The Patriot Act, Title II, Section 203 - Term Paper Example

? The Patriot Act, Tittle II, Section 203 This paper looks into the Patriot Act in details. Over a decade ago, after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the U.S.A. Patriot Act with an aim of improving the effectiveness of the US investigatory tools. The passage of the Act by the congress was almost unanimous in order to arm the intelligence service with effective tools to detect and combat terrorism. Title II of the initial Patriot Act (“enhanced surveillance procedures”) has the essential amendments made on a number of laws in order to boost the effectiveness of investigative procedures. These improvements on the Title II of the Patriot Act turned out to be key elements of national security investigations. Therefore, this paper mainly focuses on the positive impacts of the Patriot Act in fighting terrorism and drug trafficking. The Patriot Act, Title II, Section 203 Introduction Before the Patriot Act came into place, the U.S. intelligence authorities had some restrictions while conducting their investigations. Since its inception, the US has managed to prevent serious attacks such as the 9/11 attack on the American homeland. It is worth mentioning that the Patriot Act has had a lot of benefits that enhance the ability of US authorities to investigate, prevent, and prosecute terrorists. The Act came in place barely 43 days after the 9/11 attack so as to introduce policies that will help in fighting terrorism. After the attacks, the US citizens felt that they were vulnerable for more attacks, thus the need by the government to undertake quick measures (Scheppler, 2005). On the other hand, the US government felt that it was necessary to have detailed information on its own citizens and foreign visitors. Indeed, many were of the opinion that if the government had taken stringent measures, the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented. This resulted to the passage of the Patriot Act (Scheppler, 2005). The U.S.A. Patriot Act can be described as a complex piece of law that utilizes powers provided by traditional laws such as the privacy Act, Omnibus crime bill, and education records. Other traditional laws include electronic communications privacy Act, and the foreign intelligence surveillance Act. By adopting these traditional laws, the patriot Act offers more strict laws than the mother laws (Painter, 2011). Provisions within the Patriot Act streamlined the way to conduct investigations on various crimes differently from the traditional way (Painter, 2011). The patriot Act introduced a number of measures that would help in fighting terrorism, as well as other forms of crimes. Some of the prescribed measures expired and were never renewed, but a majority of the prescribed measures became permanent. To date, serious crimes in the US are handled using guidelines provided in the Patriot Act. Furthermore, some provisions have been amended to strengthen them further. Since the passage of the Act, there have been remarkable improvements in dealing with serious crimes (Painter, 2011). Measures within the patriot Act The patriot Act enables the US intelligence authorities to apply surveillance tools to investigate on terrorism and drug trafficking. Before the Act came into place, intelligence authorities required court permits in order to use electronic surveillance tools for investigations. In addition, intelligence authorities could not use wiretaps fully in conducting certain investigations without court permits. Enactment of the patriot Act enabled intelligence authorities to acquire information on a wide range of acts of terror such as chemical weapons, financing terrorism, and presence of weapons of mass destruction (Doyle, 2002). The passage of the patriot Act allowed federal agents to make follow ups on highly organized terrorists who evade detection. For a long period, federal agents have applied the use of roving wiretaps in conducting investigations on ordinary crimes. The use of wiretaps requires authorization from federal judges in order to apply them in investigations. International terrorists are highly trained to evade surveillance tools, but the Patriot Act enables federal agents to request court permits to use wiretaps in investigating international terrorists (Doyle, 2002). Through the Patriot Act, federal agents can carry out investigations without tipping off targeted criminals. In situations where targeted criminals are tipped off early during an investigation, they can do everything possible to destroy available evidence. The federal court helps by delaying search warrants on suspected criminals. During the period of delay, intelligence authorities can to study the criminals, clear any threats to the community, and conduct arrests on all suspects without tipping them off. These moves have been effective in fighting organized crimes and drug trafficking in US (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). The other notable thing about the Patriot Act is its ability to allow intelligence agencies to seek court orders to acquire business documents in cases related to terrorism. Investigations on business records can provide crucial information related to terror attacks. Through investigations on business documents, investigators can detect chemicals bought for terror attacks as well as the purchaser of the chemicals. Therefore, with the patriot Act in place, federal courts should issue orders for surrender of any business document when requested by the federal government. However, the government should prove that the requested documents are intended for an authorized investigation on terror crimes (Doyle, 2002). The enactment of the Patriot Act enhanced the process of sharing information and cooperation among various federal agencies. This emerged as a result of elimination of legal barriers that hindered