citizens without a judge’s warrant.Īs February 28th approaches, with three provisions of the USA Patriot Act set to expire, it is time to re-consider this question: Do the many provisions of this bill, which were enacted in such haste after 9/11, have an actual basis in our Constitution, and are they even necessary to achieve valid law-enforcement goals? I object to over 2 million searches of bank records, called Suspicious Activity Reports, performed on U.S.
I object to the 200,000 NSL searches that have been performed without a judge’s warrant. I object to these warrantless searches being performed on United States citizens. My main objection to the Patriot Act is that searches that should require a judge’s warrant are performed with a letter from an FBI agent-a National Security Letter (“NSL”).
What “fundamental principles of law” do you think James Otis and Senator Paul had in mind?. What were writs of assistance? Why did James Otis object to them?. Otis’ battle against warrantless searches led to our Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable government intrusion. He condemned these general warrants as “the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever w found in an English law book.” Otis objected to these writs of assistance because they “placed the liberty of every man in the hands of every petty officer.” The Fourth Amendment was intended to guarantee that only judges-not soldiers or policemen-would issue warrants. James Otis argued against general warrants and writs of assistance that were issued by British soldiers without judicial review and that did not name the subject or items to be searched. Senator from Kentucky in 2010, to his colleagues in the Senate in 2011 and answer the questions that follow. Handout C: Senator Rand Paul’s Letter of Opposition to the Patriot Act, February 15, 2011ĭirections: Read the passages below from a letter written by Rand Paul, an ophthalmologist who was elected as a U.S.