Martin Garbus, one of the country's leading First Amendment and civil rights trial lawyers, believes that the "new court" can easily overturn many of the decisions made in previous years. According to Garbus, "Even though the Court has said, yes, we respect the right of Miranda, it's been eroded by all kinds of hairsplitting decisions, so that the protection that the defendant once had in the police station is fundamentally gone," (Lalumia, 2004)
Under the Patriot Act, law enforcement no longer needs an individual's consent, nor do they require the individual to have knowledge that the search is taking place. As long as the law enforcement officers can say the effort is being done to protect against terrorism, anyone's financial, library, travel, video rental, phone, medical, church, synagogue and mosque records can be obtained (Lithwick & Turner, 2003)
In their decision, the court noted that finding evidence inadmissible if seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment was one of the most important constitutional rights, and was an essential part of the right to privacy. The Court continued to note that the Exclusionary Rule was the only deterrent to overzealous police actions, and the only protection of individuals against such actions (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961)
This paper will discuss how the Miranda decision has been eroded over time, and the long-term outlook of the decisions application. What did the Miranda decision originally attempt to provide? According to the Court, Miranda was intended to allow for pressure against defendants, but to extinguish the use of coercion (O'Connor, 2004)
This means agents would not require a court order to access credit reports, would not have to show any criminal activity, and would not "note" the report, meaning that no one would know their report had been obtained by the government. The enforcement officials need only show their efforts were "in connection with their duties to enforce federal law" (Ramasastry, 2003)
However, the Patriot Act and its subsequent reformation and reissuance in 2003 and 2005 "significantly relaxed the rules for using them [NSL] s while increasing the secrecy requirements. The result has been a surge in NSL requests, from fewer than 9,000 in 2000 to nearly 50,000 in 2005 (Egan 2007, p
The decision of Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York indicated he did not make his decision in haste. He stressed the important role the judiciary plays in terms of the separation of powers of the constitution, and that the "tradition of judicial oversight" cannot be "undermined by national security legislation…the pages of this nation's jurisprudence cry out with compelling instances illustrating that, called upon to adjudicate claims of extraordinary assertions of executive or legislative or even state power, such as by the high degree of deference to the executive that the Government here contends [the NSL provision of the PATRIOT Act] demands of the courts, when the judiciary lowers its guard on the Constitution, it opens the door to far-reaching invasions of liberty…the Constitution was designed so that the dangers of any given moment would never suffice as justification for discarding fundamental individual liberties or circumscribing the judiciary's unique role under our governmental system in protecting those liberties and upholding the rule of law" (Paul 2007)
"This requirement used to protect information about Americans because few are agents of a foreign government, a foreign terrorist organization, or another foreign power. Instead, today it is sufficient for the FBI merely to assert that the records are relevant to an investigation to protect against international terrorism or foreign espionage…in 2003, Congress dramatically expanded the types of 'financial institutions' on which an NSL can be served to include travel agencies, real estate agents, jewelers, the Postal Service, insurance companies, casinos, car dealers, and other businesses not normally considered 'financial institutions'" (Schuman 2008)
1). However, it is difficult to validate this claim given that "nearly all NSLs come with gag orders forbidding the recipient from ever speaking of the subpoena, except to a lawyer" (Singel 2008)
It is not an option to accord respect to the constitutional liberties; this is mandatory for all employees of the FBI. The FBI would be irrelevant and would not exist in the absence of this mandate (Abele, 2005)
In an effective manner, the Act rebukes the judicial system over the executive power. This is true through passing the functions of the court in the provision of an adequate checks and balance system (Alexander & Kraft, 2008)
In such a case, law enforcement officials will have to work in a complex legal era. This would continue to generate more errors on the side of caution that refrain the officials from sharing terrorism information (Bidgoli, 2006)
Experts have projected that this will work on improving the capability of FBI to share intelligence. This is not only between the intelligence community and the Bureau, but also across local and state law enforcement (Dempsey & Forst, 2012)
citizens. The agency is committed towards reasonably using its resources and authorities (Freedman, 2008)
S. Patriot Act has authorized the sharing of foreign information acquired in surveillance across other federal officials like intelligence officers, national security officials and DOD officials (Hess & Orthmann, 2011)
S. Patriot Act has authorized the sharing of foreign information acquired in surveillance across other federal officials like intelligence officers, national security officials and DOD officials (Hess & Orthmann, 2011)
national center for counterterrorism. The counter terrorism center has the right to receive any intelligence information gathered by its agents including global terrorism information gathered by the law enforcement community (Jordan & Jordan, 2009)
However, they demanded and advocated for the amendment altering the freedom that citizens enjoy. Obama's government has declared through an executive order for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison (Matthew, 2008)
With the current bad state of the economy, it is still yet to be observed if the new government is set to strengthen the state of internal security and look into the issues raising eyebrows about the Patriotic Act by encouraging respect for the individual rights. The citizens of the United States have the obligation to be aware of their constitutional rights and inform the relevant authorities whenever they notice a violation of these rights (Paulson, 2008)
Moreover, the Attorney General has the mandate to inspect each step of this process. Immediately after opening counterintelligence or international terrorism intelligence case, both the Justice department and the Headquarters are notified (Smith & Hung, 2009)