Posted on 07/29/2005 12:56:40 PM PDT by crazyhorse691
A federal judge in Portland ruled Thursday that Brandon Mayfield's high-profile challenge to the USA Patriot Act can go forward.
In a 48-page rejection of the Justice Department's motion for dismissal, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken also ordered the FBI to open up files showing how agents secretly spied on Mayfield and his family.
Federal law enforcement officials had released some details of the so-called sneak and peak searches of the family's home in the spring of 2004.
However, Mayfield's attorneys have argued that they can't adequately proceed with their challenge to the constitutionality of the Patriot Act without total access.
The federal judge agreed.
Aiken wrote that Mayfield's family is "entitled to the opportunity to determine the nature of the surveillance and searches conducted, and a specific description of the data and documents collected."
The case is being closely watched across the country as a chief test of the constitutionality of the Patriot Act.
In May 2004, a botched FBI analysis of a fingerprint mistakenly linked Mayfield to last year's deadly terror attack in Madrid, Spain. The Portland attorney was jailed for two weeks as a material witness before he was exonerated and received an apology from the FBI.
Mayfield's lawsuit claims agents targeted Mayfield because he is Muslim.
Although Mayfield suspected authorities had conducted sneak-and-peek searches of his home under the Patriot Act, the federal government didn't acknowledge it until earlier this year.
During a July 15 hearing in U.S. District Court in Portland, the government asked the judge to dismiss Mayfield's challenge to the Patriot Act, which broadened the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
The act allows federal agents to collect information on suspected terrorists, and the Patriot Act permits that information to be used in criminal prosecutions.
Mayfield attorney Elden Rosenthal said Aiken's ruling showed that she saw through "the government's effort to stonewall" his client's claims.
"We are, of course, pleased that Judge Aiken has ruled that the wrongs committed against Mr. Mayfield and his family are legitimate legal claims," Rosenthal said.
Although Rosenthal acknowledged that the ruling was far from a rejection of the Patriot Act itself, he said it removed major barriers preventing him from arguing Mayfield's case.
Until now, Rosenthal said Mayfield and his family could only guess how government agents acted, what they seized and with whom the information was shared.
"It opens the door for us to find out what really happened so (Aiken) can address the issue of the Patriot Act," he said.
"She is saying, 'Enough of this secrecy stuff. Either give this to the plaintiffs or give it to me.' "
Government officials have said they are in the process of collecting all of the information pertaining to the Patriot Act searches and wire taps used on Mayfield.
During this month's hearing, government lawyers repeatedly acknowledged that Mayfield was the victim of a mistake. They said they regretted the hardship it caused him and his family.
But they argued that mistake does not mean the government should be required to disclose its spying techniques and tactics. Those things deal with national security and should be kept secret, even when their target is found to be innocent, they said.
"We've not had a chance yet to review the judge's ruling, so we'll decline further comment at this time," said Tasia Scolinos, U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman.
The ruling, which was released shortly after 4 p.m. Thursday, also denied the government's motion to dismiss Mayfield's claim for monetary damages on the grounds that federal law provided immunity. Advertisement
The judge also refused to remove from the lawsuit the individual fingerprint analysts who made the identification. Mayfield's attorneys, she said, "have raised serious issues surrounding the validity of those fingerprint matches."
Justice Department lawyers have said the fingerprint misidentification was reasonable and not malicious. They have argued that the analysts and the agent who wrote a sworn statement that was the basis for a search warrant of Mayfield's home did not mislead or lie to the court.
But even before Mayfield was arrested, Spanish authorities were challenging the FBI's identification of the fingerprint.
The fingerprint analysts "argue that they cannot be held liable for . . . alleged falsehoods and omissions in the affidavits," the judge wrote. "I disagree."
"A law enforcement officer who knowingly supplies false information, or knowingly omits relevant information, to another officer who then drafts an affidavit based on that information is liable to the injured citizen."
Joseph Rose: 503-221-8029; josephrose@news.oregonian.com
People that want to bomb will continue to do so, regardless of whether the FBI has powers to snoop and spy upon ordinary Americans. I'd rather give up safety for more liberty; see Ben Franklin's quote on this subject for more info.
I'm really happy about this outcome; we need to rein in our government while we still have the means to do so.
ACLU-NEA-NAE.... win again?
I agree with your post. It is time to rein in the F.... B.... I....
Good. I hope they end up tossing out the whole "patriot" act eventually. Our freedoms were never the problem. The DOJ has wanted these powers for years. Our forefathers distrusted government. We should not sell our freedom for a false sense of safety.
And I would rather you not make that decision for me and my children, thank you.
Count me in for the new, stronger, extended Patriot Act!
I guess you think Ben Franklin is wrong. The Patriot Act really should be called the UN-Patriotic Act .... it should have expired and now should be revoked. Your children should become lions not lemmings or lambs.
Accountability? After Waco .... Ruby Ridge ....the Crime Labs? Need something more recent .... Here is a Basic question. What has happened to the FBI Fingerprint expert in this case who isn't????
Leadership: This organization was ordered by the President to be in charge of the domestic WOT almost 4 years ago. Are there still terrorist organizations in the US? If so ....WHY?
I was taught that Leadership is the art of influencing people in order to accomplish the mission. Has the FBI accomplished their mission? If not .... WHY? If so then why are these tools still needed?
Now I will get off my soapbox and wish your son the best (maybe he can fix the FBI....)
"If you give up liberty for security, you get neither."
You brought your children into the debate, I don't desire my child to be a lemming or a lamb either.
I think Hillary is evil, now think about President Clinton having that power in 2009 ....
Bush1, not Clinton, gave the FBI it's police state powers. Clinton and Reno just followed through. Please also remember that the number two guy at the FBI .... Deep Throat .... illegally brought down a President. The FBI should have been disbanded a long time ago.
No apology needed, thanks for the open mind .... I hope your son will get that from you. What Clinton and Reno did was many of the saddest chapters in American History. I hope the FBI does turn itself around because America deserves it.
Freeps to you
I will do my research, (which is never a bad thing) I look forward to our next exchange.
TT
" And I would rather you not make that decision for me and my children, thank you."
Well, Bill, you have your choice of more safe, less free countries. Perhaps you should consider moving to one of them. Germany has a lot fewer liberties for its citizens; for example, it's officially forbidden to say certain things, and you can't carry a gun there. You'd probably like it.
I would rather you not make the choice about MY liberties, or those of MY children. And thank God we have a Bill of Rights (or what is left of it) so people like you don't get to make those kinds of decisions for me.
Have you turned in your guns yet? Remember, it's for the children...
Why would she veto its extension? It was Bill Clinton and Janet Reno who came up with this sneak-and-peak nonsense in the first place. They tried for years to get this provision passed but were unsucessful because conservatives and many liberals screamed bloody murder at the time. Check the FR archives--search Fourth Amendment Sneak Attack for example. There was a time when freepers were actually *opposed* to black bag ops.
Sorry but our friends at DOJ cannot have it both ways. If they want to engage in extra-constitutional activities to conduct surveillance on supposed terrorists, then they cannot use the ill-gotten gains for traditional law enforcement. That they argue that they should be able to shows that their hearts are impure. I hope this thing is struck down along with all of the ancillary regulations (Know Your Client banking regulations and all the rest of that clap trap).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.