law enforcers, national defense, and intelligence agencies from talking while attempting to protect Americans. With the Patriot Act in place, federal prosecutors, police officers, intelligence agencies, and FBI agents can work together in attempts to uncover terrorist attacks. These efforts became more relevant through the ability of the Patriot Act to update existing laws with new technologies and threats. Therefore, relevant authorities can respond to crimes such as computer hacking when requested by victims of hacking (U.S Department of Justice, 2004). In the Patriot Act, section 203 covers the ability to share investigative information of crime activities. As noted earlier, law enforcers had no authority to share their investigative information on terrorist organizations within the United States. Section 203 provides exceptions where information can be shared with intelligence agencies. Any investigative information that is a danger to US security should be shared with other relevant authorities (U.S Department of Justice, 2004). Before the patriot Act came into place, the intelligence agents could not share their information through intelligence tools with the criminal investigators and vice versa. The initial perception on intelligence agencies was that their mandate was to collect foreign information. The patriot Act came to clear that perception by allowing intelligence and law enforcers to share their information. Cooperation between all relevant security agencies helped in preventing terrorist attacks targeting the New York subway system (Scheppler, 2005). As already mentioned, other provisions within the Patriot Act modernize the way investigations are carried out. Examples include provisions within section 216 of the patriot Act, where district courts have the power to authorize the use of suitable devices in investigating crime activities. The most widely used device is the pen/trap device on electronic communications (Crawford, 2004). The patriot Act introduced tough penalties on persons who engage in terrorist acts. Introduced penalties apply for acts of terrorism conducted within and outside American homeland. In addition, the Act does not allow harboring of terrorists knowingly. Persons caught harboring terrorists face similar charges as those of terrorists. Similarly, the Patriot Act provides guidelines for dealing with people who finance terror activities (U.S Department of Justice, 2004). The patriot Act provides additional requirements on pen register and trace orders to capture internet and e-mail usage. However, investigations on e-mails exclude the source, destiny, and subject information, which make it a fair deal. Investigations on internet usage capture websites and pages visited by a person under investigation (Painter, 2011). Sneak and peek warrant The patriot Act has a provision that authorizes federal agencies to invade private premises without the owner’s or occupant’s consent to conduct a search. This is provided in section 13 of the patriot Act and is the only one of its kind. Experts point out that the sneak and peek warrants are contrary to the conventional search warrants (Crawford, 2004). With the conventional search warrants, occupants of the target residence are served with a prior notice over the search. Such moves are backed by the fact that conventional searches are conducted in open when occupants are present. Through conventional searches, authorities are able to seize physical objects with the knowledge of occupants. In addition, after a conventional search, authorities are required to serve occupants with a copy of search warrants together with receipts on seized goods (Painter, 2011). The sneak and peek strategy is totally different from the conventional searches. Contrary to traditional searches, sneak and peek method applies when house occupants are out of their premises. Therefore, getting into a premise, conducting a search and seizure takes place in secrecy. In most cases, sneak and peek searches aim at obtaining intangibles such as spying on happenings within the premises. Authorities may take photos of the premises. Seizure of any physical property occurs in such a way that its seizure remains clandestine. This can be achieved by replacing the seized property with a similar property (Doyle, 2002). Authorities conducting sneak and peek searches do not provide copies of warrants or receipts for seized goods. The premises may be searched for a number of times without any warrant of search. A conventional search warrant is only issued  when the investigating agents are satisfied with sneak and peek strategy, and are ready to make an arrest. Application of the sneak and peek strategy is not restricted to terrorism, but it applies to other forms of crimes. The other notable thing about section 13 of the patriot Act is that it is there to stay unlike the sunset provisions, which were removed after their expiry dates. In situations where sneak and peek search is done perfectly and the person under investigation turns out to be innocent, there is a likelihood of that person not knowing about the search (Painter, 2011). As time goes by, sneak and peek searches will continue gaining popularity. Search warrants are awarded in such a way that only the issuing judge and search authorities know about the warrant. In most instances, low-level magistrates are responsible for issuing the search warrants. After getting the warrant, searching authorities apply the most aggressive technology to achieve their mission. In American history, investigative procedures designed for serious crimes turn out to be the standard operating procedures even when dealing with minor crimes. An example of such laws is the no-knock warrants. This search warrant aimed at fighting crime in Georgia, but it is now an accepted procedure in dealing with illegal drugs (Doyle, 2002). Arguments against sneak