SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Police Using Controversial Patriot Act Authority for 'Everyday' Cases: Civil Liberties Group
Created under the guise of fighting terrorism, 'Sneak and Peek' now being used to spy on drug suspects, immigrants, rights group finds
Oct 30, 2014
A contentious surveillance provision of the Patriot Act, which allows law enforcement to conduct searches while delaying informing the suspect, is broadly used, but almost never in terrorism cases--despite Justice Department officials arguments to the contrary, according to an analysis by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
"Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties," writes EFF's Mark Jaycox.
The rights group analyzed federal reports from 2011, 2012, and 2013, released after an unexplained three-year delay, on warrants that were issued under Section 213, known colloquially as "Sneak and Peek."
Out of more than 11,000 requests for those delayed-notification searches in 2013, a grand total of 51 were used for terrorism cases, EFF found. Almost all of the other Sneak and Peek warrants went to drug investigations.
Notifications of searches were routinely delayed by at least a month, and often by several. The average (pdf) delay nationwide in 2013 was 64 days.
Fraud, theft, and immigration investigations all garnered more Sneak and Peek warrants than terrorism cases.
"Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties"
--Mark Jaycox.
"Exactly what privacy advocates argued in 2001 is happening: sneak and peak warrants are not just being used in exceptional circumstances--which was their original intent--but as an everyday investigative tool," Jaycox writes.
Jaycox continues:
The 2013 report confirms the incredibly low numbers. Out of 11,129 reports only 51, or .5%, of requests were used for terrorism. The majority of requests were overwhelmingly for narcotics cases, which tapped out at 9,401 requests.
In addition to their egregious use, the number of warrants issued has skyrocketed, with requests nearly tripling in just three years. By contrast, police made 47 sneak-and-peek searches nationwide from September 2001 to April 2003.
Section 213 was enacted over protests by civil rights groups who noted that the FBI already had the power to conduct delayed-notification searches in terrorism investigations through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists," the ACLU warned in 2003. Likewise, even as the Supreme Court ruled in Wilson v. Arkansas and Richards v. Wisconsin that the Fourth Amendment required police to "knock and announce" their entry into property when conducting a search, the decision allowed for police to skirt that rule in situations where evidence or their safety was under threat.
"Section 213 codified this practice into statute, taking delayed notice from a relatively rare occurrence into standard operating law enforcement procedure," Jaycox writes.
As Radley Balko notes, "this was all immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and there was little patience for civil libertarians. The massive Patriot Act of course passed overwhelmingly.... sneak-and-peek is increasingly ubiquitous while the justification for granting the government this power in the first place--terrorism--is not only irrelevant to the tactic's increasing pervasiveness, it gets more irrelevant every year."
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A contentious surveillance provision of the Patriot Act, which allows law enforcement to conduct searches while delaying informing the suspect, is broadly used, but almost never in terrorism cases--despite Justice Department officials arguments to the contrary, according to an analysis by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
"Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties," writes EFF's Mark Jaycox.
The rights group analyzed federal reports from 2011, 2012, and 2013, released after an unexplained three-year delay, on warrants that were issued under Section 213, known colloquially as "Sneak and Peek."
Out of more than 11,000 requests for those delayed-notification searches in 2013, a grand total of 51 were used for terrorism cases, EFF found. Almost all of the other Sneak and Peek warrants went to drug investigations.
Notifications of searches were routinely delayed by at least a month, and often by several. The average (pdf) delay nationwide in 2013 was 64 days.
Fraud, theft, and immigration investigations all garnered more Sneak and Peek warrants than terrorism cases.
"Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties"
--Mark Jaycox.
"Exactly what privacy advocates argued in 2001 is happening: sneak and peak warrants are not just being used in exceptional circumstances--which was their original intent--but as an everyday investigative tool," Jaycox writes.
Jaycox continues:
The 2013 report confirms the incredibly low numbers. Out of 11,129 reports only 51, or .5%, of requests were used for terrorism. The majority of requests were overwhelmingly for narcotics cases, which tapped out at 9,401 requests.
