PDA

View Full Version : Part of the Patriot Act ruled unconstitutional


ire
09-27-2007, 03:47 PM
Finally

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20999950/

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.

jimmydean
09-27-2007, 04:00 PM
Leave it to those hippie liberals in Oregon.

:D

MikeD
09-27-2007, 04:09 PM
The Fourth Amendment protects from "unreasonable" search and seizure...it also says that warrants shall not be issued except with probable cause.

What it doesn't say is that a warrant is necessary to establish the reasonableness of a search or seizure. However, the warrant exceptions recognized by the SCOTUS are extremely limited, stemming from exigent circumstances. (emergency situations, hot pursuit of a fleeing person who ducks into a place which would normally require a warrant to enter, searches of automobiles and other highly mobile spaces, etc.)

It will be interesting to see if, when this goes to SCOTUS, whether they try and define "terrorism" as a new form of exigent circumstance to overturn this ruling.

I'm all for protecting us against terrorism...believe me...but I don't personally think that'd be a move in the right direction, unless they can very narrowly define what "terrorism" means in on-the-ground terms.

jimmydean
09-27-2007, 04:31 PM
I'm not sure how much coverage that case got outside of Portland, but he was slammed pretty hard for what turned out to be a whole lot of nothing. The fact he was a lawyer helps his cause, the fact he is Muslim is what started it all.

Secret Squirrel
09-27-2007, 04:58 PM
I'm not sure how much coverage that case got outside of Portland, but he was slammed pretty hard for what turned out to be a whole lot of nothing. The fact he was a lawyer helps his cause, the fact he is Muslim is what started it all.


But...but...but his name's Brandon Mayfield....not Kareem Abdul Allah X!!! Sheeesh...the audacity of the Muslim horde to take good Christian names and sully them...

DaveW
09-27-2007, 05:02 PM
I'm all for protecting us against terrorism...believe me...but I don't personally think that'd be a move in the right direction, unless they can very narrowly define what "terrorism" means in on-the-ground terms.



I have an inescapeable feeling that they would perfer the definition to be as broad as possible. :(

ire
09-27-2007, 08:02 PM
It will be interesting to see if, when this goes to SCOTUS, whether they try and define "terrorism" as a new form of exigent circumstance to overturn this ruling.

It will be interesting. The problem right now with labeling stuff "terrorism" is that I could go set off a pipe bomb in good fun in a field and it would be all over the news that a terrorist struck. The other problem is that they can label you a terrorist and have no backing what so ever

Silver
09-27-2007, 09:43 PM
It will be interesting. The problem right now with labeling stuff "terrorism" is that I could go set off a pipe bomb in good fun in a field and it would be all over the news that a terrorist struck.

True. If you want to avoid that, all you need to do is put the pipe bomb at the doorstep of Planned Parenthood. Voila! Instantly you're not a terrorist anymore, just a misguided well meaning Christian...

CKxx
09-30-2007, 10:19 PM
What I Don't understand is how they still mistakenly thought he was involved in the train bombing AFTER they searched/tapped? What happens when you watch the guy 24/7 and monitor calls for weeks, but all he does is go to work, talk to his friends on the phone about stupid **** they did as kids, then looks at some pr0n on the internets?

...Apparently they accuse you of train bombings.

MikeD
10-01-2007, 01:01 AM
What I Don't understand is how they still mistakenly thought he was involved in the train bombing AFTER they searched/tapped? What happens when you watch the guy 24/7 and monitor calls for weeks, but all he does is go to work, talk to his friends on the phone about stupid **** they did as kids, then looks at some pr0n on the internets?

...Apparently they accuse you of train bombings.


Well, if your fingerprint was found on a detonator at a bomb site, they figure perhaps you just don't have anything left to say/do on the topic (which would be prudent on your part), or they're missing stuff...admittedly, that was a mistake.

However, investigators send the prints to a lab, and the lab gives a response...the investigators are entitled to believe their own laboratory. Since a print on a detonator is pretty compelling evidence that you're involved with the bomb--and it turns out you're a convert to Islam, whose converts are often recruited into the more extreme sects--it's not unthinkable that there's something amiss. When the lab fesses up the mistake, then they should then realize that the negative results from all the surveillance are pretty explicable.

It's a police screw-up, but that happens.