who can sign a warrant?

rggambrell · #21 01/04/08, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quint

OK let's try this again. The USA PATRIOT Act allows FEDERAL agents to write and authorize their own search warrants. It also allows self-written and executed search warrants on the following:
banks
delis
bodegas
restaurants
hotels
doctors' offices
lawyers’ offices
telecoms
HMOs
hospitals
casinos
jewelry dealers
automobile dealers
boat dealers
the post office

It also mandates that if you, or any of those served with the warrant SPEAK about it, you will be thrown in prison.

Yeah I know it's a hard thing accept that one is no longer living in a constitutional republic but instead is living in a police state but facts are facts. It's right there in the Bill(now law) that your congresscriminal didn't read, and wasn't given time to read, before voting for.

Thank you for clearing this up. Since you finally stated that you are talking about Federal Agents. The original question was about a sheriff's dept. A sheriff's dept. and local officers like myself are government agents but not FEDERAL Agents.

kuriakos · #22 01/04/08, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quint

Yeah I know it's a hard thing accept that one is no longer living in a constitutional republic but instead is living in a police state but facts are facts. It's right there in the Bill(now law) that your congresscriminal didn't read, and wasn't given time to read, before voting for.

Have you actually read the USA PATRIOT Act? I doubt it, because you're wrong. Federal agents cannot sign their own search warrants. Well, I guess they can, but a warrant isn't valid unless a judge signs it. Maybe you're getting warrants confused with national security letters, which are a different subject entirely (and also require a judge to issue the order, although without discretion).

Quint · #23 01/04/08, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kuriakos

Have you actually read the USA PATRIOT Act?

Yes I actually have. It's like 400 pages long and is almost indecipherable without constantly referring to the USC.

tanksoldier · #24 01/05/08, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quint

The USA PATRIOT Act allows FEDERAL agents to write and authorize their own search warrants.

It also mandates that if you, or any of those served with the warrant SPEAK about it, you will be thrown in prison.

Got a link to the actual Patriot Act section that states that, or is it merely what you've heard?

EDIT: This is what I think your talking about:

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PAT..._investigation

Quote:

One of the most controversial aspects of the Patriot Act is in title V, and relates to National Security Letters (NSLs). An NSL is a form of administrative subpoena used by the FBI, and reportedly by other U.S. government agencies including the CIA and the Department of Defense (DoD). It is a demand letter issued to a particular entity or organization to turn over various records and data pertaining to individuals. They require no probable cause or judicial oversight and also contain a gag order, preventing the recipient of the letter from disclosing that the letter was ever issued. Title V allowed the use of NSLs to be made by a Special Agent in charge of a Bureau field office, where previously only the Director or the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI were able to certify such requests.[128] This provision of the Act was challenged by the ACLU on behalf of an unknown party against the U.S. government on the grounds that NSLs violate the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because there is no way to legally oppose an NSL subpoena in court, and that it was unconstitutional to not allow a client to inform their Attorney as to the order due to the gag provision of the letters. The court's judgement found in favour of the ACLU's case, and they declared the law unconstitutional.[129] Later, the Patriot Act was reauthorized and amendments were made to specify a process of judicial review of NSLs and to allow the recipient of an NSL to disclose receipt of the letter to an attorney or others necessary to comply with or challenge the order.[130] However, in 2007 the U.S. District Court struck down even the reauthorized NSLs because the gag power was unconstitutional as courts could still not engage in meaningful judicial review of these gags.

