The Patriot Act: Questions And Answers

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (FindLaw, 2014)

The U. S. Const. amend. IV, states that the rights of the people are to be secure in their homes and person, papers and effects, shall not be violated by unreasonable search and seizure, and no warrants shall be issued unless it is supported by probable cause. [2] Probable cause clearly states that a person, items, and places to be searched must be approved by a judge or magistrate to give officers the legal right to move forward. The U. S. Const. amend. V provides as a safe guard to prevent officials from illegally gathering self-incriminatory statements; therefore, the Miranda warning is issued to provide individuals the right to waive or invoke their constitutional rights to remain silent. [3] Of course, the U. S. Const. amend. VI, provides an individual the right to counsel. [4]

A person in custody shouldn’t be given their Miranda warnings before being asked consent to search because the arresting officer(s) aren’t supposed to expect the defendant to know these rights. Moreover, they have not begun the interrogation which is one of the requirements for reading of the Miranda warnings. The defendant is not free to go when under custodial interrogation, but is when obtaining a consent to search which is why there are no elaborate

In exigent circumstances a warrant is not necessary to conduct a search if the circumstances at the time of the search are necessary to prevent physical harm, the concealment or destruction of evidence, or the escape of a suspect and there is not enough time to obtain a search warrant beforehand (codes of criminal procedure, n.d.).

Another pro of FISA, and the applicable amendments that followed, is the ability for electronic surveillance to be conducted without a court order for a designated length of time to better facilitate collection and streamline the process under USC. 1802, Sec 102. There are, of course, steps required by high ranking officials, the President and Attorney General, which must be taken to conduct such surveillance without a court order. Also, the criteria to conduct the surveillance is restricted specifically to communications exclusively between foreign powers and must not include “substantial likelihood” that the surveillance will acquire communications pertaining to a United States Person. [4] While the appropriate legal process should always be followed, this provision is necessary at times to bypass the lengthy legal process for obtaining a court order when time restrictions apply.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –U.S. Constitutional Amendments

Constitution. Along with this expansion of surveillance powers is the "sneak and peek provision" (The USA-PATRIOT Act and the American response to terror; panel discussion, 2002). During a discussion panel in 2002, David E. Suchar discussed this provision stating the "sneak and peek provision, which allows the government to conduct secret searches of anyone, including citizens, without notifying the person that they have a search warrant and that the search is authorized". Suchar further stated this provision is "a very broad standard that probably could be met in a tremendous number of cases and not limited to fighting terrorism in any way, shape, or form" (The USA-PATRIOT Act and the American response to terror; panel discussion, 2002, para. 18). From a civil liberties perspective, the surveillance expansion provisions within the Patriot Act are troubling when considering the possibility of abuse, and the trouncing of fourth amendment rights.

Several acts severely infringe the civil liberties of Americans; for example, Title II of the act provides for enhanced surveillance procedures. Authority to intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications became expanded if these communications might be related to terrorism or computer fraud. There are 25 separate sections providing significant new authority for the government to monitor mail, e-mail, voice mail, and telephone and computer communications. Search warrants will be easier to obtain, and they will be broader in scope. Warrants will be valid for longer periods. The FBI can ask for a warrant requiring any tangible items which can include books, papers, records, documents, etc…(the warrant may be non-specific in nature). This is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of search and seizure.

Law enforcement utilizes the Patriot Act through enhance surveillance techniques and search warrant opportunities all of which are approved by the court system but not exactly “monitored.” Judges and magistrates within the court system deny bond, incarcerate, and hold hearings concerning liberties and collateral violations in the name of fighting terrorism. An excellent example of

If the NSA were to get a warrant for every single phone call, email, text etc. that they want to go through, to follow the Fourth Amendment, it would take a very long time. Waiting for a warrant slows down the process of catching a suspect, and it can also be blamed for losing new, critical evidence. The NSA has to go to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) in order to get a warrant which may take some time says David Sirota writer from International Business Times. (Source 1). Both the NSA and the FISA have to make sure that the warrant has a probable cause, and that it obeys the Fourth Amendment (Source 1). It also must be supported by a statement or some other visible fact or evidence, states the Fourth Amendment (Source

On September 11, 2001, the Unites States suffered massive destruction caused by terrorism. Four planes were hijacked by terrorist. Nearly, three thousand lives were lost when two planes crashed into the World Trade Towers, one crashed into the Pentagon, and the final plane crashed in Pennsylvania before it could reach its final destination. An immense fear spread across the country and out of this fear came the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct the Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act.

A. Thesis: The Patriot Act is violating American’s right to privacy. Mainly, the right to hold a private phone conversation.

The Patriot Act, an act passed by Congress in 2001 that addressed the topic of privacy in terrorist or radical situations, is controversial in today's society. Although it helps with protection against terroristic events, The Patriot Act is not fair, nor is it constitutional, because it allows the government to intrude on citizens' privacy, it gives governmental individuals too much power, and because the act is invasive to the 4th amendment right. To further describe key points in the act, it states that it allows investigators to use the tools that were already available to investigate organized crime and drug trafficking, and it allows law enforcement officials to obtain a search warrant anywhere a terrorist-related activity occurred.

For example, the Patriot Act has a judicially authorized “sneak and peek” provision that allows law enforcement agencies to perform a search but delay notification for a period of up to three months (para. 2).

The most controversial title of the Patriot Act is Title II. This title is intended to help law enforcement enhance their surveillance capabilities to capture terrorists. It allows “...for the seizure of voice mail messages under a warrant, authorized intelligence agencies and federal law enforcement agencies to share noncriminal information, it permitted pen registers and trap and trace orders of electronic communication such as e-mail, and it encouraged cooperation between law enforcement and foreign intelligence investigators...” (Oliver, 2007, p. 70). Of course, the most controversial part of this title is that it gives free reign for law enforcement to conduct surveillance, as long as there is some suspicion of terrorist activity.