Re: More political correctness
Last June, Attorney General John Ashcroft asked Congress to amend the law to give the Justice Department expanded powers to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely before trials and to allow the government to seek the death penalty or life imprisonment for any terrorist act. He also sought new law to let prosecutors bring charges against anyone who supports or works with suspected terrorist groups. <br /><br />The following month, the Republican Congress moved in just the opposite direction, with the House voting to prohibit the use of federal funds for "sneak and peek" searches that the law says can be conducted without a property owner's or resident's knowledge and with warrants delivered afterward. <br /><br />Republican leaders, however, refused to include the language in the massive omnibus spending bill for the Justice Department and most other nonmilitary government agencies that the Senate passed and sent to Bush. <br /><br />The only expansion of Patriot Act-like powers to get through Congress was a measure making it easier for FBI terrorism investigators to demand financial records from casinos, car dealerships and other businesses. <br /><br />Supporters said the measure, included in an intelligence bill, will further help authorities identify money laundering and other activities that fund terrorism. Opponents said it doesn't provide enough safeguards to ensure that authorities won't violate the privacy of innocent people. <br /><br />GOP Rep. Butch Otter of Idaho, a leading critic of the Patriot Act, called the financial records measure an aberration. Many lawmakers and businesses didn't pay much attention to the provision, Otter said, and colleagues told him they would have tried to strip it out of the intelligence bill if they had known about it. <br /><br />"We've really come a long way in two years, and we've really brought an awareness to the Patriot Act and its overreaches that we gave to law enforcement," Otter said. "We've also quieted any idea of Patriot II, even though they snuck some of Patriot II in on the intelligence bill." <br /><br />We have come a long way from a bill that may have been over-reaching to one that meets the needs of law enforcement while maintaining the rights of American citizens. Without Republican leadership this could not have happened. Is it perfect? What would be?<br /><br />__________________________________________________________________<br /><br />A sneak and peek search warrant (also called a covert entry search warrant or a surreptitious entry search warrant) is a search warrant authorizing the law enforcement officers executing it to effect physical entry into private premises without the owners or the occupants permission or knowledge and to clandestinely search the premises; usually, such entry requires a stealthy breaking and entering.2 <br /><br />Although neither federal statutory law nor Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (which governs federal search warrants) expressly authorized sneak and peek search warrants, and although the notice requirement of Rule 41 (under which officers serving a search warrant are required to deliver to the occupants, or leave on the premises, a copy of the warrant and a receipt for articles seized) seemingly prohibited sneak and peek warrants, in the 1980's the FBI and the DEA ... embarked upon a widespread series of [court-authorized] covert entries in a variety of criminal investigations,3 and by the end of 1984 had persuaded federal judges and federal magistrates to issue at least 35 sneak and peek warrants.4 There are five reported federal appellate decisions, three in the Ninth Circuit and two in the Second Circuit, involving the validity of searches undertaken pursuant to various sneak and peek warrants issued in the 1980's.5 <br /><br /><br />The USA Patriot Acts Authorization of Sneak and Peek Warrants<br /><br />Section 213 of the USA Patriot Act,11 enacted on Oct. 26, 2001, contains the first express statutory authorization for the issuance of sneak and peek search warrants in American history. Section 213 is not restricted to terrorists or terrorism offenses; it may used in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. Section 213 is one of the provisions of the USA Patriot Act excepted from the Acts sunset provisions.12 To the extent Section 213 may conflict with Rule 41, Section 213 prevails.13 <br /><br />Section 213 amends 18 U. S. C. § 3103a, relating to warrants for the search and seizure of evidence of federal crimes, by adding the following: With respect to the issuance of any warrant or court order under this section, or any other rule of law, to search for and seize any property or material that constitutes evidence of a criminal offense in violation of the laws of the United States, any notice required, or that may be required, to be given may be delayed if ... (1) the court finds reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705); (2) the warrant prohibits the seizure of any tangible property ... except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure; and (3) the warrant provides for the giving of such notice within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown.14 <br /><br />Under 18 U. S. C. § 3103a(b), three requirements must be met before a federal court may issue a sneak and peek search warrant for evidence of a federal crime. <br /><br />First, the court must find reasonable cause to believe that providing immediate notification of the execution of the warrant may have an adverse result (as defined in section 2705). 18 U. S. C. § 2705(a)(2) defines adverse result to be (1) endangering the life or physical safety of an individual, (2) flight from prosecution, (3) destruction of or tampering with evidence, (4) intimidation of potential witnesses, or (5) otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial. <br /><br />Second, the warrant must prohibit the seizure of any tangible property ... except where the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure ... Whereas the sneak and peek warrants litigated in the Second and Ninth Circuits between 1986 and 1993 were specifically limited to intangible evidence, 18 U.S. C. § 3103a(b) authorizes sneak and peek warrants for the seizure not only of intangibles, but also of tangibles, provided the court finds reasonable necessity for the seizure of the tangibles. Presumably, if tangible evidence is seized under a sneak and peek warrant the seizure will be carried out clandestinely; for example, a seized physical object might be replaced with another object that appears to be the original item. <br /><br />Third, the warrant must provide for the giving of notice of execution of the warrant within a reasonable period of its execution, which period may thereafter be extended by the court for good cause shown. <br /><br /><br />How does this scare you? It is a warrant issued by a judge, just not requiring notification or removal of evidence?
