government is reviewing its options, Justice Department spokesman John Nowacki said.

Marrero's ruling is the latest setback in the courts for the Bush administration's terrorism policies, which civil libertarians and some lawmakers consider overly broad. The Supreme Court ruled in June that detainees held as "enemy combatants" may challenge their confinement through the U.S. courts. Two rulings by federal courts in California have also struck down portions of statutes making it a crime to provide "material support" to terrorists.

The ultimate impact of Marrero's order is unclear. In addition to having time to pursue an appeal, the government will view the ruling as applying only to New York's Southern District in Manhattan, legal experts said. I. Michael Greenberger, a Clinton administration Justice Department official who teaches law at the University of Maryland, said Marrero's order is unlikely to have any effect until an appellate court rules.

But the ACLU argues that Marrero's ruling is a warning to the government about some of its tactics in the war on terrorism.

"This is a wholesale refutation of the administration's use of excessive secrecy and unbridled power under the Patriot Act," said Ann Beeson, an ACLU lawyer. "It's a very major ruling, in our opinion."

The secrecy surrounding the use of national security letters has had an unusual impact on the ACLU's lawsuit, which itself was initially filed in secret to comply with the Patriot Act, the controversial package of anti-terrorism measures approved by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Documents in the case also revealed that the government had censored more than a dozen seemingly innocuous passages from court filings, including a direct quote from a 1972 Supreme Court ruling warning that government has a tendency to abuse its powers in the name of "domestic security."

Even now, the plaintiffs are barred from revealing which company filed the lawsuit. Marrero disclosed in his ruling that the FBI has issued hundreds of national security letters before and since the lawsuit was filed in April, but no precise figures have been released.

Beeson said Marrero's ruling applies only to national security letters related to Internet and e-mail service providers. Separate provisions of the Patriot Act also enhanced the government's ability to use such letters against financial and credit institutions.

Judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional
Provisions allow search warrants issued without probable cause, she says

Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. - Two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional because they allow search warrants to be issued without a showing of probable cause, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

U.S. District 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 satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment."

Portland attorney Brandon Mayfield sought the ruling in a lawsuit against the federal government after he was mistakenly linked by the FBI to the Madrid 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. But 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 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure. Aiken agreed with Mayfield, repeatedly 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.

By asking her to dismiss Mayfield's lawsuit, the judge said, the U.S. attorney general's office 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."

Elden Rosenthal, an attorney for Mayfield, issued a statement on his behalf praising 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."

Justice Department spokesman Peter Carr said the agency was reviewing the decision, and he declined to comment further.

Received apology from FBI
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 to him.

Before his arrest, the FBI put Mayfield under 24-hour surveillance, listened to his phone calls and surreptitiously searched his home and law office.

The Mayfield case has been an embarrassment for the federal government. Last year, the Justice Department's internal watchdog faulted the FBI for sloppy work in mistakenly linking Mayfield to the Madrid bombings. That report said federal prosecutors and FBI agents had made inaccurate and ambiguous statements to a federal judge to get arrest and criminal search warrants against Mayfield.

[knight0334]

Good..

Its sad though that these laws are found unconstitution only after someone's rights have been violated. They should be reviewed immediately after the President signs them.. not after some person files a challenge in a court years later.

[WhiteFeather]

Now if someone could just remove this part of so called Patriot Act or redefine what a domestic terrorist or is Especially not a terrorist act "with intent". (in current form its written way to broadly to apply to almost anything) Think it couldn't affect you? How about anyone of the numerous stupid gun laws that we currently have on the books in PA, that people have no idea that they are breaking.

http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html

(USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001' H. R. 3162

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) DOMESTIC TERRORISM DEFINED- Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1)(B)(iii), by striking `by assassination or kidnapping' and inserting `by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping';
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking `and';
(3) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(4) by adding at the end the following:
`(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
`(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
`(B) appear to be intended--
`(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
`(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
`(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
`(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.'.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Section 3077(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:

`(1) `act of terrorism' means an act of domestic or international terrorism as defined in section 2331;'.