Search
Forum Home | Login
terpfan1980
terpfan1980
Join Date 08/2004
+13

Patriot Act's secret searches used 108 times

April 5, 2005 1:19:51 PM from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
From CNet's news.news.com site, headline is linked.


Patriot Act's secret searches used 108 times


Published: April 5, 2005, 7:44 AM PDT

By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com


The section of the Patriot Act permitting police to surreptitiously enter and search a home or office without notifying the owner has reportedly been used 108 times during a 22-month period.
The U.S. Justice Department released the figures, which cover the period from October 2001 through April 2003, late Monday. The release comes as the Senate and House of Representatives are beginning a series of hearings this week to decide whether to renew portions of the controversial 2001 law that are set to expire on Dec. 31. The section of the law that allows the searches is not one of those set to expire, but data about the provision was released as part of the review.
"Delayed-notification search warrants are used in a wide spectrum of criminal investigations, including those involving terrorism and drugs," the Justice Department said in a statement. "Like any other search warrant, delayed-notification warrants under Section 213 may only be issued after showing probable cause and obtaining the express approval of a judge."
Section 213 of the Patriot Act authorizes so-called sneak-and-peek entries in cases where alerting someone that a surreptitious search took place may have an "adverse result" on a police investigation. Eventually the owner of the home or office is supposed to be notified, though the law says that deadline can be "extended" without limit if police make a good case for it.
Even though the Patriot Act was enacted as a response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Section 213's powers are not limited to investigations of terrorists and spies. Instead, sneak-and-peek searches may be used to investigate any federal felony or misdemeanor, from firearms violations to marijuana possession or copyright infringement.


... more at linked article


So for all of the whining and crying from the ACLU and others that the Patriot Act is this evil nebulous enabling creation that will let the government snoop anywhere and anytime it wants, we find that in almost 2 years the number of uses of the act's provisions in this area was only 108 times? Bah!

For the most part, I'm still quite comfortable with the thought that the government is doing the job we have tasked them to do when they use tools like this. They're trying to fight terrorism or crime, and they're doing it the best they can, under judicial supervision. Does this make the ACLU happy? Of course not, but they are in the business of defending criminals and protecting the rights of criminals. They aren't concerned that in protecting those rights they may require us to disarm ourselves and lower our defenses. That matters not, since freedom and protection of the rights of criminals is first and foremost in their concern.
politics
Locked Post
Search this post
Advanced Search
Subscription Options
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
InfoGeek
Join Date 11/2003
+1
Reply #1 April 5, 2005 1:23:37 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
The section of the Patriot Act permitting police to surreptitiously enter and search a home or office without notifying the owner has reportedly been used 108 times during a 22-month period.

And we all know just how accurate government figures are.

IG
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Gideon MacLeish
Join Date 06/2004
+1
Reply #2 April 5, 2005 1:32:34 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
"only" 108 times wouldn't matter much to you if you were one of the 108.

And, as IG pointed out about government figures, you have to admit, this is the same government that stated they didn't start the fire at Waco, then later admitted to using incendiary devices in their attack.

We need to be ever vigilant against such potential abuses, and careful NOT to write them into law, as was done with the Patriot Act. The constitutional protection against illegal search and seizure should remain paramount, unless or until that awful day when we pass a constitutional amendment overriding it.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
terpfan1980
Join Date 08/2004
+13
Reply #3 April 5, 2005 1:48:51 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
"only" 108 times wouldn't matter much to you if you were one of the 108.


I have faced my own abuses at the hands of the government before Gideon, and understand your point, but... with that said, these 108 don't mean that 108 individuals were locked away never to be heard from. It means that 108 times a potential for evidenciary gathering existed that might not have existed if there had been advance notification by the targetted individuals.

I can't say I'd always trust the government either, but I would note that the Justice department under Bush / Ashcroft/Gonzales is not the same as it was under Reno, and especially not the same it was pre-Waco and pre-9/11.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Gideon MacLeish
Join Date 06/2004
+1
Reply #4 April 5, 2005 1:53:26 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
but I would note that the Justice department under Bush / Ashcroft/Gonzales is not the same as it was under Reno, and especially not the same it was pre-Waco and pre-9/11.


No, it's not. I don't feel Ashcroft is the villain the American left has often made him out to be, but I have serious reservations about many such provisions of the Patriot Act, as should MOST constitutional scholars.

Granted, the Patriot Act was authored with the right intentions, but its potential to harass those unable to afford high priced lawyers should raise concerns from everyone.
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
terpfan1980
Spc Nobody Special
Join Date 08/2004
+10
Reply #5 April 5, 2005 2:14:11 PM
from JoeUser ForumsJoeUser Forums
Whilst (and at the same time even....) I have some doubts about the Patriot Act, under the Tenth Amendment if nothing else, the surprise is what, exactly? They passed a law making it legal to do these searches, and then GASP!!! actually did them?

Of course they did, it's not like it was a huge shocker that they intended to do this. The surprise is that they didn't do it more......
Reason for Karma (Optional)
Successfully updated karma reason!
View all recent posts
Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top
Stardock Forums v        Server Load Time:   Page Render Time:
Facebook Twitter YouTube Google+