Opposition:
One of the most principal matters in the great debate of the Patriot Act is whether or not it is constitutional, and under this umbrella of legal concerns lies the issue with Section 213 and the Fourth Amendment. “USA Patriot Act” reveals that Section 213, commonly referred to as the “sneak-and-peek” provision, allows the government to perform searches on individuals without their knowledge (par. 12). Though, there are certain rules regarding these searches. According to Heather MacDonald in her joint-perspective article on sneak-and-peek warrants, a judge must approve of the reason for the search, and the individuals in question must eventually be informed, but this may take months (MacDonald and Dempsey par. 2). Opposition to the Patriot Act see this as a violation of the Fourth Amendment, claiming that, by not telling the people being searched, there must be reason to believe that the search could be unreasonable. Former Representative Bob Barr of Georgia clarifies, “If you don't know someone has come into your house or business, you have no way of assessing your right to make sure it was a reasonable search, based on a warrant” (qtd. in “USA Patriot Act” par. 33). Barr’s concern is understandable. If unchecked, the National Security Agency’s (NSA) power to comb through citizens’ homes, workplaces, and records could be horribly abused, and that idea should scare Americans. However, most of this fear is bred only from misunderstanding. The NSA does not perform uninformed searches without reason, nor does it go unchecked.
Support:
The issue that the opposition fails to see is that this secrecy of delayed notification, backed by law and court orders, is essential for the success of operations that maintain national security. If the government were required to inform every person or group being searched in advance, it would never be able to collect the intel for which it was searching. The article “USA Patriot Act” states that the secrecy of not telling subjects they are being surveilled until after the fact is necessary for investigators to track movements and contacts of those in question (par. 38). This matters because part of the government’s job is to keep its citizenry safe, and it cannot do so if it is required to be completely transparent at all times.
In addition, the opposition’s idea that those being searched are unable to determine the validity of a search is irrelevant, considering that rules are already in place to ensure validity. As mentioned previously, court orders for delayed notification searches must be reviewed, approved, and issued before any searches can take place. Civil Liberties Protection Officer Alexander Joel, who deals directly with ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected, testifies to these judges’ character: “[These judges] take their responsibilities seriously, and act with care and deliberation. These judges are by no means a "rubber stamp." During my office's regular engagements with government officials on matters before the Court, I have been impressed with how rigorously the Court oversees government activities” (par. 16). In other words, Joel is saying that these judges can be trusted. Can these court orders be granted quickly? Yes, but the judges of these courts genuinely care about citizens’ wellbeings, so Americans need not be concerned that their privacies would be violated without due cause.
Yet another reason showing that the sneak-and-peek provision is constitutional is that Section 213 details situations where uninformed search would be granted, and the list is rather exact. MacDonald writes that the only way for an uninformed search to be allowed is if prior knowledge of the search by the person being searched would endanger someone, cause suspects to flee, cause destruction of key evidence, or compromise the inquiry (MacDonald and Dempsey par. 2). These reasons for searching are all valid and, frankly, matters of common sense. As Andrew McCarthy, leader of the prosecution of the group of terrorists responsible for the 9/11, contributes, “...and delayed notification has been a commonplace. Yet critics drummed up outrage by portraying sneak-and-peek as if it were a novel encroachment on privacy rather than a well-established tool that requires court approval” (qtd. in “USA Patriot Act” par. 38). Notification will eventually occur for every uninformed search once the critical time period of collection and application by authorities has passed; therefore, the same provision that allows the government to perform these searches also safeguards the people from them.
In addition, the opposition’s idea that those being searched are unable to determine the validity of a search is irrelevant, considering that rules are already in place to ensure validity. As mentioned previously, court orders for delayed notification searches must be reviewed, approved, and issued before any searches can take place. Civil Liberties Protection Officer Alexander Joel, who deals directly with ensuring that citizens’ rights are protected, testifies to these judges’ character: “[These judges] take their responsibilities seriously, and act with care and deliberation. These judges are by no means a "rubber stamp." During my office's regular engagements with government officials on matters before the Court, I have been impressed with how rigorously the Court oversees government activities” (par. 16). In other words, Joel is saying that these judges can be trusted. Can these court orders be granted quickly? Yes, but the judges of these courts genuinely care about citizens’ wellbeings, so Americans need not be concerned that their privacies would be violated without due cause.
Yet another reason showing that the sneak-and-peek provision is constitutional is that Section 213 details situations where uninformed search would be granted, and the list is rather exact. MacDonald writes that the only way for an uninformed search to be allowed is if prior knowledge of the search by the person being searched would endanger someone, cause suspects to flee, cause destruction of key evidence, or compromise the inquiry (MacDonald and Dempsey par. 2). These reasons for searching are all valid and, frankly, matters of common sense. As Andrew McCarthy, leader of the prosecution of the group of terrorists responsible for the 9/11, contributes, “...and delayed notification has been a commonplace. Yet critics drummed up outrage by portraying sneak-and-peek as if it were a novel encroachment on privacy rather than a well-established tool that requires court approval” (qtd. in “USA Patriot Act” par. 38). Notification will eventually occur for every uninformed search once the critical time period of collection and application by authorities has passed; therefore, the same provision that allows the government to perform these searches also safeguards the people from them.