It never fails to stun me when I hear that many people in the U.S. can’t find their own continent on a map. So, I know those same folks probably don’t know the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, although they may have heard about it in the news. So, here it is so you can enhance your knowledge:
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.
The reason I wanted to post this amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1791, is because the Patriot Act (HR 3162 RDS) clearly violates this amendment - but no one has seriously challenged this violation until recently. According to a CNN report, a federal court on Wednesday struck down two provisions of the Patriot Act dealing with searches and intelligence gathering, saying they violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures with regard to criminal prosecutions.
The ruling - made by Judge Ann Aiken of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon - was a response to a lawsuit filed against the federal government by Brandon Mayfield, a Portland, Oregon, attorney who was wrongly arrested for alleged involvement in the 2004 Madrid train bombings. Mayfield is seen in the photo above at left with public defender Steven Wax.
The federal government later apologized to Mayfield and settled part of Mayfield’s lawsuit for $2 million. But Mayfield was permitted to keep pursuing the portions of his lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patriot Act. According to Judge Aiken, the government “is asking this court to, in essence, amend the Bill of Rights, by giving it an interpretation that would deprive it of any real meaning. The court declines to do so.”
Aiken also ruled that FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, passed by Congress in 1978), as amended by the Patriot Act, permits the government to conduct surveillance and searches targeting Americans without satisfying the probable-cause standard in the Fourth Amendment.
Unfortunately, Aiken was named to the bench in 1997 by President Clinton, and she’s considered one of the more liberal judges on the federal bench in Oregon. This stance leaves her ruling vulnerable to attack in this prevalent bipartisan atmosphere. Although, according to FindLaw, the question of the scope of the President’s constitutional powers, if any, remains judicially unsettled - especially in cases that involved “National Security” electronic surveillance. But, they add this information:
Congress has acted, however, providing for a special court to hear requests for warrants for electronic surveillance in foreign intelligence situations, and permitting the President to authorize warrantless surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information provided that the communications to be monitored are exclusively between or among foreign powers and there is no substantial likelihood any ”United States person” will be overheard.*
Possibly, the above case (noted at end of article) is where Aiken will (or has) found her validation. Brandon Mayfield, after all, is a “United States person” who was wrongly arrested. He had the right, according to the Fourth Amendment, “to be secure” in his person, house, papers, and effects, “against unreasonable searches and seizures.” However, any voices that may challenge Aiken can always lean on Article I, Section I in the Constitution. This reads:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
In other words, the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon really is just a pea in one of many pods on a huge vine that stretches back to D.C. But, hopefully, Aikens’ ruling will stand in Mayfield’s case. Otherwise, some individuals might begin to believe (if they don’t already) that the Patriot Act is part of the U.S. Constitution when, in reality, it’s a violation of American rights. Nor is the Patriot Act an amendment to that Constitution. And, that’s not just a fanatic’s opinion.
If you want to know the rest of your rights according to the U.S. Constitution, you can read the full document at the Cornell University Law School site.
*Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-511, 92 Stat. 1797, 50 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1801-1811. See United States v. Belfield, 692 F.2d 141 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (upholding constitutionality of disclosure restrictions in Act).
Posted by Linda at 8:00 AM PDT
