Part Of The Patriot Act Shot Down

jtwJGuevara writes "In a victory today for the ACLU, (and many Slashdotters I presume) the section of the Patriot Act which gives power to the FBI to demand confidential financial records from companies as part of terrorist investigations has been ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. District Judge. Victor Marreo, the District Judge who made this ruling, states that the provision of the Patriot Act in question 'effectively bars or substantially deters any judicial challenge.'"

Comments

Missed something...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

It should be pointed out that the FBI can still demand confidential financial records without this provision of the "Patriot" Act. Basically, without this provision the FBI just needs to provide a reason WHY to a judge to get similar access to the same records. (Previously, it was all hush-hush.)

Re:Missed something...

[bckrispi]

I'm sure there are judges out there who hand out court orders like cracker jack prizes

By "court order", I assume you are referring to search warrants. Yes, it is *very* easy for a cop to get one. However, in order for a warrant to be valid, the burden of probable cause must be met. The kind of "gung-ho, every warrant gets signed" judge you are referring to is the kind that defense attorneys love. During criminal proceedings, a defendant has the right to challenge the legality of any warrant issued against him. If there wasn't sufficient probable cause to issue the warrant,or if the cop oversteps the power that the warrant provides, it becomes invalid. That means that any evidence gathered under that warrant is inadmissable - it is the Fruit of the Poisoned tree. Entire cases have been thrown out because of sloppy search warrants. Look at what happened to R. Kelly in Florida.

Link to PDF of the ruling

[stinkfoot]

ACLU's site is getting hammered; the decision has also been posted on EFF's site:

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/ PATRIOT/20040929_NSL_Decision.pdf

(EFF's press release is here.)

Say what?

[ShatteredDream]

If you are a lawyer, then you should know that if this gets upheld on appeals and the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case, then it stands...

This means something

[lothar97]

IAALT (I Am A Lawyer Too), and this judgement is binding in his federal court's jurisdiction. It might just be his part of district two (which I think covers NY), or it might be all of district two (which I think covers NY and some surrounding states). It is good law there, until either overruled by the Supremes, or made the Law of the Land by the Supremes.

Re:This means nothing

[spinfire]

Only within the appeals court's jurisdiction. For example, when the 9th Circuit Court rules that "Under God" is unconstitional, the precedent in that ruling only affects courts WITHIN the 9th circuit.

The loser needs to appeal it to the supreme court for it to affect the entire US.

This particular case only applies within the district court's jurisdiction. It hasn't been to an appeals court yet.

Re:Please remind me.

[CyberZen]

Russ Feingold, from Wisconsin. He was the only Senator who voted against it, anyway (not sure about the House).

Russ Feingold. Wisconsin.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Russ Feingold. Wisconsin. The only one with enough balls in the whole Senate to vote against that hurtling turd.

Voting records

[Anonymous Coward]

In the house that would be:

Baldwin, Barrett, Blumenauer, Bonior, Boucher, Brown (OH),Capuano, Clayton, Conyers, Coyne, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeFazio, DeGette, Dingell, Farr, Filner, Frank, Hastings (FL), Hilliard, Honda, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Meek (FL), Miller, George, Mink, Mollohan, Nadler, Ney, Oberstar, Olver, Otter, Owens, Pastor, Paul, Payne, Peterson (MN), Rahall, Rivers, Rush, Sabo, Sanchez, Sanders, Schakowsky, Scott, Serrano, Stark, Thompson (MS), Tierney, Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Velazquez, Visclosky, Waters, Watson (CA), Watt (NC), Woolsey, and Wu

and in the Senate: Feingold

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=200 1& rollnumber=398

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_ li sts/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1& vote=00313

Defition of terrorism

[lothar97]

terrorism n

The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Source

You'll note that there is no distinction between governments or civilians. One could argue that a rebellion (and yes, the Founding Fathers were British citizens at the time) is a form of terrorism, as is destruction of property like the Boston Tea Party and other attacks on forts & munitions before the Revolution was official.

But

[GreenCrackBaby]

It still is a precident that can be sighted in cases outside this district. It is hardly a meaningless ruling.

Re:Please remind me.

[peacefinder]

Please remind me of all the Dems that voted against the patriot act.

See the House roll call vote here. Sixty-two Dems voted against it, as did one independent and three Republicans. Nine representatives did not vote; five GOP and 4 Dems.

Ninety-six Senators voted for it. Feingold (D-Wis) was the lone dissenter. Domenici, Helms, and Thurmond (GOP) did not vote. Note also that the three previous roll call votes were on motions tabling amendments that Feingold had offered to soften the UPA.

About 29% of Democrats in the House voted against it, while about 1% of the Republicans did the same. But when it comes to the UPA, there's plenty of blame to spread around. (Including my own rep, alas. It's a pity the guy running against her is scarier still.)

you know nothing

[Doc Ruby]

You were just as stupid yesterday, when you were an astrophysicist.

Re:good idea!

[dgatwood]

The term you're looking for is "sunset provision". A lot of laws have one. Of course, IMHO, there should be a constitutional amendment that mandates that -all- federal laws have one, but maybe that's just me.

As for laws against murder, one could reasonably design that amendment in such a way that makes an exemption for certain explicitly-listed laws. Such an amendment should also prescribe a set time frame in whcih all laws must be updated to include a sunset provision and should limit the maximum duration of that period to no more than... say ten years. This would forcibly reduce the number of federal laws significantly, which would be a very good thing. 90% of laws amount to "this other law is hereby altered such that it doesn't apply in cases of foo". Those laws should not exist. They should be part of an amended form of the original law. That's a big part of why our legal system is such an utter mess....