ABC Radio News Reports That a Federal Judge Strikes Down parts of the Patriot Act

ABC Radio News | 9/29/2004

[grassboots.org]

It appears that the court struck down the part of the Patriot Act that allows Agents to issue Non-Binding Subpoenas to businesses that would be willing to comply but need something official on paper. The radio story reports that it would stop businesses from complying with the a command without a judge's order. I bet the story (and perhaps the high court) got it wrong. I bet these are not true subpoenas - businesses could not be forced to obey them.

[L.N. Smithee]

If you heard the same ABC Radio News report I heard, the reporter referred to the act as "the so-called Patriot Act."

[L.N. Smithee]

If you heard the same ABC Radio News report I heard, the reporter referred to the act as "the so-called Patriot Act."

[michigander]

Judge Rules Against Patriot Act Provision

Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:56 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Part of the Patriot Act, a central plank of the Bush Administration's war on terror, was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge on Wednesday.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marreo ruled in favor of the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the power the FBI has to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorism investigations.

The ruling was the latest blow to the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that terror suspects being held in places like Guantanamo Bay can use the American judicial system to challenge their confinement. That ruling was a defeat for the president's assertion of sweeping powers to hold "enemy combatants" indefinitely after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The ACLU sued the Department of Justice, arguing that part of the Patriot legislation violated the constitution because it authorizes the FBI to force disclosure of sensitive information without adequate safeguards.

The judge agreed, stating that the provision "effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge."

Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.

[Maceman]

If you heard the same ABC Radio News report I heard, the reporter referred to the act as "the so-called Patriot Act."

I wish the news media would use that qualifier when reporting on most federal legislation - since virtually all legislation is named for rosy sounding predictions of all the good that is expected to occur - notwithstanding that the law of unintended consequences generally leads to the opposit of the desired result.

[GVnana]

Just in time for the debate!

[Twinkie]

These so-called "judges" have been allowed to legislate from the bench until they have become almost arrogant beyond rehabilitation.

[apillar]

I'm not a legal expert but a "Non-Binding Subpoena" sounds kind of funny to me... Next they'll have optional fines or voluntary jail time...

[Dog Gone]

Reuters can't even get the name of the judge right. It's Victor Marrero, a Clinton appointee.

[b4its2late]

More on Judge Marrero....

[ThinkDifferent]

Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information.

If this news report is accurate (and that's a big if), then the part that was struck down is a pretty blatant violation of the 4th Amendment.

[grassboots.org]

The story did not use that term but I know that such kind of thing is in the Patriot Act. It allows an FBI agent to go to a hotel on short notice and "ask" the clerk or manager for information on a guest without a court order. The paperwork gives the clerk proof that it is really an FBI agent and covers his rear if his boss later thinks it was a bad idea.

I could be wrong on this one, my original post said "I believe". I am open to correction.

[StoneColdGOP]

Sounds reasonable to me. For the FBI to be able to demand a private business' records without a court order should be unthinkable.

[Ben Hecks]

I was betting it would be Gladys Kessler.

[expatpat]

IMO, every clause in the Act should be looked at from the hypothetical point of view that Hillary is POTUS (God save us) and the question asked "Do we want this if she and Jamie Gorelick are running the show?" That's the acid test.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

But first, Bush and Kerry ought to offer proposals for bringing illegal immigration under control. A good place to start would be a crackdown on US employers who profit from an endless supply of low-wage, intimidated workers.

And the so-called "reporters" never give the public the information they need to know to protect themselves for these activist judges.

[Steve_Seattle]

"If this news report is accurate (and that's a big if), then the part that was struck down is a pretty blatant violation of the 4th Amendment."

It's a big "if" indeed. Every defense of the Patriot Act I've ever read emphasized that there were strict rules requiring appropriate judicial approval, probable cause, etc. So I'm waiting for "National Revue" or some such entity to comment on the ruling before I make any conclusive judgment on its merits.

[mojito]

In terms of our Federal Judiciary, District Court judges have the authority and credibility of soggy Kleenex. I wouldn't worry about this ruling too much, even if true - district judges are notorious for getting it wrong.

[freeeee]

district judges are notorious for getting it wrong.

"Under the provision, the FBI did not have to show a judge a compelling need for the records and it did not have to specify any process that would allow a recipient to fight the demand for confidential information."

I'm trying to figure out how judicial review of a warrant for papers is wrong.

Checks and balances, anyone?

[VeniVidiVici]

Unless I'm reading it wrong, non-binding seems to be correct:

---

Excerpt:
Sec. 2332g. Administrative subpoenas in terrorism investigations

`(a) AUTHORIZATION OF USE- In any investigation concerning a Federal crime of terrorism (as defined in section 2332b(g)(5)), the Attorney General may subpoena witnesses, compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses, and require the production of any records (including books, papers, documents, electronic data, and other tangible things that constitute or contain evidence) that he finds relevant or material to the investigation.

`(b) SERVICE- A subpoena issued under this section may be served by any person designated in the subpoena as the agent of service.

`(c) ENFORCEMENT- In the case of the contumacy by, or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to, any person, the Attorney General may invoke the aid of any court of the United States within the jurisdiction of which the investigation is carried on or the subpoenaed person resides, carries on business, or may be found, to compel compliance with the subpoena.

`(e) JUDICIAL REVIEW- At any time before the return date specified in the summons, the person or entity summoned may, in the United States district court for the district in which that person or entity does business or resides, petition for an order modifying or setting aside the summons.

http://www.theorator.com/bills108/hr3037.html