Quote:

Perhaps one of the most controversial parts of the legislation were the National Security Letter (NSL) provisions. Because they allow the FBI to search telephone, email, and financial records without a court order they were criticized by many parties.[216][217][218][219] In November 2005, BusinessWeek reported that the FBI had issued tens of thousands of NSLs and had obtained one million financial, credit, employment, and in some cases, health records from the customers of targeted Las Vegas businesses. Selected businesses included casinos, storage warehouses and car rental agencies. An anonymous Justice official claimed that such requests were permitted under section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act and despite the volume of requests insisted "We are not inclined to ask courts to endorse fishing expeditions". [220] Before this was revealed, however, the ACLU challenged the constitutionality of NSLs in court. In April 2004, they filed suit against the government on behalf of an unknown Internet Service Provider who had been issued an NSL, for reasons unknown. In ACLU v. DoJ, the ACLU argued that the NSL violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution because the Patriot Act failed to spell out any legal process whereby a telephone or Internet company could try to oppose an NSL subpoena in court. The court agreed, and found that because the recipient of the subpoena could not challenge it in court it was unconstitutional.[129] Congress later tried to remedy this in a reauthorization Act, but because they did not remove the non-disclosure provision a Federal court again found NSLs to be unconstitutional because they prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review.[221][222][223]

BOLD added by me.

As you can see, it's been struck down twice as unconstitutional. Further, even when in force it did not allow "any" federal agent to authorize searches only agents-in-charge of field offices... and they weren't "search warrants" at all but NSLs only useful for a specific and limited purpose. They were in effect subpoenas for records, requiring that such records be turned over, but didn't allow agents to physically search the premises. They couldn't search your house with one for example.

Furthermore the warrentless "sneak and peak" searches have also been struck down:

Quote:

For a time, the Patriot Act allowed for agents to undertake "sneak and peek" searches.[47] Critics such as EPIC and the ACLU strongly criticized the law for violating the Fourth Amendment,[210] with the ACLU going so far as to release an advertisement condemning it and calling for it to be repealed.[211][212] However supporters of the amendment, such as Heather Mac Donald, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and contributing editor to the New York City Journal, expressed the belief that it was necessary because the temporary delay in notification of a search order stops terrorists from tipping off counterparts who are being investigated.[213] In 2004, FBI agents used this provision to search and secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. While the U.S. Government did publicly apologised to Mr. Mayfield and his family,[214] Mr. Mayfield took it further through the courts. On September 26, 2007, judge Ann Aiken found the law was, in fact, unconstitutional as the search was an unreasonable imposition on Mr. Mayfield and thus violated the Fourth Amendment.[48][49]

BOLD again added by me.

The division of power among the 3 branches of government is working as intended to reign in the other two. While the fact that such a law was passed is troubling, you're a bit late in squawking about something that has already been dealt with... rather a tempest in a teapot at this point.

Quote:

OK I'll clarify. They don't need a judge to sign off on the warrant. They don't need to even go before a judge.

Since you're stating this in the present tense I assume you haven't actually researched the current status of these issues it at all? While I grant you that the act DOES still have these provisions written into it they have been nullified by the relevant case law.

If I missed some provision for actual search warrants which don't require judicial approval please point it out. You're the party asserting the affirmative so you have to provide the evidence since it's logically impossible to DISprove something.

kuriakos · #25 01/05/08, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanksoldier

As you can see, it's been struck down twice as unconstitutional. Further, even when in force it did not allow "any" federal agent to authorize searches only agents-in-charge of field offices... and they weren't "search warrants" at all but NSLs only useful for a specific and limited purpose. They were in effect subpoenas for records, requiring that such records be turned over, but didn't allow agents to physically search the premises. They couldn't search your house with one for example.

Well said. There are NO provisions for agent-authorized search warrants, and national security letters do not allow a search of property, they're simply an order to turn over documents. I have read the entire act, I even have two good friends who helped write it, and I've followed the case law very closely, so I know exactly what is currently allowed and what isn't. While I am not a fan of the USA PATRIOT act, it is not nearly as bad as many people make it out to be, and like tanksoldier said, parts of it have been struck down by the courts, so it has been improved some since it was written. And this really has nothing to do with the original post or homesteading, so I'll leave it at that.

Rascal · #26 01/07/08, 03:26 AM

Okay Max you caught me flip flopping abit. When homeland security is brought into a situation I have no idea what the rules are, under them there is no constituition.

Hi Foxtrapper, while the laws have changed quite abit, the way LEO's can carry it out hasnt.

Peace