and peek warrants The sneak and peek search faces serious challenges since it violates the fourth amendment, which is against unexplained seizures and searches. However, majority of Americans are of the opinion that the sneak and peek strategy is the best approach in fighting terrorism and illegal drugs. In several occasions, the federal judicial system has down looked the Fourth Amendment by empowering investigative agencies at the expense of personal privacy. This is evident from the way the judiciary issues search sneak and peek warrants without any hesitation. There is no doubt that the judiciary will ever consider sneak and peek warrants as one way of violating the fourth amendment (Doyle, 2002). A federal judge is on record as having said that the sneak and peek search warrants pose a serious threat to human rights and the entire security of premises and their occupants. Other opponents of the sneak and peek warrants are of the opinion that stringent measures need to be put in place because searches are conducted without owner’s consents. In addition, there is no surveillance on what investigators are doing within the premises. Under such circumstances, investigators may put false evidence that may lead to prosecution of innocent people (Crawford, 2004). In general, many people are of the opinion that the Patriot Act interferes with a person’s privacy. The use of surveillance tools forms the basis for intruding a person’s privacy. Provisions of the Patriot Act that provide interception orders allow investigative authorities to carry out their duties without justifying their move. The use trap and trace devices further interfere with a person’s privacy due to the ability to obtain dialed calls from communication gadgets (Scheppler, 2005). Although this strategy excludes conversations and persons involved, investigative agencies do not justify much over their move. The other issue of concern regards the use sensitive personal documents to conduct investigations. Acquisition of such documents by investigative bodies occurs in an unstandardized manner (Painter, 2011). Achievements made through the patriot Act An assessment on the usage of the sneak and peek search warrant revealed that a majority of the warrants issued in 2009 targeted drug trafficking. Statistics show that the judiciary issued about 760 sneak and peek warrants to investigative departments. Three of the issued warrants targeted terrorists while two thirds of the warrants issued were for drug trafficking. Many legal experts are of the opinion that the sneak and peek warrant serves best in dealing with drug traffickers than handling matters to do with terrorism. Indeed, the US agencies have managed to curb crimes related to drug trafficking through sneak and peek searches (Painter, 2011). The main question of concern is whether the Patriot Act has made significant contributions in fighting terrorism. The US authorities once reported that, through the provisions of the patriot Act, federal agents have managed to prevent about 30 terror attacks since the 9/11 attacks. This fact provides evidence that measures within the Patriot Act can prevent terror attacks today and in the future. However, continued success in war against terrorism calls for extra effort by the white house to provide its security agencies with the appropriate tools to continue with the fight (Scheppler, 2005). The Patriot Act assisted in uncovering a terror attack that was being planned by NajibullahZazi. Arrest of Zazi came after he had purchased large quantities of dangerous chemicals from a US beauty store. His aim was to detonate TATP bombs in New York. Although Zazi’s plan had reached advanced stages, measures within the Patriot Act helped in preventing the act of terror. On a separate occasion, the US security agencies failed to stop shooting that took place in Fort Hood despite having intelligence evidence over the planned attacks. Before this attack, security agencies had learnt through the internet someone that was in constant communication with al-Qaeda over a plot to cause terror attacks. The success of the US security agencies to stop the 30 attacks is attributed to effective law enforcement procedures as well as a collective responsibility in gathering and sharing information. In addition, the US citizens contributed significantly in providing information that facilitated operations of security agencies. Conclusion This paper provides aspects of the Patriot Act that are critical in dealing with terrorism and drug trafficking. It is evident that provisions of the patriot Act are critical in the US security investigative procedures. The current measures have harmonized the way investigations are conducted across all security agencies in the US. Despite numerous criticisms from human rights watchdogs, the patriot Act plays a vital role in the US national security affairs and has more to offer even in the future. The main issue of concern with the patriot Act is the violation of a person’s privacy, but matters to do with national security are more valuable than a person’s privacy. References Crawford, J. (2004). Sneak and Peek Warrants: Legal Issues Regarding Surreptitious Searches. Retrieved from: http://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1997/feb975.htm Doyle, C. (2002). The USA PATRIOT Act: A Legal Analysis. Retrieved From: www.fas.org/irp/crs/RL31377.pdf Painter, W. (2011). Issues in Homeland Security Policy for the 112th Congress. Retrieved From: www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42025.pdf Scheppler, B. (2005). The USA Patriot Act:Antiterror Legislation in Response To 9/11. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group. U.S Department of Justice (2004). Delayed Notice Search Warrants: A vital and Time-Honored Tool for fighting crime. Retrieved From: www.justice.gov/dag/patriotact213report.pdf - United States Read More