In addition to their egregious use, the number of warrants issued has skyrocketed, with requests nearly tripling in just three years. By contrast, police made 47 sneak-and-peek searches nationwide from September 2001 to April 2003.
Section 213 was enacted over protests by civil rights groups who noted that the FBI already had the power to conduct delayed-notification searches in terrorism investigations through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists," the ACLU warned in 2003. Likewise, even as the Supreme Court ruled in Wilson v. Arkansas and Richards v. Wisconsin that the Fourth Amendment required police to "knock and announce" their entry into property when conducting a search, the decision allowed for police to skirt that rule in situations where evidence or their safety was under threat.
"Section 213 codified this practice into statute, taking delayed notice from a relatively rare occurrence into standard operating law enforcement procedure," Jaycox writes.
As Radley Balko notes, "this was all immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and there was little patience for civil libertarians. The massive Patriot Act of course passed overwhelmingly.... sneak-and-peek is increasingly ubiquitous while the justification for granting the government this power in the first place--terrorism--is not only irrelevant to the tactic's increasing pervasiveness, it gets more irrelevant every year."
Nadia Prupis
Nadia Prupis is a former Common Dreams staff writer. She wrote on media policy for Truthout.org and has been published in New America Media and AlterNet. She graduated from UC Santa Barbara with a BA in English in 2008.
A contentious surveillance provision of the Patriot Act, which allows law enforcement to conduct searches while delaying informing the suspect, is broadly used, but almost never in terrorism cases--despite Justice Department officials arguments to the contrary, according to an analysis by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
"Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties," writes EFF's Mark Jaycox.
The rights group analyzed federal reports from 2011, 2012, and 2013, released after an unexplained three-year delay, on warrants that were issued under Section 213, known colloquially as "Sneak and Peek."
Out of more than 11,000 requests for those delayed-notification searches in 2013, a grand total of 51 were used for terrorism cases, EFF found. Almost all of the other Sneak and Peek warrants went to drug investigations.
Notifications of searches were routinely delayed by at least a month, and often by several. The average (pdf) delay nationwide in 2013 was 64 days.
Fraud, theft, and immigration investigations all garnered more Sneak and Peek warrants than terrorism cases.
"Yet again, terrorism concerns appear to be trampling our civil liberties"
--Mark Jaycox.
"Exactly what privacy advocates argued in 2001 is happening: sneak and peak warrants are not just being used in exceptional circumstances--which was their original intent--but as an everyday investigative tool," Jaycox writes.
Jaycox continues:
The 2013 report confirms the incredibly low numbers. Out of 11,129 reports only 51, or .5%, of requests were used for terrorism. The majority of requests were overwhelmingly for narcotics cases, which tapped out at 9,401 requests.
In addition to their egregious use, the number of warrants issued has skyrocketed, with requests nearly tripling in just three years. By contrast, police made 47 sneak-and-peek searches nationwide from September 2001 to April 2003.
Section 213 was enacted over protests by civil rights groups who noted that the FBI already had the power to conduct delayed-notification searches in terrorism investigations through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
"Section 213 authorizes sneak-and-peek searches in run-of-the-mill criminal investigations, not just in foreign-intelligence investigations involving terrorists," the ACLU warned in 2003. Likewise, even as the Supreme Court ruled in Wilson v. Arkansas and Richards v. Wisconsin that the Fourth Amendment required police to "knock and announce" their entry into property when conducting a search, the decision allowed for police to skirt that rule in situations where evidence or their safety was under threat.
"Section 213 codified this practice into statute, taking delayed notice from a relatively rare occurrence into standard operating law enforcement procedure," Jaycox writes.
As Radley Balko notes, "this was all immediately after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and there was little patience for civil libertarians. The massive Patriot Act of course passed overwhelmingly.... sneak-and-peek is increasingly ubiquitous while the justification for granting the government this power in the first place--terrorism--is not only irrelevant to the tactic's increasing pervasiveness, it gets more irrelevant every year."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy